Cities Index.
Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Correspondence

Santa Rosa City Council
February 14, 2023

Document
Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Correspondence
Meeting
February 14, 2023
Body
Santa Rosa City Council
Pages
4
Original file
104 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on legistar.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

From: Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Crocker, Ash le <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL]
Here are my notes
Should the Renewal Enterprise District be mentioned as a funding source? Safe Parking program at MSCN -should it be reflected on homeless services chart? Should the 2022 Point in time count be used rather than the 2020 one? Should the shelter portion of Caritas Village be referenced on the homeless services chart? Explanation of House Santa Rosa (7-24)

Page 3 ends

(3-34)
Are the Linda Tunis apts counted in the RHNA numbers - didn't see it specifically.

Top of page 4-71-first sentence-should it read "eastern" rather than "western"? 8-8 - how is "older" defined?
8-30 -Program H-40 -examples of how DRB could be changed/revised.

Still concerned BHDC didn't respond.
8-6 where is site 7? Couldn't find it on the maps.

Also Charles CAN do the subdivision committee on 2/1 and Vicki is interested in vice chair 1/3
-----Original Message-----
From: Carter, Charles <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:50 AM
To: Lyle, Amy <[email protected] >
Cc: Jones, Jessica <[email protected] >
Subject: Housing element comments
This is a dense and ambitious plan that could change the face of housing in Santa Rosa. I look forward to the presentation where these first few comments can be addressed.

1. How often are ABAG projections updated (table 3-1) ? Concerned about 2 years downward trend.

2. Are a percentage of "other vacant" units vacation rentals? (Pg. 3- 13)

3. Rentals over fair market (pg. 3-17) related to overpayment (pg. 3-19)

4. Figure 4-2 is not helpful.

5. What are the timeframes for the quantified objectives for lower income units added to programs for adequate sites?

6. Is one year a realistic timeframe for a citywide housing conditions survey? The following comments are editorial or typographical and need not be part of the public hearing.

1. Figure 1-1 is not referenced in the text. While it is clearly labeled as a regional location map, there is no legend indicating what the shaded areas are. If the shading included Santa Clara county it would include all counties in ABAG which is referenced in the following text.

2. 4th line of added text page 3-14: "county" should be "count".

3. The list of Equity Priority Populations on page 2-7 includes duplicates.

Sent from my iPad
2/3
-----Original Message-----
From: Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:16 PM
To: Lyle, Amy <[email protected] >; Jones, Jessica <[email protected] > Subject: 2023 - 2031 housing element
Hi Amy and Jessica -
Sorry for the really late email with a few questions/comments, but I don't think any of these are too involved and wanted to send them before tomorrow's meeting.

This revised element is so thorough and informational compared to other versions I've reviewed over the years. What a monumental undertaking!
First, I assume you'll be addressing the contents of the FHANC letter of 1/23. I'm interested if their recommendations will add or change anything in the document.

Page 4 ends

typical of other cities in CA of similar population? What if anything is being done to assist those on the wait list? Referral to other locations/non-profits?
Table 4-5, page 4-75 - One "contributing factors" noted is lack of availability of rentals accepting HCV's in moderate and high resource areas of the city. Can you expand on how the identified meaningful actions will improve this? Is it through working directly with rental owners or through the development of new rental units or a combination of things?
Table 5-1 on page 5-2 - shouldn't the total number of units read 4685, not 1359? Planning fees, page 6-33 - If I understand this correctly, a developer developing a six lot subdivision would pay the subdivision fees listed AND fees similar to the single family dwelling units fees for each of six units (if he was building such a low density subdivision), correct? How do these fees compare to other similar sized cities in the Bay Area?
Pages 7-34 through 7-64 appear to be exact duplicates of 7-3 to -33. Is this intentional? Thanks for all of your hard work.

See you on zoom
Vicki
3/3

← All documents from this meeting