00:00:00.830 - 00:00:18.640

You know, how far does this go back? I see I started meeting with this group back in probably 99 or 2000 or so most recently um I the same. I did meet with Jean couple check and representatives of the development project as it's coming forward but

00:00:18.650 - 00:00:38.460

over the years we've met with many citizens and several times with the developers but everything is is here or in this packet as has been indicated um in addition to what everybody has said there, I have also received four or five emails from residents um concerned

00:00:38.460 - 00:00:54.920

about it but not giving any more information that we don't have here. Mr mr martini and I can say that due to the harvest, nobody talked to me at all or at least I didn't talk back to him so I have no information other than the

00:00:54.920 - 00:01:12.730

information that I have in the packet. Mr Sawyer. I didn't have a private meeting with jean paul check and have received a couple of emails from citizens. Okay. Alright, that's it. Okay, good evening Mayor Bender. Members of the city council This item is involves the Creek

00:01:12.730 - 00:01:35.420

side Village project which is a 14.83 acre piece of property located at 23 23 Montgomery drive as shown on the overhead. This is a unique piece of property that is located between the santa rosa Creek, a cathedral and school historic landmark shopping center and single family

00:01:35.420 - 00:01:55.660

residential neighborhood. It's truly a mixed urban context. The actions you have before you this evening involve a rezoning and a recommendation from the planning commission on the rezoning and an appeal of the planning commission's actions approving a tentative map, parcel map their findings regarding the scope

00:01:55.660 - 00:02:16.490

of the E I. R, an addendum and a statement of overriding considerations. The staff report you have before you is quite detailed so I will provide you some summary remarks regarding this project. This project follows your 2004 direction in which you held a public hearing on

00:02:16.490 - 00:02:40.030

a much larger project. In terms of number of units, the project has been reduced in scale of the number of units to 140 airspace condominiums, 25 senior low income units. The developer has provided more affordable units with a greater contribution toward those units they accommodate accommodate

00:02:40.030 - 00:03:01.190

their on site parking with the exception of the senior apartment project for which they've provided supporting documentation for a six space parking reduction and given its context related to services. This is a typical request. The developers provided more space surrounding the Korea. Adobe has provided creek

00:03:01.190 - 00:03:27.200

corridor, bike and pedestrian linkages. The developer proposes to dedicate land design and build a neighborhood park, stabilized the adobe and provide maintenance. Thereafter, the project is consistent with the general plan, medium density designation and policies regarding superior design, historic preservation. Creek protection location of higher densities

00:03:27.200 - 00:03:50.120

near services such as shopping and public transportation and neighborhood compatibility. The environmental documents you have are appropriate and adequate. You have a finally ir an addendum mitigation monitoring program and the statement of overriding considerations you'll be asked to make involves one significant unavoidable impact, which is

00:03:50.120 - 00:04:12.800

construction noise. The rest can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Your boards and commissions have reviewed the 2005 proposal, including the design review board, Cultural Heritage Board and Waterways Committee. You have memorandum from those boards in your packets and they all support the project. The

00:04:12.800 - 00:04:30.500

planning commission considered the recommendations of those boards in their actions that come to you this evening with the unanimous 60 vote to approve the project. At this time, I'd like to introduce Pat Collins, who's the environmental consultant from Windsor Kelley, the author of the E I

00:04:30.500 - 00:04:48.700

R. An addendum. She will provide a brief response to and clarifications to the letters that you've received regarding the environmental documents and also note that christian Garrick er cultural resources expert for the E I. R addendum is present in the audience. Should you have any specific

00:04:48.700 - 00:05:33.720

questions at this time. I'd like to turn it over to Pat Collins. Good evening, Good evening. Mayor Bender and council members, I wanted to give you um a short history of the E. I. R. Process for this project um back in december of 2003. A

00:05:33.720 - 00:05:52.980

finally I r was prepared for the original project. Um and this council certified that eI are the following february but the project was not approved at that time and some direction was given To the applicant um about potential changes that they might make in the project

00:05:52.990 - 00:06:17.110

they did. So at that time came back with the alternative which they termed the mitigated hybrid alternative. We did an addendum to the Eir, which came before the Planning Commission in April of 2004. That also was not approved and there was more direction given to the

00:06:17.110 - 00:06:38.260

applicant and um they have been working on their design, they have come back now with an alternative which they term a reduced density alternative. And we have prepared a new addendum which was completed in August of 2005 and that is the document that you have before

00:06:38.260 - 00:07:10.620

you tonight. The new design for the project makes a number of changes. Um many of them are, in fact, I would say all of them reduce impacts compared to the original project. I've listed here some important changes relative to environmental impacts. The number of units has

00:07:10.620 - 00:07:33.760

been reduced from 265 units to 165 units reducing the density. Um The path along santa rosa creek, which used to be private, is now a public path, it's 10 ft wide and paved um as is required in the city zoning ordinance, the units are two and

00:07:33.760 - 00:07:55.170

three stories along Montgomery drive um and the design, I would say is much more articulated. There's much more variation in the design than there was before. So it gives a less massive kind of block exposure than it previously did. The buildings face outward instead of inward.

00:07:55.170 - 00:08:15.460

So they face Montgomery. They face the Korea adobe and they face the creek. Um The uh they've provided a um nice planter strip along Montgomery drive which the zoning ordinance also requires your your new zoning ordinance. Um All of the required parking is now provided on

00:08:15.460 - 00:08:48.490

site. They've added a bus stop and a bike lane on Montgomery. They've also made some changes which I think are important to the uh cultural resources on site. I'm sure you all know that the Korea Adobe is on site together with um some archaeological prehistoric archaeological

00:08:48.490 - 00:09:08.800

resources. Um the changes in the design have allowed the Cory Adobe Park to be increased from 1.6 to 2.1 acres. Uh the set back from the West Wing of the Adobe which is actually underground at this point. The set back from that West Wing has been

00:09:08.800 - 00:09:27.750

increased from 10 ft to 30 ft and that's to the closest edge of the parking lot. Um The back parking lot which was behind the adobe near the creek has been eliminated altogether and the front parking area near the adobe has been moved further west. So

00:09:27.750 - 00:10:01.350

there is better visibility from Montgomery drive. So taken together these changes have actually changed the level of significance of several impacts from the E. I. R. Um impact T. One. And uh the cumulative traffic impact which is congestion at Montgomery and on Farmers Lane which used

00:10:01.350 - 00:10:21.560

to be significant and unavoidable is now um less than significant with mitigation. So that is due to having fewer trips uh from fewer units and also there are now senior housing units which they create fewer trips. Um So that's better. And also Farmers Lane is functioning

00:10:21.560 - 00:10:35.440

much better than it was a couple of years ago when we did the um when we did the E. I. R. So traffic on Farmers Lane, which I'm not sure I personally have noticed, but when you actually look at the data, it's moving a lot faster

00:10:35.440 - 00:10:55.350

than it was a couple of years ago. We'll take your word for it, take the city's traffic division's word for it. Um The parking impact is now less than significant um because of the public path along the creek and the bike lane. Um the pedestrian and

00:10:55.350 - 00:11:19.320

bicycle routes impact is less than significant. And because of the bus stop, the the transit uh impact is no less than significant. Um Because of these changes, we have assigned a new environmentally superior alternative. First, let me say that um the primary environmentally superior alternative is

00:11:19.320 - 00:11:51.210

still the no project alternative. It has fewer impacts than any other alternative in the E. I. R. But the secondary environmentally Superior alternative is now the reduced density alternative, which is the project that you have before you tonight, there's been a great deal of concern regarding

00:11:51.210 - 00:12:10.420

the cultural resources on the property. And I wanted to just introduce you to some of the more technical aspects of the evaluation that is in the E. I. R. The site has been identified with this number that you see here, California Sonoma 401 slash H. It

00:12:10.420 - 00:12:34.710

consists of both the prehistoric archaeological site which is a native american occupation uh site, um a village and the historical site which is the crew adobe. So it's one site that includes both of those um um benefits uh The evaluation that we did in the E.

00:12:34.710 - 00:12:57.530

I. R. Um resulted in saying that we thought that this site was eligible for both the State and National Register of Historic Places. Uh The Cree adobe is already on the city landmark list. Um And I'd like to talk a little and um the before mitigation,

00:12:57.540 - 00:13:31.410

the IR concludes that there could be significant impacts to both the prehistoric and the historic resources on the property. As you may have noticed, the mitigation measures for cultural resources are very long. They're like 10 pages long or something like that and quite technical. So what

00:13:31.410 - 00:13:54.550

I wanted to do is just highlight for you, the primary components of that mitigation um regarding the native american site. There are a sequence of items that need to take place here. One should the project be approved. That is um the first would be a definition

00:13:54.550 - 00:14:18.710

of the site boundaries. Site boundaries have had some work to identify where the site is, but it needs to be much better defined. It's also possible that artifacts are scattered basically throughout the entire site. Um After those site boundaries have been identified then um the city

00:14:18.710 - 00:14:41.900

has a choice either to protect them in place, which is always the preferred way to mitigate impacts to cultural resources or to recover data from the site which is completely subsurface at this time. Um If to the extent that the sites can be avoided, then they

00:14:41.900 - 00:15:02.120

can stay protected in place where they are going to be impacted and they will be impacted over a great portion of the site according to the existing plan. Then the resources that are in the ground need to be identified, evaluated and the data recovered from them.

00:15:03.250 - 00:15:24.910

Um There needs to be construction monitoring. Um While construction is going on throughout the site both for known and unknown um deposits. There must be a native american monitor on site during construction. This monitor will be selected from a list established by a state agency called

00:15:24.910 - 00:15:48.930

the Native american Heritage Commission. And finally there are specific items regarding how um the city would need to act at the time that any human remains would be found on the site. Um There are no known human remains there at the present time. But considering that

00:15:48.930 - 00:16:07.360

it was a village site, it is possible that they would um be found and then regarding the Korea adobe, The first part of the mitigation is to protect the adobe from further deterioration which the applicant has proposed to do as part of their project. Um It's

00:16:07.360 - 00:16:28.710

also required that the city hire its own archaeologist or historic um historian to oversee the work of the at the adobe so that you know that it's being done properly. Any work on the adobe has to meet the Secretary of Interior standards for Archaeology and Historic

00:16:28.710 - 00:16:52.250

preservation. Um The uh there are also a number of mitigation measures which relate to um how far away are the um dwelling units going to be from the adobe. This has been one of the central issues since this project started. Um at the present time the

00:16:52.250 - 00:17:18.830

reduced density alternative. The closest dwelling units are about 85 ft away from the adobe. The closest parking area is about 30 ft away from the Adobe. Um This is considerably better than it was in the previous designs. Um When the when the evaluation was done to

00:17:18.830 - 00:17:39.850

say that this property would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. One of the ways that this is determined if you look at the integrity of the historic resource and integrity can be integrity of location, integrity of workmanship, integrity of Design and one of

00:17:39.860 - 00:17:58.840

the components. One of the features you need to look at is the integrity of setting. So from a technical point of view and cultural resources. the setting for the Korea. Adobe is currently the creek on the backside which was the historic setting at the time. The

00:17:58.840 - 00:18:18.740

adobe was first built. There are single family homes on two sides, there along Montgomery and Fran cat. And then there is an orchard on the fourth side which is uh although old it wasn't there at the time that the adobe was first occupied. So um it

00:18:18.750 - 00:18:45.670

is not the historic setting that belonged to the original adobe. So the setting is not of it. The setting is not the reason that it is um eligible for the National Register or the State Register um by bringing in a new um uh the condominium units

00:18:45.670 - 00:19:07.180

next door. Um It's going to affect the setting of the adobe but because it was not a native historic setting to begin with um it's not going to affect the adobes eligibility for the National Register. We have however, asked that there be um landscaping done to

00:19:07.180 - 00:19:41.130

prevent views from the adobe going over to the the new units as much as possible since your agenda packet went out. Um There are four letters which have come in with very specific comments about this project and I wanted to just go over them with you

00:19:41.130 - 00:20:04.130

briefly. There's one from the Federated indians of the great and rancheria. Um They have asked if the city would consult with them regarding this property. They have stated that um the property is part of the tribe's territorial lands. Um and that they wished to consult with

00:20:04.130 - 00:20:21.770

the study regarding mitigation measures and other aspects of planning the project. This same request was made at the time of the draft E. I. R. And as a result of that request, um consultation was built into the mitigation measures in the final E. I. R. Um

00:20:21.780 - 00:20:46.290

We agree that it is part of the tribe's territorial lands. It is possible that there are other tribes or individuals or um portions of tribes which also consider this to be their territorial lands. Um The city did try to consult with the tribe. Um they called

00:20:46.300 - 00:21:07.810

last week were unable to set up a meeting in this short time span so that consultation has not occurred, but we would expect it to occur in the near future. Um Should the project be approved and certainly before any construction were to take place specifically. They

00:21:07.810 - 00:21:30.660

have objected, objected to some language and a mitigation measure about identifying an independent native american monitor. Um I've consulted with our cultural resources specialist and we've agreed to take that out of the mitigation measure language. The native american monitor will be assigned by the city from

00:21:30.660 - 00:21:48.420

a list of people who are is given to the city by the Native american Heritage Commission and it's not necessary to um have any more information about that in your mitigation measures at this time. So um I we are recommending that that be taken out of

00:21:48.430 - 00:22:12.660

the mitigation plan as they requested. The second letter I wanted to mention is from the brand holly law group. They're representing the Sonoma County Historical Society. Um They make a number of points specifically regarding the letter from the Great Manchuria. Uh They say that Sequoia requires

00:22:12.670 - 00:22:36.470

consultation with the tribe prior to your taking an action on the project tonight. Um I think that they may be thinking about a federal section 106 cultural resources process. There is nothing in sequel which requires um further consultation with the tribe at this time. They also

00:22:36.470 - 00:22:56.860

have asked for further review identification and protection of the sites. Um We feel that the mitigation measures provide sufficient identification and protection of the sites and more work does not need to be done at this time. Um They also ask that the Great Manchuria tribe be

00:22:56.860 - 00:23:23.130

consulted regarding the treatment of human remains on the site. Um The state law requires that should human remains be found on the site, that the native american Heritage Commission will assign um a person or group of people considered to be the most likely descendants. And that's

00:23:23.130 - 00:23:42.850

what our mitigation requires that the most likely descendants be um be consulted about how to treat any human remains on the site. So we don't wish to change that mitigation measure at this time. Um The tribe may be consulted at at such time that human remains

00:23:42.850 - 00:24:06.160

are found but it would not be appropriate to consult with them about them at this time. And finally the Grand Hallway law group letter asks for a new reduced density alternative. Um However, the project before you is a reduced density alternative and in fact it reduces

00:24:06.170 - 00:24:25.790

all impacts to less than significant except for construction noise. And I think that would go on with any construction on site. So we don't see a need for a new alternative. Third letter is from Cindy wall brink. She brings up a number of points about visibility

00:24:25.790 - 00:24:48.830

of the um condominium units from the adobe. She's like a larger park. She says that the 10 ft grid for evaluation of archaeological um site is inadequate. I wanted to just say that it is actually a 10 m grid. It is only a preliminary review of

00:24:48.830 - 00:25:09.320

what is there to establish better site boundaries, the actual dig. The actual recovery of data um would be at a one by one or a one by two m grid. And finally the fourth letter that she received was from Tom or Iger who is a local

00:25:09.320 - 00:25:31.360

Sonoma County Cultural Resources um person, he asked that more subsurface work be done during the E. I. R. Phase before it comes before you. Um, Some sub sub sub surface work has been done. Um, uh, the even if more work to be done at this time,

00:25:31.770 - 00:25:50.160

that is actually confidential information. We can't present that information in the E. I. R. To you exactly where those artifacts are. Um so that they can be protected. Uh So I am recommending that no more work needs to be done at this time. And also uh

00:25:50.170 - 00:26:10.880

tom requests. He mentioned some portions of sequel where construction monitoring the funding for construction monitoring must be limited and um we've researched this and we feel that's not applicable to this project. Um I'll just give you some sections of sequel here. So it will go into

00:26:10.880 - 00:26:50.190

the minutes um Historic Resources under section 15 oh 64.5. Uh This is a historic resource under that section and therefore the limitations don't apply as explained by Section 1506 4.5 c. two. All right. And finally um after going through this, we feel strongly that an addendum

00:26:50.190 - 00:27:07.840

is an appropriate document to review this new reduced density alternative, The changes are minor compared to the project in the E. I. R. There's no new significant impacts and nothing that is substantially more severe than previous reported. So the secret actions that are before the council

00:27:07.840 - 00:27:31.480

tonight would be to adopt the addendum, adopt the mitigation monitoring program. Make findings of fact and adopt the statement of overriding considerations now because we did change the mitigation measures in response to the comment letter from the Federated indians of Great Manchuria. We have um a

00:27:31.490 - 00:28:00.530

revised mitigation for you. And it's also changed the mitigation monitoring program. And in this regard the change in the mitigation occurs several times throughout the cultural resources mitigation measures. It's just to take out the requirement for this independent native american monitor. Um And there's one other

00:28:00.530 - 00:28:27.450

change in the mitigation measures which is to clarify um a mitigation regarding vibration effects of construction at the adobe. Both of which are I'm going to be much better for the city. That's my presentation. I have one quick question for you. Yes. You said that the

00:28:27.450 - 00:28:52.220

city would hire an archaeologist hired or do we choose one and the developer hires it. Um The applicant will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures. But there we've asked also that the city hire an independent cultural resources specialist, um an archaeologist or historian um or

00:28:52.220 - 00:29:12.280

architectural historian so that they can oversee the actions of the applicant and make sure that they are complying with the mitigation measures. Who pays for that? Mr colon it would still be paid for by the applicant. Thank you. How generous I just thought I'd ask any

00:29:12.280 - 00:29:31.790

other questions. I do have one question. The issue regarding impacts of construction, both to the adobe as well as to the disturbance of archaeological resources. Could you for the benefit of the audience describe the mitigation measures generally that will be used to make sure that during

00:29:31.790 - 00:29:54.490

the construction process the impacts will be minimized and that the resources and I'm also wondering what happens to the resources as they're discovered as part of the uh process of construction and how they're safeguarded and protected. The first thing which which must happen prior to construction

00:29:54.500 - 00:30:20.310

is that a thorough plan must be done of how the data would be recovered from any prehistoric sites and how the um protection of the Cree adobe will occur. So when that plan is acceptable, then at the adobe, whatever happens to restore the adobe or to

00:30:20.320 - 00:30:42.080

keep it from further deterioration must happen consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation. And those are very strict. Um It will mean that uh anything that happens subsurface even like putting a fence pole in to put a new fence around the adobe has

00:30:42.080 - 00:31:06.360

to be done very carefully. Um So that's what happens at the adobe. The rest of the site um First must go through a process of identifying the boundary where the primary subsurface artifacts are located, attempting to find that. And then within that area there will be

00:31:06.370 - 00:31:42.370

a grid established and a sampling of everything underneath those grids will be excavated, evaluated. And you asked what would happen to those artifacts that are discovered as part of the construction process. Good evening. Mayor Bender. And members of the council. Can you speak into the microphone

00:31:43.020 - 00:31:59.560

make sure people hear the standard procedure with artifacts like that is to curate them at a recognized facility. This would be included. The plans for that would be included with the research design that will be created for how to deal with the archaeology in general at

00:31:59.560 - 00:32:15.910

this location and the most preferred curation facility in this area would be Sonoma State University if they can accept it and they're not totally booked up already. They have been building some new facility so they may be able to accept it. But you would be looking

00:32:15.910 - 00:32:33.050

for some kind of a curation facility like that. That's that's acknowledged by the general scientific community. And so there would be someone monitoring and present on site during construction to make sure that the whatever was disturbed um was curated and preserved and so on. Yes. The

00:32:33.050 - 00:32:57.620

intention here is that the monitor would identify archaeological deposits, artifacts features that have as pat referred to earlier as integrity. That is that they are are able to um uh demonstrate their historical value. Those things that are would then be appropriately scientifically treated recovered archaeologically processed,

00:32:57.640 - 00:33:19.020

studied. There'd be a report prepared on their findings and then the artifacts would be curated at an appropriate facility subsequently. Okay, thank you. Other questions. Can I just respond about the construction monitoring any subsurface work on the entire project anywhere. Montgomery drive over by the creek

00:33:19.030 - 00:33:41.730

adobe over near the school. Um There would have to be two monitors present. There has to be a construction monitor who would be a professional archaeologist and also a native american monitor. The questions I think that's it. Thank you for a very very thorough report. That

00:33:41.730 - 00:34:16.400

was great. Um This MEREDITH, is that all we have to for that. Alright, good. Well then this is a public hearing so I will open the public hearing and call the appellant down for the first presentation. No the appellant needs to come first. Good evening, can

00:34:16.400 - 00:34:34.380

you hear me? My name is paige shortly um California, Environmental Quality Act and Historic Preservation Attorney with the Brand Holy Law group in Glen Ellyn. We're representing the Sonoma County Historical Society in their appeal tonight. The Brand holly Law group sent numerous letters to the city,

00:34:34.400 - 00:34:49.250

including letters in august september and november of this year. And I'm not certain whether you're there in your packet. You have seen those because they weren't in the binder up top. So I'd just like to incorporate those by reference and those letters detailed inadequacies of the

00:34:49.250 - 00:35:07.840

creek side village E I. R. Tonight, I'm just going to focus on a few specific items. Since I've incorporated those letters by reference first, the Historical Society asks you to deny this project, essentially adopting the no project alternative or the offsite alternative. If you declined to

00:35:07.840 - 00:35:26.310

do that in the alternative, the Historical Society asked you to deny the project and require the applicant to consider a reduced density clustered alternative. The IR consultant indicated that we had only requested a reduced reduced density alternative. That's not correct. In all of our letters, we

00:35:26.310 - 00:35:45.070

asked for a reduced density clustered alternative which is completely different as far as our review is concerned of this E. I. R. In this project, the city has not adopted all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Public resources code

00:35:45.070 - 00:36:07.820

section 21002 which is part of sequa requires agencies quote, should not approve projects and quote if feasible alternatives and mitigations that substantially reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts are not first adopted. That has not happened here. As far as we can determine. This project has significant

00:36:07.830 - 00:36:27.060

impacts on cultural resources. As you heard, the er consultant mentioned including the extraordinarily historic Korea adobe built in the 18 thirties, the oldest structure in town remains of prehistoric and historic southern pomo villages and other possible cultural resources. I do have expertise in historic preservation and

00:36:27.060 - 00:36:44.360

have studied the eI are pretty thoroughly. I have a master's degree in Historic preservation planning from Cornell University, where I also received my law degree. I'm a former staff member of the California Preservation Foundation and I'm currently the vice president of northern California on the California

00:36:44.360 - 00:37:04.450

Preservation Foundation's board of trustees. I also have more than 13 years of professional experience in historic preservation. Contrary to the E. I. R. S. Conclusions, these significant cultural resource impacts have not been avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. Among other things. As you heard,

00:37:04.450 - 00:37:26.950

the archaeological site boundaries are unknown. Post excavation definition of site boundaries is far too late unless I'm incorrect I would assume that the applicant will start excavation with a backhoe not with a brush not with a trowel tobacco. Going into unknown subsurface artifacts is devastating and

00:37:26.950 - 00:37:48.860

they can't be brought back. The project will build on top of known cultural resources. There's been insufficient, insufficient site testing done. I believe maybe to test bits have been done. That's just not adequate for this large property construction monitoring does not mitigate impacts. The project impairs

00:37:48.860 - 00:38:07.420

the significance of cultural resources. The city and applicant failed to consult with the Federated indians of the great and rancheria regarding burials and artifacts. And the I. R. Consultant acknowledged that resources will be impacted over a great deal of the site. The I. R. Must be

00:38:07.420 - 00:38:26.700

revised to consider and adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. In addition the er consultant earlier put up a bullet point list of changes and impacts due to the reduced density alternative proposed this evening. There were four impacts listed that were reduced traffic, parking, bus and pedestrian

00:38:26.700 - 00:38:50.770

impacts. Cultural resources were not on that list. What that means is that this reduced density alternative although it's been praised for reducing other impacts. Does nothing to increase the protection for cultural resources. We suggest that the city and the I. R. Investigate feasible alternatives including the

00:38:50.770 - 00:39:11.650

reduced density clustered alternative I mentioned earlier and that we've requested in our previous letters to the city. The ir studied a clustered alternative for the 265 units and it was deemed an environmentally superior alternative in several respects. Therefore, since the I. R. Already examined a clustered

00:39:11.650 - 00:39:27.500

alternative that we're requesting it wouldn't be so difficult to study that once again the blueprint is already there. The applicant reduced the units by 100. That's a step in the right direction certainly. But it would take very little effort to prepare an E. I. R. Addendum

00:39:27.500 - 00:39:46.650

that examines the benefits and the feasible alternative known as the reduced density clustered alternative that we're suggesting. In fact the E. I. R. Stated that quote the clustered alternative avoids many impacts to the prehistoric site as well as providing substantially more space around the Korea adobe,

00:39:47.430 - 00:40:07.970

thus improving visual impacts and maintaining a more traditional setting around the adobe. I believe that's page 5-4. The IR also found that the clustered alternative would reduce noise impact. The clustered alternatives only identified problem was alleged visual impacts, which could be reduced substantially now that we

00:40:07.970 - 00:40:30.800

have 100 fewer units on the table. The 2005 E IR addendum concedes that quote, the most direct means bracket of protecting the historic historic prehistoric resources excuse me, would be by not developing the area of the archaeological site. That's on page 4.10-29. I believe the adoption

00:40:30.800 - 00:40:52.880

of a reduced density clustered alternative which we've suggested in our previous letters would reduce significant cultural resource impacts. The I. R. Does not show that a reduced density clustered alternative is infeasible. Therefore the city should not approve the project tonight without first analyzing that alternative as

00:40:52.880 - 00:41:09.180

mentioned earlier. And in our letter from november of this year, the city did not consult with the Federated Indians of the Great and Rancheria. The I. R. Consultant um guests perhaps that we were talking about a section one of six consultation of the National Historic Preservation

00:41:09.180 - 00:41:29.620

Act. In fact we were not we quoted secret directly in our letter. Um if I can I'd just like to read you just one sentence from secret requiring such consultation. It's found in the sequel guidelines and the sequel statute book I have here sequel guidelines. Section

00:41:29.620 - 00:41:55.200

15064.5 D. Says when an initial study, initial study done far before the E. I. R. Identifies the existence of or the probable likelihood of native american human remains within the project. A lead agency shall not may not might shall work with the appropriate native americans as

00:41:55.200 - 00:42:17.160

identified by the native american Heritage Commission etcetera. With an identification of public resources code. So it's it's not an option it's required by the secret guidelines as far as we can tell that consultation has not happened yet. The ir confirms the likelihood of burials in the

00:42:17.160 - 00:42:39.250

project site at page 4.10-37 and acknowledges that the impact is significant. You simply cannot ignore that and ignore. Sequa as mentioned earlier, the Federated indians of the Great Green Sharia have repeatedly asked the city to consult with them before considering the project. Not afterwards. Not during

00:42:39.250 - 00:43:03.320

the mitigation monitoring program. Before adopting the project consultation as part of the mitigation is far too late. It should occur before project approval. That's not too much to ask the E. I. R. The proposed findings and the proposed statement of overriding considerations that I've reviewed are

00:43:03.330 - 00:43:24.660

inadequate and incorrect, including the claim that noise is the only unavoidable significant environmental impact. The cultural resources impacts which we believe are significant and unmitigated are not acknowledged in the statement of overriding considerations. Last year the city council responded to the public's intense criticism of this

00:43:24.660 - 00:43:46.280

project and asked the applicant to redesign it. Please listen to the public one more time. Please deny the project consultant with the great rancheria and other associated descendants regarding native american burials remains in public and cultural resources. Please require another e IR addendum analyzing the reduced

00:43:46.280 - 00:44:07.830

density, clustered alternative and other feasible mitigation measures and alternatives require the applicant to redesign the project to meet the Planning Commission Design Review and Cultural Heritage Board's concerns, recirculate the IR for public comment because it's such a critical issue for the community and hold additional hearings.

00:44:09.010 - 00:44:34.880

Please don't sacrifice our irreplaceable cultural resources without first following the law santa rosa? Santa rosa deserves no less. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um Do you want do you want to come down now and address? Yes if your name. Yeah there's a button right down

00:44:34.890 - 00:45:13.980

there but that may be as high as it goes. I guess we're not we're not we're not that tall here in santa rosa. Just just speak into it. You'll be okay And then if you give your name and your draft. Yeah, we do that. So there's

00:45:13.980 - 00:45:48.330

one switch or something. Technology has changed 10 years ago. Pretty quick. Thank you. Good evening Mayor Bender and members of city council. I'm mike black from barry Swenson builder and on behalf of the project I want to introduce to you the creek side village housing project.

00:45:48.340 - 00:46:02.530

With me tonight will be jean couple. Check who will speak to you about the body of the project. Bill fishermen who speak to you about the affordable housing site and Bill Roop will speak to you about the findings and process of the archaeological and adobe site.

00:46:03.620 - 00:46:23.940

A year ago we came to you with a 265 unit multi family housing project. We took let us away gave us several directives. They were to decrease, decrease the density, provide parking on site, increase the size of the park, address the affordability on site if possible

00:46:23.950 - 00:46:45.010

and work with the neighbors for manageable growth. I will now turn over to, we'll talk to you about the body of the project. Thank you. Good evening Mayor Bender and members of the city council in regards to comments made by the the appellant bill route from

00:46:45.010 - 00:47:01.770

our team will be addressing you and we'll be we'll be answering many of those questions the project however, before you is a rezoning of a 14.83 acre site to the P. D. District and an and an appeal of the unanimous planning commission decision to approve a

00:47:01.770 - 00:47:22.280

minor subdivision creating three parcels a park parcel, a senior housing parcel in a residential parcel in the subdivision of that residential parcel into 100 and 40 condominium units. The project as seen on this slide is situated within a mixed used urbanized area consisting of commercial, public,

00:47:22.280 - 00:47:44.840

institutional and residential uses the General Plan designation for the area is medium density residential, thereby allowing 8-18 units per acre. Also given the site's proximity to transit in shopping, the general plan would permit a maximum of 24 units per acre. The project as proposed, is 11.1

00:47:44.840 - 00:48:06.090

units per acre, although this is less than the midpoint. The proposed density is permitted by policy due to site constraints in neighborhood compatibility. We believe that the project as proposed, represents an excellent balance between the site sensitivity and the density requirements of the general plan. Next

00:48:06.090 - 00:48:27.570

slide please. The site has been designed in context. A common drive serves as access and egress to the church and school. The senior apartment project in the condominium project, all taking place from the signalized intersection. Additionally, bicycle lanes will be developed along both sides of Montgomery

00:48:27.570 - 00:48:46.090

drive. A bus stop will be located near the proposed park and ball vault at the intersection of frank in along with flashing pedestrian lights will be provided. Next slide, please, taking a closer view of the site plan. A public pathway is proposed along the south side

00:48:46.090 - 00:49:04.480

of santa rosa Creek and a sidewalk separated from vehicular traffic by an eight ft planter strip is proposed along Montgomery drive, accepting a nine space deficit for the low income senior project. All of the parking required by code has been provided on site. This has been

00:49:04.480 - 00:49:23.980

achieved without counting any of the on street parking. Unit parking is provided as seen in clusters by garages, visitor parking is internal to the project. The Cultural Heritage Board and the design review board in a joint hearing has reviewed this project Twice the design review board

00:49:23.980 - 00:49:46.310

unanimously determined that the project is of superior design And the following three slides next slide please. The following three slides are illustrative of the project's design and the design features this slide. The Montgomery dr side shows the stepping down of the units along Montgomery drive, creating

00:49:46.320 - 00:50:08.140

two story elements along the street, frontage stairways, windows and balconies, creating an activity along the street. This was mentioned actually in the presentation by um uh Miss Collins for Windsor kelly. Next slide, the creek side face as you can see in in one sense, this project

00:50:08.140 - 00:50:26.560

is nothing but fronts, There's really no backs to this project. And the creek side face you we have a situation where what is commonly known as kind of eyes on the creek. Um We're also creating activity areas and gathering areas within this within this view. In

00:50:26.560 - 00:50:52.160

the interior view. Next slide please. They're showing access to the garages which is again hidden internal to the to the street as well as in courtyards, again creating landscape courtyard gathering areas for the residents. Next slide please. As indicated earlier, the project creates three bulk parcels

00:50:52.170 - 00:51:12.200

a 30.61 acre senior apartment parcel, the 6.18 acre open space park parcel and the residential parcel which will be subdivided into the 140 condominium units. As you are aware, development of residential land in the city requires the payment of in Lieu fees for affordable housing and

00:51:12.200 - 00:51:32.910

the payment of park fees. The proposed project has far exceeded their obligation on both counts. The proposed project proposes 25 senior apartments um for low-income seniors on site. This is accomplished through the donation of the .61 acre parcel to pep housing. The payment of pep housing

00:51:32.920 - 00:51:54.320

park fees, an $80,000 contribution towards Pep's pre development expenses in the delivery to pep of a ready to build site In terms of dollars value, in terms of dollar value, the project's obligation under the housing allocation plan. Your ordinance is $1.1 million. The value of this

00:51:54.320 - 00:52:18.670

package has just outlined as established by an independent independent appraiser is $2.25 million. Next one in regards the park, the project proposes the delivery of a turnkey park as illustrated by this graphic, through a combination of in lieu fee requirements and donations. A 6.1 acre open

00:52:18.670 - 00:52:42.020

space park parcel was created the in lieu fee area which would be improved. So the in lieu fee area as an improved Parkland represents the donation necessary to satisfy the developers obligation for both the condominium project and the senior project under your existing ordinance. But in

00:52:42.020 - 00:53:02.860

addition to this in lieu fee area developed as a park. Um The project proponents will be donating additional land stabilizing the adobe in accordance with gil chance that Gil Sanchez is adobe stabilization plan and Mr Sanchez is a noted adobe restoration architect. His plan has been

00:53:02.860 - 00:53:22.680

embraced by the Cultural Heritage Board and the design review board. The developer will also be developing a pathway along the creek, exercising the, adopt the park program whereby the homeowners Association for the condominium project will have maintenance of of that that creek. And in addition uh

00:53:22.690 - 00:53:46.120

an annual assessment will be placed on the tax bill of the condominium owners for maintenance of the Korea adobe adobe park. Just a word on the park itself. The next slide please. The park has been, has been expanded under council directive. A parking lot was removed

00:53:46.130 - 00:54:02.480

in a parking area was reduced, thereby opening up the views to the Korea adobe. The park is designed as a neighborhood park with an educational component in keeping with the nature of the site, an orchard will be planted. An amphitheater in the vicinity of the adobe

00:54:02.490 - 00:54:20.110

will be provided as well as the chaos. A passive recreational area will be developed and parking will be provided. This park plan was reviewed and unanimously supported by the board of community services, the Creek Committee, the Cultural Heritage Board, Excuse me in the design review board.

00:54:20.740 - 00:54:35.050

At this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to Bill fisherman who is the president of of the board of directors for pep housing, who is a leader in the construction of affordable housing for people in Sonoma County. Bill will provide you with information

00:54:35.050 - 00:54:55.150

regarding pep housing in the senior component project part of the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr koppel Check Mayor bender. Many members of the council. My name is Bill Fishman, I'm president of the board of directors of Pep housing. I'm here primarily to introduce

00:54:55.150 - 00:55:11.960

pep housing to you not to speak about this specific project because this is our first foray into santa rosa and we're anxiously uh approaching it. Pep has been in the business for 28 years of providing affordable housing to low income seniors and and very low income

00:55:11.960 - 00:55:31.570

senior citizens primarily in South County. In Petaluma, we were originally founded uh at a weekly coffee klatch of a series of, of local pastors who realized that there was a problem in Petaluma because citizens were not able to to continue to live there. We have since

00:55:31.570 - 00:55:52.670

turned into a very professionally run property development and management company, not for profit. Uh and and we do this type of project uh often uh and and it is our specialty projects typically in the in the range of of of 25 to 30 to 35 units.

00:55:52.680 - 00:56:14.640

Uh And and we are expanding what we do But but this is our niche, we do small to medium sized projects for low and very low-income seniors. We presently have 10 properties occupied with 225 residents in Petaluma. We uh the average rent that we charge our

00:56:14.650 - 00:56:33.440

our tenants is about $300 per month. These are people who could not live anywhere else, people often who are living on very small social security checks. Uh the the the lowest rent is probably in the range of $120 a month to some of these people. We

00:56:33.440 - 00:56:54.760

have four other four properties now that are in various stages of, of acquisition or development. This being one of them. Our next project online is a 58 unit uh Project in Petaluma on casa grande road. Uh we have just received our home funding commitment of $3.95

00:56:54.760 - 00:57:15.330

million. The city of Petaluma is is contributing $2.5 million to this project. And we hope within the next 30 days to get our commitment from uh from hud it is a hud to 02 project. We've been rather successful in on Huddy 202 projects And we hope

00:57:15.330 - 00:57:34.390

to break ground on that one in the summer of 2006. Creek side represents what we see as the future of this kind of development for us in particular. All of our projects today have been freestanding projects where we've been able to acquire uh property in in

00:57:34.400 - 00:57:51.760

inappropriate locations. Those as you know, are becoming harder and harder to locate. Uh the ability to partner with uh with barry Swenson builders has provided this economies. Uh and we expect to provide economies that that that have been hinted to already, the fact that we will

00:57:51.760 - 00:58:12.420

be able to move into a site that has basically utilities at our front door will be a tremendous benefit to us uh and into the city. Uh I want to stress the fact that that pep uh is an extraordinarily good neighbor. We don't have objections to

00:58:12.420 - 00:58:28.580

our projects and I would invite any of you, let me give you, I'm going to read into the record. Uh an office phone number 7781551. I invite any of you. Uh staff council members to call me anytime you want to take a look at the way

00:58:28.580 - 00:58:45.450

we manage our properties. I'd invite you to come up into Petaluma and see what we do. Uh We're very um anxious to to to to get into this project. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Again, my expertise is not the

00:58:45.450 - 00:59:00.650

specifics of the project. We have our architect and our our development director here who can answer those questions uh, absent any questions from you. Now, I will turn this over to Bill roof who will respond to some of the architectural issues that have been raised questions.

00:59:02.030 - 00:59:48.070

Bill respond to architectural questions Mark. Great thank you very much. We'll pass it out for you. I'll pass them out. My name is William rube. I'm a registered professional archaeologist with Archaeological Resource service in Petaluma and I'm the archaeologist of record on this project. Um, I

00:59:48.070 - 00:59:58.790

wanted to respond to some of the comments we've received in some of the letters that have come in and last uh a month or two and talk a little bit about the program that we've developed. So I think it'll be a little more clear exactly what

00:59:58.790 - 01:00:13.290

it is we propose to do here. Um The archaeological program has in the first place started off by trying to plan around the site by placing utility lines in the proposed fill layer and utility lines that can be taken out of the sight and out of

01:00:13.290 - 01:00:30.980

the archaeological deposit will be so that we can minimize subsurface impacts in that way. As many of the elevation building elements as can be will be in the fill. Any elements that are not in the fill will be mitigated The second phase of the project. After

01:00:30.980 - 01:00:46.930

the planning, the Auguring program is proposed for the parcel to determine where the archaeological site is and where it isn't. We feel we've already pretty much defined that boundary in 98 when we went out and did an audio test specifically focused at the archaeological site boundary.

01:00:46.940 - 01:01:02.140

This will be a confirmation of that. But we will do the second test to be sure. Following the auguring, we propose to do test excavation within the archaeological site to determine the specific significance of the deposit and the specific questions that can be then further answered

01:01:02.890 - 01:01:23.140

following the test excavation. Any impacts that can be avoided will be mitigated through excavation. Um the fill over the site and active mitigation measures to protect the site. Um that will be going over the entire archaeological deposit 401 and the uh the excavation will occur for

01:01:23.140 - 01:01:39.530

anything that is going to penetrate that fill soil. Um Some of the comments tonight indicate that the statement I'm about to comment on has already been removed from the document but I want to make it clear that the statement that an independent native american monitor one

01:01:39.530 - 01:01:52.690

not associated with the group in question. The group in question being the Federated indians. The great Rancheria shall be chosen from the list and will be present during the ground disturbing activity. I have no idea where that statement came from. That is totally inaccurate and should

01:01:52.690 - 01:02:08.810

not have ever been in the document in the first place. Um What it perhaps should have said is that we have retained an independent pomo native american monitor to advise us on this project. A member of Lytton Rancheria. Um This is not to the exclusion of

01:02:08.810 - 01:02:23.830

the Federated Indians, Great Manchuria or any other group. Um No attempt is made here to snub or ignore. F I G r every native american group on the native american Heritage Commission's list has an equal right to comment on this project and they will be given

01:02:23.830 - 01:02:38.500

that um the list of organizations to be contacted on native american issues is maintained by Native american Heritage Commission. Uh There's a copy of the current list for Sonoma County in the handout we gave you, it's about a dozen or so names. I pulled their phone

01:02:38.500 - 01:02:55.800

numbers but I left the other information in there. Every one of those organizations will be contacted. They have been contacted previously. Uh The first time I sent letters out on this project is three or four years ago. Um I have not received responses to those letters

01:02:55.810 - 01:03:12.550

to be honest. In the past. I perhaps would if I sent one today but I have not in past years, the identification of the most likely descendant for this project is premature. That is something that would be done by the Native american Heritage Commission. When and

01:03:12.560 - 01:03:28.000

if human remains are identified, the processes that remains are identified in the field, The coroner is called immediately. The coroner then determines whether or not it's a murder investigation or whether or not it's a native american, they are native american remains. If it turns out that

01:03:28.000 - 01:03:39.100

he agrees that he or she agrees it's a native american burial. The coroner will call the native american Heritage Commission and initiate that process. I've actually had the native american Heritage Commission telling me to get off the phone call the coroner and have them make the

01:03:39.100 - 01:03:58.820

call. Um Several of the letters and comments have referred to the site as pristine and implied that it is undamaged or unaffected by past activities and that is patently untrue. Two factors that were brought to our attention in the meeting last june to discuss the research

01:03:58.820 - 01:04:15.460

design um by fellow archaeologist tom order. He pointed out to us that at some point we think in the sixties or early seventies, um, he observed trucks removing that the midden back throwing it out and attempting to haul it away. He busted them to the city

01:04:15.470 - 01:04:31.840

and you guys are your predecessors stopped that project at that time, but between one and three ft of the midden soil was probably removed during that process. Additionally, the same landowners attempted to or probably successfully bulldozed part of the West wing into santa rosa Creek many

01:04:31.840 - 01:04:55.560

years ago. Um We have seen the evidence of historic era occupation for Sonoma 401. And we have some problem with referring to that as a continuous occupation of homo people. We believe it's the the actual evidence consists of a dozen or so fragments of glass and

01:04:55.560 - 01:05:16.150

porcelain from Soma 401 from the upper part of the deposit. It's quite possible that this material originated with the indian workers who built the adobe and not with CMos who had lived at that site previously. With that site functioning as an assistant CIA to the mission

01:05:16.160 - 01:05:35.240

at Sonoma. And with the priests being there around 18 21 has a hard time believing that they would have allowed those indians to live there undisturbed unmolested Uh into the 1830s when the Korea Adobe was occupied and built by the Oreos. Um It has been assumed

01:05:35.250 - 01:05:48.770

that additional human remains would be found in any site of this size. And we of course we're going to take steps to make sure that any human remains found are treated with dignity and appropriately. The procedures to be followed. There are dictated by state law and

01:05:48.770 - 01:06:06.860

we will follow those procedures as to the boundary of the prehistoric site. Dl true. Um An archaeologist at U. C. Davis um Now deceased when he had he had over 45 years of experience in California archaeology when he came out and performed a test of cinema

01:06:06.860 - 01:06:22.150

401 and mapped that boundary When we went out in 1998. And did our auger test. We independently came up with an almost identical site boundary for the soil deposits to constitute the prehistoric deposit. So we feel at this point we've got a pretty good handle on

01:06:22.150 - 01:06:40.270

where that boundary is. But further testing will be conducted. The brand Holy Letter August three objected to capping the archaeological site stating that to do so would destroy the site integrity and its relationship to the Korean Adobe. Um That's diametrically opposed to current state policy which

01:06:40.270 - 01:06:58.780

encourages the capping of archaeological sites as a means of protecting them. And defines capping as a protective measure. Uh There was an objection raised any to merely monitoring excavation within the area of the adobe itself. Uh And two auguring within the adobe. We agree with that.

01:06:58.790 - 01:07:12.570

We would not consider doing any kind of mechanical excavation within the adobe. That would be would be a horrible thing to do. We also do not wish to do any any auguring through those house floors or those deposits. Those need to be preserved for future interpretation.

01:07:13.230 - 01:07:29.040

If we do have to do any excavation in there. I do not wish to penetrate the beaten earth floor of the adobe deposit. I wouldn't want to excavate any further down than that if necessary if that was done and if that was necessary. Um We initiated

01:07:29.040 - 01:07:44.500

a research design for the data recovery project in june of 2004. A copy of that is in the material that you received. We um met with representatives of Sonoma County Historical Society, the friends of the Korea, adobe and other interested parties. Uh We also had a

01:07:44.500 - 01:08:02.090

representative Lytton rancheria there uh to speak to native american issues. We received one written response to that research design. And those were the comments of tom order a fellow archaeologist. Those are the comments in red in the document you have and I have no problem uh

01:08:02.100 - 01:08:15.060

bringing all of those comments into the research design. They're all perfectly reasonable things that we should probably doing and should have thought of in the first place. So that pretty much is my presentation. Uh If there are no questions, I'll turn this back over to mike

01:08:15.060 - 01:08:41.880

Black questions. No questions. Thank you very much. Mr Mayor Bender and members of City Council, I'd like to close out this presentation by re addressing and expanding on several of those initial directives. First of all, we decrease the density, we went from 265 units, 265 units

01:08:41.890 - 01:09:01.640

provide parking on site. There is no off site parking increase. The size of the park which was unanimously approved by the board of community services we're delivering a turnkey park with additional views and long term funding mechanism to provide for the park address the affordability, senior

01:09:01.640 - 01:09:20.020

low income housing rather than paying the $1 million 1.2 million dollars in lieu fee going into the general fund. We've provided a $2 million valuable site and a physical occupied senior low low income affordable housing project Work with the neighbors, neighbors from manageable growth. We had

01:09:20.020 - 01:09:42.480

several productive meetings which resulted in the support of 140 for sale units, the stabilization of the adobe. We received support and approval from the Cultural Heritage Board and finally, as a developer, we are committed to the mitigation monitoring program as is currently stated. I'd like to

01:09:42.480 - 01:09:59.440

close out by saying on behalf of the project team. I ask for your unanimous support and approval of our project. This concludes our presentation. Any questions or comments? I have my consultant team here. Any questions Mr Black? I don't think so. Not at this point. There

01:09:59.440 - 01:10:19.670

may be some questions after we hear from the cards. All right, thank you. All right. Um with that I have quite a few cards. I will start calling them. You do not have to have filled out a card but I will take them first. Um please

01:10:19.670 - 01:10:32.600

you know if you're speaking and and the person ahead of you has said what you wanted to say. We appreciate it. If you just get up and tell them you agree with it. That would be great. Alright. The first card we have is from ken tip

01:10:32.600 - 01:11:02.300

on china. Good evening is my first opportunity to be here before you Members of the city council. My name is ken tip on and I am a member of the Federated Indians of Great Ranch Rhea. I'm here tonight representing my tribe to provide comment on the

01:11:02.300 - 01:11:26.590

creek side village development project That is before the city council, I currently serve on the tribes Sacred Sites protection Committee. At this time I would bring to the city council's attention a letter dated october 10th 4005 sent to Mayor jane bender, santa rosa City Council and

01:11:26.590 - 01:11:52.070

Sonia Ben and city planner from the Federated Indians of rancheria. In this letter, the tribe expresses its concerns with certain findings and determinations made in the final environmental impact report, the revised mitigation monitoring program and the arata for the 2005 E Ir addendum Documents dated August

01:11:52.070 - 01:12:11.960

August 26. This letter is included in the county's packet. I believe it's on page 111 at least. According to the website. To summarize the letter, the tribe has expressed an extreme dissatisfaction with certain mitigation measures contained in the environmental documents that were prepared without consultation with

01:12:11.960 - 01:12:32.570

our tribe and may excuse me made recommendation that santa rosa City Council enter into consultation with the tribe on matters directly related to protection and preservation of cultural resources. Known to exist and yet to be discovered at this project location which are so important to the

01:12:32.570 - 01:12:57.580

tribe's cultural heritage This past Friday, November four, the tribe received a telephone message from Pat Collins of Windsor and Kelly. A subsequent discussion with MS Collins yesterday, November seven revealed that changes had been made to language contained in the mitigation which he mentioned tonight And that

01:12:57.590 - 01:13:14.010

change was an attempt to address one of the concerns addressed in the October 10 letter. Well we have not, while we have not received a copy of the document revised document, we are encouraged that the city has taken note of our comments and has through their

01:13:14.010 - 01:13:36.910

consultant verbally indicated that their desire to enter into consultation with the tribe on this project. The tribe is extremely disappointed however, that the city of santa rosa has not yet responded formally to the tribe's previous two requests to be involved in consultation on matters related to

01:13:36.910 - 01:13:56.430

the greater issues of protection and preservation of our cultural resources and cultural heritage. We respectfully urge the city council to postpone any final decision on this project, reject the recommendations of the city staff and enter into consultation with the tribe so that we can reach a

01:13:56.430 - 01:14:23.690

mutually satisfactory agreement on the issues related to cultural resources. I thank you for your time and consideration to our request. Thank you The next card is Jim scaly. Good evening City council members Jim scali 18 98 Crimson Lane santa rosa just after I spoke before on

01:14:23.690 - 01:14:40.820

this project and after seeing what these barry Swanson developers have done to work with the community, lower the density on site parking and really seem to have a great project that's going to suit the needs and most important protection and preserve of the Creole adobe. One

01:14:40.820 - 01:15:10.440

of my key findings is that this is developed. Who's working to put up the money to make this project work and I do support this project. Thank U. Next is Donna and it does come down. There's a button over on the side over here.

01:15:15.040 - 01:15:46.400

Good evening. My name is Donna Correo Endicott 35 42 Yale Drive Santa Rosa and I'm one of those Correo descendants that the press democrat referred to. This is just a very short personal individual feeling this entire site is irreplaceable. Please treat it with respect that it's

01:15:46.400 - 01:16:14.950

due, please honor its place in the history of our city. Now, I'm going to quote from my cousin Cindy wall brick, she wrote a letter to you and I think one small portion is worth getting into the public record. Historical stewardship is a big responsibility requiring

01:16:14.950 - 01:16:44.100

more foresight and careful planning that many people have the patience for. Nevertheless preservation of the entire sites integrity in whatever form this takes must be of paramount concern. The historical significance of the carry adobe and surrounding archaeological sites cannot be downplayed by those with other agendas.

01:16:44.920 - 01:17:24.950

Thank you. Thank you very career fleury career 3700 valley view drive Chairman of the Friends of the Korea adobe, it's interesting that the friends have not been consulted about the current plan. I believe that that was a directive of the council

01:17:24.950 - 01:17:47.150

that they be consulted. The deal possibly might be judged okay today. But how is history going to treat this? The space of lack of space around the courtyard, only 30 ft of separation. History is probably not going to treat this very well. Your names will be

01:17:47.150 - 01:18:09.550

on it. If you're determined to approve this plan. What I'd like to see is, I would like to see you remove the 10 plus spaces, the parking spaces that are encroaching upon the courtyard. The least we can do if you're intent on improving is enlarge the

01:18:09.550 - 01:18:45.760

courtyard area. This is a simple change and in the long run would probably prove very significant. Again, if you're determined to approve, let's at least fix a little bit of the courtyard. Thank you. Thank you. The next car that we have is from Jack Osbourne, Jack

01:18:45.760 - 01:19:13.730

Osborne 5636 Del Monte Court. These are the only three story buildings on Montgomery drive outside of the hospital. No one seems to care about that. I care about it. Then when you talk about 27 mph, traffic on uh, farmers Lane, they said traffic is flowing so

01:19:13.730 - 01:19:39.260

well on Farmers Lane, You can't do it 27 mph. There's three stop signals on that Darn Street, anytime you stop for a minute, You're down to 12 mph. But somehow or another traffic department says it flows at 27 mph between 4:30 and 5:30. Well, I'm fairly

01:19:39.260 - 01:20:03.200

sure you and I know better than that. Then the other thing that no one seems to be talking about, it's a recent survey that shows if there's 9.5 cars for everybody in santa rosa. And yet we look at this Thinking we say whether there's only gonna

01:20:03.210 - 01:20:31.040

be 200 cars or 140 cars, but everywhere I go, there's more cars. And then the other thing we get is there's no traffic count on Montgomery. You've heard me say before I come down here in the evening at four o'clock, 4 30 Montgomery is crowded. Traffic

01:20:31.050 - 01:20:47.830

is backed up from Farmers Lane to y lupa going west. And yet you want to put us somehow they say you're going to put a bicycle lane in there. Well, I'm sure all of you people have driven on Montgomery and notice that people presently have to

01:20:47.830 - 01:21:09.970

park their car up on the curb. And the other beautiful thing they want to put bulbs on arm and their control the traffic onto Montgomery. I turned that way every time I come back from here and you put a bulb in there, it's gonna ruin the

01:21:09.970 - 01:21:30.950

traffic. So I don't know if spender probably drive down there pretty much, but when, when you come down there, the people are coming out of the church in the daytime, you try to make a co pastor, there's no room for the people coming out of the

01:21:30.960 - 01:21:54.540

church to turn left on Montgomery. They have to cut across the traffic and it's backed up. And the other thing I was kind of amazed at, as they say, it's gonna have low income housing on this subject is um on this development, but there's a provision

01:21:55.240 - 01:22:24.360

That there's .61 acres there that may in the future, someone may put low income housing on there. It's not in this development. That's right in your documents, at least that's the way I read it. Well, I don't know, it's probably it's probably gonna pass, but I

01:22:24.360 - 01:22:45.650

sure don't like those three stories on March. You want to put that three story buildings right there. I was amazing watching the picture. You know, they showed the picture of the front of the building from Montgomery village, but they didn't show all the banks and stuff

01:22:45.660 - 01:23:08.180

there. Yeah. And you're still gonna have all those people parking on Montgomery because there's not enough garages. Well, I wish you luck folks because no one's gonna be happy when you're finished except the developer. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Osborne. The next card we have is

01:23:08.180 - 01:23:40.880

from Dick Latimer. Good evening, Mayor Bender and members of the council, Dick Latimer 3 37 Pithy in road. I'm a member of the housing advocacy group and a former member of the board of Pep. It's a great pleasure for me to recommend that you uphold the

01:23:40.880 - 01:24:02.260

planning commission, vote in favor of the Creek Side project. Here are some of the reasons Pep will develop the 25 subsidized senior apartments. Pep comes to Santa Rosa from Petaluma with a well earned reputation for carrying out its unique mission, unique in our county of developing

01:24:02.270 - 01:24:26.740

and managing rental housing for very low, very low and extremely low income seniors and disabled folks. Santa rosa's need for rental housing serving very low and extremely low income seniors remains acute even as some market rate rents declined slightly. People living on $1000 or less per

01:24:26.740 - 01:24:48.720

month can't pay rents equaling or exceeding their incomes In several recent years in this community, more than 20% of those homeless sleeping at the armory during the winter were over the age of 50. We all know there isn't enough subsidized housing for the Santa Rosen's who

01:24:48.720 - 01:25:11.850

needed. As Boston Medical Center's homeless advocate Dr. Deborah Frank said not long ago if there were more subsidized housing, there'd be less hunger. In addition to the services and amenities already located not far from the creek side location right down Hammond drive is Montgomery High School

01:25:11.860 - 01:25:33.560

through various volunteer activities in both directions. Here's a chance for seniors and students students to get to know and help one another. Surely this is the kind of community we want. I applaud the city for working to make housing in santa rosa diverse as to residents

01:25:33.570 - 01:26:06.510

income level and age. And I urge you to uphold you the council to uphold the planning commission's vote on the creek side project. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Latimer. The next card I have is from Kris munroe Evening. Good evening, Council Mayor bender. Um the reason

01:26:06.510 - 01:26:25.660

I'm here this evening is to speak to an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I grew up a few blocks away from the creo uh adobe and it was always a real special place to me. Um I've always thought that uh that that

01:26:25.670 - 01:26:54.450

particular spot is really a special place and it seems to me that it's always kind of been neglected uh in historical terms or where it should be on the city's issues to deal with. And I think that if this project is approved, which it seems like

01:26:54.450 - 01:27:14.800

it will be that the developer who's stands to make a ton of money on it should at least have to uh put into a fund if if if the city or the state won't pay for to restore the adobe to at least, you know, like museum

01:27:14.800 - 01:27:31.460

status in some future point and not just let it keep, you know, so stabilization, what's that gonna do eventually, it's just gonna deteriorate. So what's gonna happen then what, you know, you got to do something with it. And I think it's important that that's the cradle

01:27:31.460 - 01:27:47.450

of santa rosa. That that it should be eventually restored and I think that the developers should have to pay into a fund or the city should come up with something to deal with the future restoration of the adobe. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Monroe

01:27:47.450 - 01:28:15.280

Tony Fitzpatrick, I'm Tony Fitzpatrick, a born member of the task force on the homeless and we like to agree with Mr Vladimir about supporting including affordable housing in this project. Seniors are at risk for being homeless. I spoke to someone at the general meeting of the

01:28:15.280 - 01:28:34.160

task force on monday, she's the program director of the living room, one third the women there that day are generally, there are seniors that are living in shelters or in their cars, so we would encourage you to support the affordable housing aspect of this project. Thank

01:28:34.160 - 01:29:08.240

you very much. Thank you Mr Fitzpatrick. Um tom felons felons, madam. Mayor, City council members. My name is Tom Felons, I live at 30-20 for hermit way Santa Rosa. I was one of five members of the Montgomery village neighbors for manageable growth steering committee who spoke

01:29:08.240 - 01:29:34.660

at the august 24 2004 santa rosa. Council meeting, voicing opposition to the proposed 265 unit apartment complex then proposed by the developer barry Swenson builders. At that august 24th meeting, the city council upheld two appeals of the planning commission's july 8th 2004 recommendation for rezoning of

01:29:34.660 - 01:30:01.070

the 14.83 acres 22 23 23 Montgomery drive to allow construction of 265 apartments. At the conclusion of this hearing, the council members urged the developer to return with a lower density condominium project and or a rental project catering to senior citizens. Subsequent to the august 24th

01:30:01.070 - 01:30:25.230

City Council meeting, I, along with co members of the Montgomery Village neighborhood steering committee, attended three meetings with the developer to discuss and resolve acceptable modifications to the proposed project, culminating in the revised project as now proposed for the 140 condominium units and the 25 units

01:30:25.230 - 01:30:47.080

senior apartment complex. Be assured that we would have preferred that the entire site be developed into a public park. However, the prerequisite benefactors have yet to come forward. Having said that, I submit that the developer has effectively mitigated the prior concerns concerns of both the Montgomery

01:30:47.080 - 01:31:11.780

village neighbors and the city council and therefore I urge you to approve rezoning of 14.83 acres to allow the 140 condominium units and the 25 units senior apartment complex And a 6.22 acre neighborhood park as presently proposed by Barry Swinson Builders. Lastly, I respectfully request that

01:31:11.780 - 01:31:28.140

you deny the appeal as filed by the Sonoma County Historical Society where they believe the site should be not should not be developed and short of no project they are asking the city to further reduce the size of the proposed project. Thank you for your kind

01:31:28.140 - 01:31:57.160

attention. Thank you very much. The next card we have is from fred Haslett. Yeah. Mayor bender and members of the city council. My name is Freddy. Hazlitt 31 40 Hermann. Wait also was on the steering committee for the neighbors. The reason I'm here tonight is because

01:31:57.170 - 01:32:24.140

in today's press democrat we were castigated for the third time By the editorial section of the press Democrat for opposing 265 units on that property. Part of my mission tonight is to maybe help you avoid postpartum depression for approving this is by inference the press democrat

01:32:24.140 - 01:32:53.200

is also castigating the city council and the planning commission or the major reduction. Oh one of the issues that we addressed when we approached the city council last year was a result of our study on the city's website. Single family condominiums pinion development as of May

01:32:53.200 - 01:33:24.240

2004. Recorded commencing in 2002, a total of 1058 multiple family apartments pending 1153 approved 571 for a total of 1724 as I drove through southeast santa rosa with this evening, I passed several of these apartment complexes that have been completed at least one of which is

01:33:24.240 - 01:33:44.560

turned into condominiums, every one of them having for rent, Science, two of them having large banners for rent. So the issue of availability of apartments is expressed by the press democrat, I feel is not valid at this time, at least not valid from an economic standpoint.

01:33:45.540 - 01:34:07.870

Presently there overbuilt in sometime in the future, no doubt there will be more demand for apartments. Another issue would be parking or initial argument was there was insufficient parking that has been completely addressed, but let me expand on that somewhat part of the parking to be

01:34:07.880 - 01:34:28.690

furnished in the original concept was to be in the school parking lot. ST Eugene school at the present time, ST Eugene's school uses that parking lot, as does ST Eugene's parish, as does catholic charities, as does ST Vincent de paul and they wanted 265 apartments to

01:34:28.690 - 01:34:48.700

share in the parking parcel. Also, a point in May of this year, a woman who has Children in that school was carrying an infant in her arms, she was run over, the infant was not injured because she literally threw the child out of the way. She

01:34:48.700 - 01:35:16.070

ended up trapped under a car. She was rescued by construction workers on the site. She is now walking, not well, extremely serious injuries. It kind of proves the point. Another issue which has not been resolved and I strongly urge you to address. It's a crosswalk across

01:35:16.070 - 01:35:38.480

Montgomery drive on an adjacent to Haman Drive at the corner of the exchange bank, this is the famous crosswalk to nowhere. I came home at dusk down home and drive today turned right on my grammy to go to my residence. There was an entire family walking

01:35:38.490 - 01:35:56.370

in the street with their backs to Montgomery drive with their backs to traffic that is turning off onto home and drive. I strongly urge that you have your traffic engineers to look at this and come up with a resolution, someone is going to get killed in

01:35:56.370 - 01:36:18.280

that intersection. Their option is to walk through the parking lot in front of the bank. That's terribly dangerous. Also, I won't even drive my car in that parking lot. I park elsewhere. So again, thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for recognizing the neighborhood's

01:36:18.280 - 01:36:56.490

concerns and as mr Collins suggests, we do strongly recommend you approve the project. Thank you. Mr Hazlitt Ernest Haugland. Oh yes yeah, I'm sorry. Good evening. My name is Ernest Haugland Jr. I am a resident of SAN at 806 tupper street santa rosa California. And I

01:36:56.490 - 01:37:13.490

have lived and worked in santa rosa all my life. I'm a full blooded indigenous native american indian and member of the Hopman band of pomo indians but I'm not here representing my tribe, I'm representing myself. I want to tell the mayor of santa rosa jane Bender

01:37:13.500 - 01:37:34.440

and city and the city council and builder. Barry Swanson Swinson, how would you all, how would all of you feel if your mother father or any family member was going to be dug up and moved for the greed of money. So I'm asking the mayor of

01:37:34.440 - 01:37:53.140

santa rosa and city council to vote no if you have any moral values or respect for the native american culture and history. Also as a former employee of the, of the roman catholic diocese of santa rosa and ST rose catholic school, I am appalled and ashamed

01:37:53.150 - 01:38:20.180

that Bishop Daniel Walsh never offered an apology to the native american community or offer them or Or had offered them the land only taking $1 million Santa Rosa and closing. I hope the city vote no and I hope Carrillo Carrillo adobe becomes a historical landmark. I

01:38:20.180 - 01:38:51.730

asked all of you to please let my native american people rest in peace. Thank you. Thank you, paul amorally. Good evening. My name is Paul amorally and I feel compelled to introduce myself a little further. I'm an archaeologist with 29 years of experience. A great deal

01:38:51.730 - 01:39:10.810

of that has been in central America where I've been involved with excavations of structures including structures similar to the Gorilla Adobe and bilateral agreements between local governments and the United States government against illicit traffic of antiquities and a variety of other activities, including currently the excavation

01:39:10.810 - 01:39:31.560

of a pre hispanic palace burned to the ground 900 years ago. But my first six years of professional experience were here right conducted dozens of projects including surveys and excavations. And it fell upon me to officially record the archaeological site currently in question. See a Sonoma

01:39:31.570 - 01:39:47.210

401 slash H. I. Was the one who recorded that. Um There seems to be no question in the minds of anyone here that this is a very important site. The manager spoke called it the cradle of santa rosa. Very apt description you have in your hands.

01:39:47.220 - 01:40:08.700

The decision to possibly hopefully preserve enough of the site to remain being inadequate memory of the past. I wish to address now what is described as the archaeological measures in the E. I. R. Mr Rupert, the archaeologist for the party interested in the development has mentioned

01:40:08.700 - 01:40:26.500

he's willing to change his research design. I cannot base myself on what is not written. I can only base myself on the written E. I. R. According to the written E. I. R. And also to everyone here present this very important site is also very extensive.

01:40:26.510 - 01:40:47.160

It's also virtually unknown. Apart from historical references and the barest indications that you can see in the surface and in some auguring. Auguring no is not a substitute for excavation. Auguring is a perforation of several. If I may say pinpricks of small holes across the site.

01:40:47.170 - 01:41:07.470

No one here would consider it to be a substitute for archaeological excavation. What is contemplated has excavation in this unknown. This vast unknown of this archaeological site is incredibly minimal. It's an area of four small units, barely larger than this piece of furniture where I'm standing

01:41:07.480 - 01:41:28.820

a few square meters of excavation to evaluate a site of this importance. It is essential to conduct extensive excavation and if possible complement that with remote sensing. We are after all, in the 21st century and there are techniques at our disposal including geo radar or ground

01:41:28.820 - 01:41:49.620

penetrating radar, resistive. Itty studies magnetometer, uh which can indicate to us what is underneath the ground, architectural features, human burials and others. But the proof is in the pudding and the proof can only truly be gained by extensive excavation. There is no substitute for this. And

01:41:49.620 - 01:42:08.190

if this is not done before the project is enacted. Well, just let me say no project could be planned on the basis of unknowns. The site is an unknown. Virtually the project may affect the most interesting significant parts of the site. They have not yet been

01:42:08.190 - 01:42:36.230

identified. It's essential to do this work before planning and effecting making effective the development of the site. Thank you. Thank you very much Tony Hoskins. The point Tony hoskins 21 93 Sun leaf lane santa rosa. I'm the president of the Sonoma County Historical Society. Um Madam

01:42:36.230 - 01:42:50.810

Mayor and council very pleased to be here tonight. And I thank you for the opportunity. Um What you've heard tonight from from expert witnesses and people who care deeply about this property. I cannot equal or better. I would like to just put in a word or

01:42:50.810 - 01:43:09.620

two about the uniqueness of the history of this place. It's the farthest extension north of the spanish mexican colonial system in California. It is certainly the site of an assistance via a satellite chapel of the last of the spanish mexican missions in Sonoma. It was a

01:43:09.620 - 01:43:27.680

city unique in California in in that period founded by a woman Maria Carrillo. These are just a few of the many features of this place that make it unique. And uh dr Moreau lee's presence here tonight is an honor to us. He's we've been quoting him

01:43:27.680 - 01:43:47.940

for the last couple of years. His expert witness as regards to the single most important features of the archaeology I might also mention before passing up to the next speaker. It has been our contention in the historical society for some time that basically this program should

01:43:47.940 - 01:44:07.320

not go through this project should not move ahead because of imperfections in complete features in the E. I. R. Process. The most compelling to us in the historical society has been as dr R. Murali has mentioned and as other people have to the indefinable extent of

01:44:07.320 - 01:44:23.030

the archaeological site. I might also mention that it that that paying a sort of lip service to the one site that has been mentioned in the E. I. R. And the addendum is inadequate because there are other, there are two other, We've got one that's undefined.

01:44:23.030 - 01:44:38.800

No, we actually have three. There's C A S O N five and C A S O N 10 36. None, neither of those has been addressed in the E. I. R. Process. And so for that reason, uh as well as the in defined nature of the,

01:44:38.810 - 01:44:54.490

of the site that has been dealt with, we find that that portion of the er process has been inadequate. As Larry Creo said, if you are determined to do this and we, we hope you are not. But if you are, we would like to make a

01:44:54.490 - 01:45:13.850

couple of suggestions clustered alternative examined in the er provided a 60 ft set back from the korean adobe. This is not present in the plan, clustered alternative would reduce some impacts to the cultural resources and as a feasible alternative that should be examined in the E

01:45:13.850 - 01:45:32.410

I R. And was not. And we ask that if you do go ahead with this, these issues be addressed. But we in the historical society would like to entreat you to consider the unique importance of this place and to not, I'll prove this project. Thank you.

01:45:33.010 - 01:45:54.810

Thank you. Mr Hoskins Carol Valentini. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Carol Valentini 6 10 will brush Mayor Bender. I think all of you know how I feel about this project. I wasn't going to say anything but this is the last piece of property. I

01:45:54.810 - 01:46:13.080

think that we have, that is a major site that we haven't destroyed paved over channel. Ized torn down yet. I know the money hasn't been there all these years to make it into a historical park. But as an educator, I can just dream of this beautiful

01:46:13.080 - 01:46:36.390

place to bring Children by the creek To save our heritage and 200 years from now when our population is going to be maybe doubled. This would be a beautiful place for historical studies. By then the money may be there to develop it further. We could have

01:46:36.390 - 01:47:00.470

fiestas there, we could have picnics. I I was so upset with the catholic church that and I have not gone back to church since then because I do blame the church for the adobe being in the condition that is in, I feel that this historical place

01:47:00.480 - 01:47:23.160

is the last one. I want you to think very carefully before you allow this project to go forward at most senior housing clustered would be a possibility with the recipe in a historical park. The 4.1 acres that is being donated by the creek. I believe that's

01:47:23.160 - 01:47:42.360

a floodplain. So I wouldn't give them too many perks for donating that part. I think the adobe site needs to be expanded. If this is going to go forth, it's too small the way it is and I don't know why more people have not been interested

01:47:42.360 - 01:48:01.620

in this, it's sad that our community has not railed the money to buy this and to make it into a park. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Valentini. Those are all the cards I have. If there's anybody else wishing to just 11 at a time, Please give

01:48:01.620 - 01:48:23.940

us your name for the record, please. My name is William Sullivan and I live at 1436 Lorraine way. Um I would like to support very much what this previous woman just said. Um and the other thing that has not been mentioned today is about this unfortunate

01:48:23.950 - 01:48:45.180

linkage of the project to senior housing and how Pep has stepped into it while Pep and uh Sonoma County Task Force on the homeless. Uh, I worked for them. So, I know that organization, I've also worked for interfaith shelter network, that uh the issue here is

01:48:45.180 - 01:49:05.630

not housing, it's not senior housing, it's not uh you know, the lack of housing in santa rosa, this is our cultural heritage, we're talking about, we can build senior housing anywhere, you know, it can be linked to many projects and for uh, you know, people to

01:49:05.640 - 01:49:20.570

say that, you know, the homeless are now going to be sheltered when this project goes through that is, you know, an absurdity and that's a whole other issue that we don't want to tie to this one. And the other thing is the merits of the project

01:49:20.580 - 01:49:37.780

are, are wonderful, I mean it's it's a great it's a beautiful thing that they have developed and but it's just not the right place And I think that's obvious to the council. And it's so unfortunate too that the planning commission approved the earlier very flawed one.

01:49:37.780 - 01:49:53.900

And now uh they would naturally approve this one. Uh And I hope that the council can see through you know what's going on here and that we really have to for the sake of our Children. I mean all of us are going to be gone but

01:49:53.900 - 01:50:13.180

this place needs to be there so it can serve us and and serve the future. And I hope that that is clear and we don't get sidetracked by traffic or or housing issues or things like that and and concentrate on the fact that this is the

01:50:13.190 - 01:50:42.800

one of the the premier cultural heritage sites in California and it has both California history and prehistory on the same site. So I mean it should be a no brainer that we've got to save this place in completely. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Sullivan. Mhm. Good

01:50:42.800 - 01:51:00.550

evening. My name is tom order. I'm an archaeologist. My offices are at 37 60 for santa rosa Avenue. I have just one point that I want to make in earlier hearings and in letters I have strongly advocated that this project have peer review. That is another

01:51:00.550 - 01:51:19.690

professional archaeologist or somebody of that reviewing this project to make sure that this very important archaeology be taken care of inappropriate manner. I read the addendum it appeared that in the addendum the city might be in the in the position of hiring an archaeologist that could

01:51:19.690 - 01:51:34.190

do peer review. It wasn't specified in in those terms, but my thought was that that might be what was really going on tonight's exhibit that we saw earlier by Windsor and kelly showed that there was the potential that an archaeologist might be hired by the city

01:51:34.200 - 01:51:53.430

but that archaeologist was put down in the category of dealing with the adobe. And I would like to see that archaeologist be involved in the entire project. Not just the adobe. Thank you, thank you. Anybody else wishing to address the council on this come down from

01:51:53.430 - 01:52:07.150

the Cultural Heritage board. Good evening Mayor vendor council. Um My name is brian much I reside at 75 to orchard street santa rosa. Um to begin with I will address you as a member of the Cultural Heritage Board, correct a couple of statements um when we

01:52:07.150 - 01:52:18.820

did have a joint review for this project, I would have to state that there was not unanimous support by the Cultural Heritage Board. I can stand in front of you and say I would be a member who was not in support of it. Furthermore. I know

01:52:18.820 - 01:52:31.670

that in your packets you do have the minutes that carry through on those meetings. One notion that was brought up and there was support at the Cultural Heritage Board was the notion that tom morgan just spoke of and that would be peer review of the research

01:52:31.670 - 01:52:47.480

design and archaeological treatment plan. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that this is a pretty controversial issue. Um A lot of other cities and other regions across the country have kind of latched onto this notion to somehow deflect the controversial nature of projects and

01:52:47.480 - 01:53:04.870

kind of even out the level field here bringing in independent bodies. So from that I'd like to step into back into becoming a resident for a second. I do notice in the denim for the 2005. Um denim that was prepared by Windsor and kelly there on

01:53:04.870 - 01:53:26.400

4 10-21. The mitigation measure for the cultural resource uh impact of if the project will disturb known or potentially eligible sites or landmarks. There is mentioned under mitigation cr one a the completion of the N. H. P. A National Historic Preservation Act section one of six

01:53:26.400 - 01:53:42.280

process. Um And it goes on to state that the US Army Corps of Engineers may require a section 404 permit from this project. Um I believe this entails dealing with the storm outfall drainages and flowing into the santa rosa Creek. My understanding from discussions with the

01:53:42.280 - 01:53:57.590

U. S. Army Corps san Francisco branch who would be regulating this is that they do have a permit in their database. So I'd urge the council if that permit comes through, we enter into the realm outside of sequa. We're into a federally mandated section one of

01:53:57.590 - 01:54:14.820

six process the consultation requirements in one of six require and we can get into interpretations of sequa and when consultation is required or just encouraged, one of six is a lot stronger. There's actual teeth in there that that really get at the notion of consultation and

01:54:14.820 - 01:54:32.470

consultation early on if we are consulting this late in the game, I don't feel that's really a good faith effort that that National storage Preservation act is really trying to get to. So I just encourage council to perhaps postpone any motions this evening and determine if

01:54:32.480 - 01:55:05.170

those permits are going to be required. It does change the Ballgame here. If federal permits are required bringing in a federal lead agency will change this. Thank you very much have yourselves a good anybody else wishing to address the council. Mhm. Do you

01:55:05.170 - 01:55:23.020

see where the button is down on the side here Miss MEREDITH can help you with it. Got it. There you go. Now we can see your face. Good Evening. My name is Anna Rucker. I live at 3240 Montgomery Drive in Santa Rosa. Um The only thing

01:55:23.020 - 01:55:39.150

that I can contribute to the previous comments that were made is I don't believe that there really is uh it hasn't been brought up at least and at least this evening and I don't know if it's in any of the E. I. R. Reports that you

01:55:39.150 - 01:56:02.230

have. My issue is safety. I live on Montgomery drive and while something was mentioned earlier this evening about how traffic seems to be moving a lot more smoothly going west to Farmers lane, nothing has been mentioned here before about the traffic going from farmers lane eastbound

01:56:02.400 - 01:56:23.870

up to Y lupa and further to Summerfield. I live on Montgomery drive, not far from your lupa and on any given day in the morning or the evening I can count seconds three seconds, 26 seconds of traffic going back and forth my property. It's extremely difficult

01:56:23.870 - 01:56:48.100

to enter my parking area, my driveway. It's even just as difficult to get out of my driveway. And that's not that's really not. The only issue I think more importantly is the safety issue as regards the uh adult or the senior apartments that are that are

01:56:48.100 - 01:57:07.750

planned in this project. I think it's a really good idea. However, I think it's a very very unsafe idea. I can't get into my driveway. I can't get out of my driveway. Children don't play in the front. I mean it's it's horrific. I cannot open my

01:57:07.750 - 01:57:28.870

front door during the day because the co the cacophony, the the of of the cars, the vehicles driving by limit any hearing any sound at all in my house of being able just to open the door and enjoy the beauty. The fresh air in the evening

01:57:28.880 - 01:57:48.450

coming towards 10 30 10 o'clock to midnight at night. The fumes? The exhaust fumes are so horrific and so potent that I cannot sit in my living room. I have to move to the back part of the house. So I I don't know if you've taken

01:57:48.450 - 01:58:06.040

that into consideration. I don't know if that's in your E. I. R. I'm not privy to your E. I. R. But I would strongly urge you to investigate that. Um I agree with the two previous speakers. I am opposed to this project. I think the plan

01:58:06.040 - 01:58:27.960

is beautiful. The the apartments are beautiful but not there. You have an opportunity as our city council people to do the right thing and to take care of your constituents as caregivers of this city. It's your responsibility to ensure that we have a good safe environment

01:58:27.960 - 01:58:49.220

to live in. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Speaker. Anybody else wishing to address the council on this? See no one rise. I will close the public hearing. Did you have somebody? Let's not close the public hearing at this point. If I would recommend we take a

01:58:49.220 - 01:59:22.890

10 minute recess. Will take a 10 minute recess. We'll take a 10 minute resource. And if nor did I close the public hearing. I didn't. We'll be back in 10 minutes. I would go there. All right. I think we're ready to call the

01:59:22.900 - 01:59:42.310

council back into session and I believe at this point now that we can close the public hearing and bring it back to the council, Is that right? Mr Farrell? Alright, so with this I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for

01:59:42.310 - 02:00:01.470

questions. This is the first step council with everything we've heard. Do you have questions of staff or any of the consultants, anybody? This would not be a time to discuss the what was brought up by Mr Hazlitt as far as that sidewalk on home and drive.

02:00:01.470 - 02:00:12.470

I would this is not really that's not really part of this project. I don't think that's part of this project because I think it needs to be addressed but it's really it isn't it is offside. It's really not part of the project but I think we

02:00:12.470 - 02:00:23.550

need to have that discussion. That is one of the most odd circumstances in the city that I think really needs to be addressed. And I'd like to see that taken care of as soon as possible. It's just I can't believe it happened in the first place

02:00:23.550 - 02:00:41.190

but um it's really not. No, that's not part of this. I if nobody else has a question, I do have a question, I would like to have a question if Mr Root could answer it on the Auguring versus excavation that was talked about. Auguring versus excavation.

02:00:41.200 - 02:00:57.650

Yes. The Auguring the hand. Auguring is a testing procedure. It's designed to determine where there are and are not deposits to be further investigated. It is not considered a large scale excavation and dr Williams correct. Those are small holes penetrated into the site to see what

02:00:57.660 - 02:01:17.490

is uh what are in those subsurface deposits. To define the strata, the layers that are there and President. But auguring is not a mitigation of impacts. Auguring is a method of achieving further information on the specific location where deposits will be found excavation that is one

02:01:17.490 - 02:01:35.070

by 12 by two and larger meter squares of excavation is what is done to recover the information in testing. We're going to be doing one by one and one by two m excavation to further the results of the auguring but the excavation to mitigate impacts is

02:01:35.070 - 02:01:51.730

large scale excavation in areas where there are direct impacts from the project. Now a lot of the project has been defined to minimize those impacts. Thus, to minimize the amount of excavation that becomes necessary under ceqa, we are trying to achieve preservation in place which is

02:01:51.730 - 02:02:11.790

the preferred alternative. So we're trying to avoid excavating unnecessarily into the archaeological site wherever there is a utility line or a foundation element or some other aspect of the project which cannot be kept in the fill and which must penetrate below the fill layer. We will

02:02:11.790 - 02:02:31.010

be excavating all of those deposits where that occurs. But we're trying to avoid doing that kind of excavation by minimizing the the penetration below fill of any elements of the project. So ideally we would be able to mitigate impacts and not have to do large scale

02:02:31.020 - 02:02:47.770

excavation because we would be able to leave the deposits intact and in place. I'm not so sure we're going to be able to do that entirely here. But that is the goal. Ask Mr Rupert question if I can because I heard you comment that this site

02:02:48.000 - 02:03:03.910

has had a lot of activity on it. It's not pristine, I think was the word that was introduced either by yourself or someone else. But clearly, um, there's been a lot of activity. There's been the agricultural operation of an orchard. I'm assuming that there was probably

02:03:03.910 - 02:03:20.660

some discussion or something that went along with that you had the, the existence of the adobe and and the people living there at that time. Um, we have even most recently gone in there with massive cleanups of illegal dumping, if you will, of modern day um,

02:03:21.380 - 02:03:40.780

uh, stuff that goes in. We've had homeless encampments that we've gone in on numerous occasions and had to deal with moving some people out. There's some rather extensive campgrounds. Were some of the ones that I visited years ago. So how would you in terms of taking

02:03:40.780 - 02:04:00.820

a look at this relative to other sites around the state of California in terms of its historical significance. It would seem from some of the comments tonight that this is the most important site in the, in the state. Um, how how does this this kind of

02:04:00.820 - 02:04:18.920

a village? It's compare. It's difficult to rank archaeological sites and say any one site is the most important there. That's just an impossible kind of ranking. But this is certainly an incredibly important site as far as our understanding of the earliest days of santa rosa's founding

02:04:19.060 - 02:04:34.970

and development and the prehistory of life along santa rosa Creek. Um we probably have six inches to 18 inches of disturbance in the area where that's been plowed and disk in the past and where other things have occurred. But that site is probably at least three

02:04:34.970 - 02:04:50.670

and perhaps six ft deep. So we have a lot a substantial amount of probably totally undisturbed deposit sub sufficiently part of our job is to keep that from being damaged any further. I'm trying to keep all the development up into the area that's already disturbed. But

02:04:50.670 - 02:05:05.020

as to the importance of that site, I would put it in the first rank. It is clearly an important historical location, extremely important in the history of our local area. Okay, thank you. Mr colon mayor and council, could I suggest I think I heard a number

02:05:05.020 - 02:05:21.550

of questions raised during some of the testimony that came in during the public hearing process. And if if the council doesn't have additional questions I think it might be valuable to call pat Collins back to the podium and ask her, I saw them taking careful notes

02:05:21.550 - 02:05:47.680

as they were going through that testimony and ask her to respond to those questions and points that were raised during the public hearing, you took the words right out of my mouth. Good MS Collins. You wanna come up? So I have a number of responses to

02:05:47.690 - 02:06:10.280

comments that were made by the public. Um And I'll just go through them one by one. An earlier comment was that in my presentation, I didn't show that there was any reduction of impacts to cultural resources because of this revised alternative. Um And the slide that

02:06:10.280 - 02:06:28.990

I showed indicated impacts where there was a change in the level of significance because the originally Ir and the original design already showed that the cultural resource impacts were mitigated to less than significant. There was no change in the level of significance because of this new

02:06:28.990 - 02:06:46.620

alternative. That's not to say that it doesn't do a better job at reducing cultural resource impacts. It moves the dwelling units further away from the Dobie in important places and it moves the parking areas and eliminated that back parking space. Um So I think it does

02:06:46.620 - 02:07:19.620

reduce impacts. Mhm. There was a comment about two other prehistoric archaeological sites in the area. Um These sites exist to the east and the west of the project. They are not currently identified within the project site. They're adjacent to the project. Um It is possible that

02:07:19.630 - 02:07:40.340

on a subsurface basis. These sites do extend into the project and the mitigation measures that are assigned to prehistoric sites apply equally to those other two sites if they are indeed present on the site. So those have been acknowledged in the E. I. R. And mitigation

02:07:40.350 - 02:08:11.820

is required to reduce any potential impacts to those two. Less than significant. Uh Tom order was concerned that the city's um independent or peer review archaeologist only applied to the adobe. That clause in the mitigation measures actually occurs twice. It occurs once under the adobe protection

02:08:11.830 - 02:08:31.000

measure and then it occurs a second time under the prehistoric site protection measure. So he may have only just caught one of those. I didn't want to make sure that it did apply to both. MS Collins brian much. And the Cultural Heritage Board has suggested a

02:08:31.010 - 02:08:50.030

peer review for treatment plan for the underground archaeological resources. Is that what you're speaking of when you talk about peer review for archaeology and it is phrased slightly differently, but it is basically the same idea and that is that the city should hire its own independent

02:08:50.040 - 02:09:12.630

uh cultural resources person. And it could be either an archaeologist and archaeology, uh an architectural historian or historian depending on exactly which resources being treated at the time. And they would oversee anything that the applicants um Cultural resources people are doing so there would be an

02:09:12.630 - 02:09:38.560

opportunity to review their plan before they go forward with any of data recovery. And that is one of the mitigation measures, it is within the current mitigation measures. Yes. Um because there was a lot of discussion tonight about consultation with the Federated Indians of Rancheria. I

02:09:38.570 - 02:10:00.020

did want to just um read to you their original request uh at the time of the draft D. I. R. First of all we did when we prepared the draft D. I. R. We did send out uh letters and made multiple phone calls to I think

02:10:00.020 - 02:10:20.900

about eight different indian tribes or representatives of of tribes including the Federated indians of Great in Manchuria. And at the time of the draft de ir they did ask quote to be included in consultation, pre project planning making regarding any proposed testing or potential mitigation to

02:10:20.900 - 02:10:43.730

this site. Should a final project be approved. So our response was to include them in consultation um should a project be approved and that has been folded into the mitigation measures. And as I've talked to staff previous to tonight, um the city has offered to consult

02:10:43.730 - 02:11:02.040

with them to meet with them basically. Um And I and I'm sure the city intends to do that, but there hasn't been an opportunity to do it um prior to tonight. So is that in any of our resolutions if they're approved the consultation, it's not in

02:11:02.040 - 02:11:28.750

any of those. The I doubt that I don't believe that it is specifically in the resolution at this time offered by staff. Does it need to be Mr Farrell, I'm confident that the offer will be followed up on. Um There was also a concern about uh

02:11:28.760 - 02:11:46.250

grading equipment coming across archaeological artifacts on the site and ruining them before there was a chance to actually uh find that they were there in the areas. That that's why the first thing that has to be done on the site is to have a better boundary

02:11:46.250 - 02:12:09.740

definition of where the main deposits are located. That area will be carefully excavated with either hand equipment or very small motorized equipment around the adobe. Everything has to be done by hand excavation only. There will be some portions of the site where there can be regular

02:12:09.740 - 02:12:30.820

grading equipment news, but there need to be monitors on site watching that on a constant basis. Um And then finally I wanted to respond about the four of the Corps of Engineers for four permit. It's possible that the applicant will need to um apply for a

02:12:30.820 - 02:12:48.500

core for four permit. The storm, there's a a stormwater outlet that goes down into santa rosa Creek and santa rosa Creek in this area uh comes down off of the flat area where the orchard is, has quite a dip and then a flat area and then

02:12:48.500 - 02:13:08.090

it goes down into the creek. It's not your normal creek that just goes right down to the water. So um it's possible that there will need to be some erosion control or riprap put into that slope that would require for for permit. The applicant states that

02:13:08.090 - 02:13:23.940

they do not need to do that. They're going to be able to take care of that storm water drainage without any permit. If a permit is required, the Corps of Engineers will need to go through a federal section 106 process and that will be a very

02:13:23.940 - 02:13:49.980

rigorous cultural resources um federal process. If they don't need to go forward with that there will be no federal process and it will remain under the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Rosa. Those were the points I wanted to make in response. That's any other comments

02:13:49.980 - 02:14:09.170

of staff to the response to this then Mr Farrell, if we have no more from staff and we have no questions from the council. Is this the time where we could move ahead with the straw boat? Yes. And then staff would recommend both the City Attorney's

02:14:09.170 - 02:14:28.730

Office and the Community Development Department and this is with the consent of the applicant. That if if it should be the council's preference that staff bring back actions for approval that that be done at the december the sixth meeting um which would allow time to to

02:14:28.740 - 02:14:47.030

further review the findings based on the evidence that has been placed in the record this evening. All right, okay, well, let's start we'll start anything else. So I think it might be helpful to to um perhaps explain a little further with the polling Ostrava relates to

02:14:47.040 - 02:15:09.400

and it would be each of the items set forth in the recommendation in the agenda report for this evening's meeting. Yes. So we should go through each each council member should just go through and indicate on each one. It's possible to do them as a group.

02:15:09.410 - 02:15:25.480

All right. All right. Mr Sawyer. We're going to start at your end. Is this be the time that we'd be making comments on this project? The comments and then you can go ahead and Mr Farrell has asked that we actually go through and itemize the vote

02:15:25.480 - 02:15:43.330

on the R Mad Amir before he begins. Is it possible for us to put the five items up on the screen so we can kind of see him as we go down and again the yes. If I believe that that page could be placed on screen.

02:15:43.340 - 02:16:12.590

Just the face sheet of the agenda summary. And again this is just a a straw vote subject to this being returned on the consent calendar on december the sixth. With with potentially additional findings. Council member Condron has one right here. Thank you so much. The front

02:16:12.590 - 02:16:47.490

of the staff report. No, I think it's Oh I can't good there it is. Look at that 1, 2, 3, 4. Yeah. Okay. Mr Sawyer comments and then if you would mind going down the list. Yes, I'll make some comments and then I'll go down the

02:16:47.490 - 02:17:03.590

list. It's it's interesting having been born and raised within a mile of this project. I never thought I would be sitting in a seat um determining the fate of this particular site. Um to quote Mr Tom Collins, I am, I am sad, I'm sad at a

02:17:03.590 - 02:17:23.380

number of planes. Um I'm so glad of the opportunity is lost. Um 60 years ago when Montgomery village was first built. When the church was first built, the opportunity to have this this site preserved for Santa Rosa. I was always saddened to see the the adobe

02:17:23.390 - 02:17:41.560

during my 50 years of watching it crumble. I had relatives living right across the street from the adobe. Um For quite a few years I traveled Montgomery drive quite often. I lived on Midway drive about a block away from the site for 14 years. Um I

02:17:41.560 - 02:18:03.740

could go on and on about how this, this particular site could have been saved. Santa rosa itself is built on a an archaeological site. Montgomery village. The church. Um The Corio adobe is built on an archaeological site as mr martini alluded to. However, this will be

02:18:03.740 - 02:18:29.210

the end of the disturbance hopefully of this particular site. This project is a testament to what can result when a builder and a neighborhood exercises patience and cooperation and compromise. I was at the neighborhood meetings. I saw what was what was proposed in the original um

02:18:29.220 - 02:18:48.810

in the original drawings. Both are both architecturally and the size of the project. This is a much better project than we had a year ago. I'm glad that there has been this year to scale down the project um I fear that the traffic is will always

02:18:48.810 - 02:19:03.160

be a problem, you know, it has for many years, it will continue to be that saddens me but we are better off now than we were a year ago and I will be supporting this project and those five items that you see before you on the

02:19:03.160 - 02:19:24.200

screen. Okay, Mr martini, I agree with the council member Sawyer, I am supportive of all five of them. I don't think that comes as any great shock. I actually supported the project back in August 2004 was in the minority um and I'm not gonna rehash the

02:19:24.200 - 02:19:40.900

reasons why I supported that. I do want to acknowledge however that this council at the end of that hearing went through and listed out the issues and I think they were presented to us this evening and I think they, the project that is before us has

02:19:40.900 - 02:19:55.230

addressed every one of those issues. I do want to acknowledge the neighbors. Um I met with them and and was obviously on the wrong side of the fence with a lot of those guys but they were sincere and they spent their time and effort working together

02:19:55.230 - 02:20:09.590

to come up with something that was more in tune with with their neighborhood and I applaud that and I think they did a good job, I think the, the development application reflects what the direction of this council was on that evening and I am supportive of

02:20:09.590 - 02:20:28.550

all five. A council member Condron uh like council member martini. I supported this when it came before us before this is actually a better project now, I do appreciate all that has been done by the developer and working with the neighborhood and working with the issues

02:20:28.550 - 02:20:44.590

that were brought up by this council. Um one of the things that hasn't been mentioned tonight as far as I can tell is that the idea that finally we have something in place as this project moves forward that will preserve the adobe as it exists, will

02:20:44.590 - 02:21:01.230

start the effort at protection and documenting the site and the history of it and will finally allow us to do something with that site which has not been done prior to this point. I agree with the comments that council member Sawyer mentioned, how unfortunate it is

02:21:01.230 - 02:21:17.920

that 50, 60 years ago or whatever before that even um there wasn't a process in place whereby this could be preserved um to a much better degree. Um I agree with comments that have been made both by a lebaron and um I forget the Gentleman's name

02:21:17.920 - 02:21:35.700

that did an analysis of it earlier that uh to build it back at this point, um doesn't really indicate what has happened historically to that building. The fact that that it was allowed to get to the degree it is today or two to become um basically

02:21:35.710 - 02:21:54.550

down to very little um is a result of the history of that facility as well. Um I appreciate the fact that there's this property is being preserved, there's more land than there was before. The view from Montgomery drive is better. Uh and there will be money

02:21:54.550 - 02:22:13.520

available to maintain that property. Um Those are all um plusses and and items that will exist now that wouldn't have before. I'm supportive of all five Mr Benowitz. Well, this is one of those decisions I wish I weren't here having to make because I find this

02:22:13.520 - 02:22:36.570

one a real struggle within myself. My heart of Hearts, I wish this were preserved and were left to be open space and park and and part of our cultural heritage, but it's also a good site for housing and more particularly some affordable housing next to a

02:22:37.010 - 02:22:52.720

a shopping center. And so I'm torn in a lot of ways here today. In fact I voted against it the first time. Um and I voted against it because I thought it had too many units on the property, not enough parking, It wasn't enough affordable housing.

02:22:54.180 - 02:23:12.310

The adobe wasn't preserved. There was no lack of visibility from the street, the buildings were too close to the adobe and I was concerned about the cultural resources on the site. And so I wanted to see modifications in that site plan and there were modifications made

02:23:13.110 - 02:23:32.930

were they as far as I would like to see them go, no, I would have liked to still see more land preserved. And the adobe have an endowment and the cultural resources have a larger area that's undisturbed. So I'm very tortured by this one. It's one

02:23:32.930 - 02:23:49.340

of those when I don't know which button to push, um I'm concerned about the crosswalk to nowhere. Um I think we need to do something about that. Um I'd like to see the creek path extended in back of the church all the way to Farmers Lane.

02:23:49.340 - 02:24:07.740

I think that's an opportunity and I'd support even more space is removed to have more land around the adobe as mr Carrillo suggested. But in the end I have to push some button I suppose, and I will support the project, but I do it with a

02:24:07.740 - 02:24:28.850

lot of mixed feelings. Mr pierce. Thank you, madam Mayor. It's been some excellent comments up here tonight and and like mr Rabinowitz, this is uh one of those decisions that uh, you know, we really earn our our big pay up here. And um you know, I

02:24:28.850 - 02:24:48.120

want to start by, you know, going back when I was on this, the planning commission uh number of months ago and this project came before us. Um I voted it down the first time. And for me it's always been about the treatment of the adobe. And

02:24:48.120 - 02:25:08.130

that's why I voted it down because I looked at that site and I was concerned about the neglect that has endured over time. And when we're talking about recognizing and honoring uh, some part of our history that in no way reflected the kind of respect that

02:25:08.130 - 02:25:23.580

I think the site was due for all citizens here in in in town. And so I held out and, and in fact I would have approved the site the second time and I did approve the site the second time or the project the second time it

02:25:23.580 - 02:25:46.830

came came to us with a higher density. And the reason is because they treated that adobe with more respect and I think left as it is today. It the site does not, or the remains do not invite very much interest among the citizens of this community

02:25:47.340 - 02:26:11.940

and with all due deference to the native american culture. Uh, I believe that the treatment that that is offered in this project with respect to uh the theater and the sort of the self guided tour, the kiosks uh, that will be there to show uh the

02:26:11.940 - 02:26:35.160

history or tell the history to visitors. Um, I think is a, is a much more inviting treatment of this historical resource. Um, back then also we had a concern about traffic. We, there was a level of service e uh, for farmers lane and we had to

02:26:35.160 - 02:26:57.810

adopt overriding concerns for mitigating that. Uh, that particular issue. Now with the reduced density. Uh, I didn't hear that traffic is as great as it was back then, although there may be some uh dispute and some of some of our minds who travel that that area

02:26:57.820 - 02:27:19.790

uh more frequently than others. But I hear now the the overriding concern issue is noise, construction, noise and I'm willing to accept that that is um just part of the whole process of uh putting any project on the ground, we're going to experience that kind of

02:27:19.800 - 02:27:38.830

uh of an annoyance so that that really doesn't uh rise to the level of denying the project for me. And I wanted to talk just one moment about Mr Osborne's comment when he said that the only person that's going to be happy with this project or

02:27:38.830 - 02:27:57.350

when it's complete is the developer and I would beg to differ. I think there's going to be 100 and 65 happy residents uh in santa rosa, particularly 25 senior citizens paying $300 a month or 100 and $20 a month as I heard was a figure or

02:27:57.350 - 02:28:17.340

somewhere in there having some affordable housing and I think that's very, very important. This is a, a beautiful infill parcel within the city that is close to transit and shopping and schools and, and and the whole thing is the ideal infill site and now that we're

02:28:17.340 - 02:28:34.690

treating the adobe with a kind of respect that I didn't see several months ago, I think this is a total win win for the entire community. So I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support it and I agree with the rest of my colleagues on the council in um

02:28:34.700 - 02:28:52.330

supporting all five of those issues up there. Well, I also will support the project and support all five of them and I think that council has given most of the reasons that the two things I would add our one um although I don't understand all the

02:28:52.330 - 02:29:13.170

technicalities of it, I listened very carefully Mr Rubin, I believe you're mr Sanchez, is that correct? Um tonight about the restoration and um I sense the that they understand the dignity and the reverence of that site and and so I feel it's um it is being

02:29:13.170 - 02:29:32.130

taken care of a lot. Um and also that site has been an incredibly problematic site for us. Mr martini brought it up, we've had problems with homeless, there's been you know, vandalism, it's a it's been a really, really troublesome site and now to be able to

02:29:32.130 - 02:29:51.840

put housing and a park and creek access there is to elevate that entire place. We've talked about some of our D day gradient, we are elevating it from a vacant lot with a lot of problems on it to something that can be enjoyed and um people

02:29:51.840 - 02:30:11.190

can come and actually experience the adobe. So um I think this is a good gift for santa rosa and I appreciate all the work that the neighbors and the developers have done because it's been a long journey to get here. So with that it looks like

02:30:11.200 - 02:30:32.960

we have um your marching orders, is that correct? And they'll come back on December six. That is correct. Thank you very much staff to for all the work you've done on it and with that I will going to public appearances. I have one card for Mr

02:30:32.960 - 02:30:49.080

Lightfoot. I've asked the staff, I mean ask people as they leave if they could be quiet so please so we can just finish up our meeting and go home. Thank you Mr Lightfoot as you come up here tonight, may I just give you a little warning?

02:30:49.090 - 02:31:35.430

Please do not use any obscenities because if you do, I'm gonna shut your masturbation is not an obscenity. The reason I've come up here, it's because hi, my name is steve Lightfoot. Can anyone hear me? There we go.

02:31:35.440 - 02:31:54.390

My name is steve Lightfoot and brian Farrell and Jeff colon almost came at my throat when I proclaimed that all developers and city council members are crooks. And lo and behold they all voted for this project. A wise man once said that 50 cents of every

02:31:54.390 - 02:32:14.630

dollar a city council member has in his bank account is from development kickbacks. Development kickbacks. 50% of every dollar any city council member has in their bank account. I want santa rosa to know this about this, which I've seen this charade the same people. Year after,

02:32:14.630 - 02:32:36.320

year after year, all these rich people making city council members richer with kickbacks. But that's just a hair on the dog of all the corruption in this town. In fact, I'm glad that the lord saw fit to reduce bob blanchard's role in the city council. He

02:32:36.320 - 02:32:56.950

was foremost in his campaign to slander me with the press democrat and I'm glad that he's on the run like the rest of you. Trying to, trying to thwart the most important part of city council meetings, what the public has to say. Yes jane bender of

02:32:56.950 - 02:33:18.520

the rules. You've done everything in your power to bend the rules and deprive santa rosa of its most basic right the right to address its officials in a public forum. You have done everything to corrupt that process now, no less illuminate airy than walter Cronkite last

02:33:18.520 - 02:33:41.300

week said that the average american is too ignorant, lazy and stupid to uphold democracy. The fact that you're all representing santa rosa is proof of that, that they allow you to represent them. If you really want to find out how culturally depraved santa rosa is visit

02:33:41.300 - 02:34:01.700

the nutty Irishman bar over on pinner road in the working class section of town. If you really want to find out how culturally retarded and depraved santa rosa is go visit the nutty Irishman bar. They think just like you, that people like me telling the truth

02:34:01.700 - 02:34:21.170

about john Lennon's murder are a pest when in the reality of the big picture, I'll be in the history books your great grandchildren will read about as some hero. Meanwhile, you're trying to brand me as some kind of a wacko and just like bob blanchard. I

02:34:21.170 - 02:34:41.770

wish those people here who wish me ill. I wish them a curse from God. I don't know what it will be, but my enemies always have bad luck. I don't know why. Thank you either. That concludes our meeting on that note.