[00:01] Speaker 1: Okay, good evening everyone and welcome to the regular meeting of the Petaluma City Council and Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency for Monday, September 14th, 2026. May we have our roll call please?
[00:14] Speaker 2: Barnacle?
[00:17] Speaker 1: Present.
[00:18] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson? Absent.
[00:21] Speaker 4: DeCarli? Here.
[00:23] Speaker 1: Now?
[00:24] Speaker 5: Here.
[00:26] Speaker 3: Quint?
[00:26] Speaker 1: Here.
[00:27] Speaker 4: Schribbs?
[00:29] Speaker 5: Absent.
[00:30] Speaker 3: And McDonald?
[00:31] Speaker 4: Here.
[00:32] Speaker 3: And we do have a quorum.
[00:33] Speaker 1: And, uh, and we expect both our missing council members to be joining us in no time. And, um, let's see, tonight we have a closed session, and I'd like to ask our city attorney to lead us in on the— what the closed session item is. I'll be glad to do that, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um, it's a bit of a longish list tonight, so please bear with me. I'll try to be Expeditious. So we're going to have a closed session regarding anticipated litigation and then a closed session regarding existing litigation with a number of matters which I will list in turn. So regarding anticipated litigation, that relates to initiation of litigation under paragraph 4 of subdivision D of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code, and that's regarding one potential case. And then regarding the litigation matters, for existing cases, that's under paragraph 1 of subdivision D of section 54956.9 of the Government Code. First case is Littlewoods Mobile Villa LLC versus City of Petaluma, Danley, Flynn, O., and various Does, Sonoma County Superior Court case 26-CV-04154. Next is Littlewoods Mobile Villa LLC versus City of Petaluma in Sonoma County Superior Court case number 25CV08161. Next is Capri Mobile Villa LLC versus City of Petaluma, and that's a Superior Court case also. It's number 25CV08803. Next is again Capri Mobile Villa versus City of Petaluma. That's also in the Sonoma County Superior Court case. Superior Court case. It's 26 CV 00070, another Capri Mobile Villa case that's on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. It's case 26. I should say the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That's case 26-5204. It originated as District Court case 3:25-CV-09096-JSC. Next is People of the State of California and the City of Petaluma versus Youngstown Mobile Home Park Limited Liability Corporation and Daniel Weissfeld. There's a little typo there, I apologize for that. Fannie Mae et al., and that's in Sonoma County Superior Court. It's case 25-CV-00798. Next is Youngstown Mobile Home Park LLC versus City of Petaluma. That's also in Sonoma County Superior Court, case number 24-CV-00250. Next is Littlewoods Mobile Villa LLC versus City of Petaluma. That's on appeal to the California Court of Appeal, First District, case A176524, originated in the Sonoma County Superior Court. Next is Littlewoods Mobile Villa versus City of Petaluma. We call that Littlewoods 2, Sonoma County Superior Court case 25CV01344. Next is Youngstown Mobile Home Park versus City of Petaluma, Deborah Parks et al., real parties in interest. Francis Fort. That's on appeal to the California Court of Appeal, First District, case A174719, originated in the Sonoma County Superior Court.
[03:52] Speaker 6: Capri Mobile—
[03:52] Speaker 1: next one is Capri Mobile Villa versus City of Petaluma. That's in the Sonoma County Superior Court, case 25-CV-08351. And finally, Littlewoods Mobile Villa LLC versus City of Petaluma. We call that Littlewoods 3. Sonoma County Superior Court case 26CV00340. Thank you very much. And thank you. That's quite a list of cases. And as always, we have general public— we have public comment on an item, and we're just getting to that now. And I'd like the record to show that Councilmember Scripps has joined and is participating. And so for general public comment, the public is invited to make comments on the closed session item, and we're limiting to 3 minutes per speaker. And I'd like to ask the clerk to weigh in now.
[04:45] Speaker 3: Yes, we do have 1 person joining us online, and we did receive 19 written public comments ahead of the meeting. Members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to my desk, and members of the— if they have not already done so— and members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand Uh, those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand if they would like to speak. We will hear in-person comments first. The mayor will call speakers to the podium, and once those have concluded, I'll call on any remote speakers, which it looks like we do not have any remote speakers.
[05:18] Speaker 1: And we have 5 speakers tonight, and our first speaker is Christoph Brown, and to be followed by Jody Johnson.
[05:47] Speaker 5: Good evening.
[05:55] Speaker 1: My name is Christopher Brown, as the mayor just announced. Uh, I'm here to speak to you about, uh, Littlewoods and all these mobile home parks. Um, and I'm apologizing right now if I sound a little harsh, and I'm not meaning to be, and I'm not directing it at you personally, but my feelings are, are, are serious right now. I've watched Last week I watched a mother with a child that was barely able to walk as she carried the child and her little daughter. She lives in Littlewoods and has no place to park. I watched her at 11 o'clock at night walking down the road with her kids, you know, and like, hey, you know, I mean, she's able to walk.
[06:47] Speaker 4: That's a beautiful thing.
[06:48] Speaker 1: But why should she have to walk— when she has a place and there's a whole parking lot that they stole from us. And when I say stole, yes, they own the land, but we've had that forever. And then when they didn't get their way at the first arbitration, they put up a fence and they didn't go through the county channels to get it. It angers me. I don't have any place to park, but I'll forfeit mine if she can have a place at her place, at her home to park. It's psychological terrorism. There's many seniors in here that have to rely on others, and the others are being told— people showing up to pick up somebody to take them to the store or something, the management shows up and tells them They can't be parked there even to help, even to help them unload groceries, right? This is just— I feel that Harmony Communities and anybody who owns the land and the property, they deserve their fair returns, yes, but they don't have the right to walk on people. They don't have the right to speak to people the way they do, treat the people the way they do, break the law with impunity. If I get behind the wheel of my vehicle and I leave this place and I'm speeding and I get a ticket, that's going to cost me at least $500, probably more like $800, right? And I'm going to have something on my record. My insurance is going to go up. These guys violate things And it doesn't stop them. And the truth is, is like, I don't know, like, if, if the finances will stop them because they just keep on— I don't know how much money they've dumped into these arbitrations, right? But they've dumped a lot of money into them, and it just seems like they, they're just going to keep on doing it. Thank you for hearing my rant. Thank you. Jody Johnson, to be followed by Jennifer Boyle.
[09:06] Speaker 3: So, um, I have not spoken in a long time, and one of the major reasons was what they did to me, which was hateful and full of lies. But more importantly, I cared about what they were doing to the residents.
[09:22] Speaker 4: Uh, this is clearly senior abuse and abuse in our other parks. So today, as you go into closed-door session, I know you know all this.
[09:31] Speaker 3: We've been with you a long period of time. And again, just like Chris said, we're not speaking to you.
[09:37] Speaker 4: We're just, we're just giving our emotions out there on public comment to make sure people really see the reality of what's going on here. I wish to take this time to remind all that we have what we have faced and what we continue to face: weaponization of arbitrations, closure threats, park status change, senior citizen abuse in so many ways. Couple that with extortion attempts, smear campaigns to the doors of residents, Which is ironic because the same people are smearing other people and they're saying that people shouldn't be doing that. And one intention was to get them to submit, us to submit. Lies, outright fraud, and notably large investment groups weaponizing management into breaking the law with them, abusing the RSO. Consequences matter.
[10:25] Speaker 3: You've been courageous and have been a beacon of hope for the vulnerable, for the seniors who are your constituents.
[10:31] Speaker 4: We dare to say that I believe you all ran And were elected to do this type of civil service, that of a moral compass protection for the marginalized.
[10:43] Speaker 3: Tonight, my hope is that you continue standing up for the truth and the facts, seeing the intent of every single one of those crazy litigations, enforcing the senior park overlay, and maintaining humanity.
[10:56] Speaker 4: Unlawful business practices have been proven.
[10:59] Speaker 3: They were proven in our trial.
[11:00] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[11:01] Speaker 3: Unchecked control over the seniors is a recipe for isolation, depression, and worse.
[11:07] Speaker 4: Our seniors are literally dying.
[11:10] Speaker 3: We've lost so many because before there's any remedy, they die without remedy. Please continue this fight with our seniors and vulnerable residents. Humanity has to win the day.
[11:23] Speaker 4: We value your deep commitment to this city. Personally, I have suffered now a heart attack, 4 small little strokes, and I have actually suffered in silence because I only care about what happens to the residents. It is not about one person. They tried to claim it is. It's about all of us residents throughout the entire state. We're actually being looked at from the other residents, and we are showing them the path that just because you are not people of wealth. We are people of value, and we deserve to be protected.
[12:00] Speaker 7: Thank you all for what you've been doing.
[12:01] Speaker 1: Thank you. Jennifer Boyle, to be followed by Tim Porteous.
[12:06] Speaker 3: Hi everyone, it's good to be back.
[12:22] Speaker 4: But I'm not sure that something I'd like for you all to know got to your attention that I wrote. And I was just reflecting today about when I first moved into Youngstown.
[12:43] Speaker 7: First, I rented a home there, and it was just— I was told that I was the only renter there.
[12:53] Speaker 4: And they wanted me so bad to move in, the prior management, our owner and the management.
[13:03] Speaker 7: And once I was there, I got the biggest surprise after living there for 1 year. And it was they jacked up the rent. They— everything, everything was just like, that's not what you told me when I first came in.
[13:19] Speaker 4: And I wanted to get the heck out of Youngstown.
[13:25] Speaker 7: And then I had the opportunity to buy the home that I'm living in now, and it was reasonable and I could afford it.
[13:32] Speaker 4: And that's when I started to realize that the management— and I'll just name her Debbie Zetzer—
[13:42] Speaker 7: lied to me and put me in a position where It kind of started then, but I've lived there now for 15 years. I've lived in Petaluma for 40, 42, 44 years.
[13:57] Speaker 1: So when I got the home that I could afford and I currently live in, I felt like this is great.
[14:08] Speaker 3: I bought it from the original owner and When—
[14:16] Speaker 4: I'm losing my train of thought here.
[14:20] Speaker 7: Oh, I remember my mom saying to me, and like I said earlier, I asked my mom, she asked me, are you sure you're doing the right thing?
[14:29] Speaker 4: And I said, Mom, it's a no-brainer.
[14:33] Speaker 1: Little did I know, because I could afford it, it was a clean deal, and it was like, really?
[14:41] Speaker 3: And when Weissfield and friends came in and changed every my world, I just I resent this.
[14:54] Speaker 7: But I am so glad that most of you are behind us. I believe I like to believe everyone's behind us on this because this isn't fair.
[15:05] Speaker 4: I didn't sign up to have my retirement.
[15:10] Speaker 7: You know, worried all the time for these crazies, and that's exactly what they are.
[15:18] Speaker 3: They want to bleed everybody dry.
[15:20] Speaker 1: They're greedy.
[15:22] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[15:23] Speaker 1: Thank you, Tim Porteous, to be followed by Tina Youngers. Younger.
[15:30] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[15:31] Speaker 3: I would like to start with a lie.
[15:35] Speaker 1: Given by Debbie Zetzer at the last trial, stating that she brought in, or the people that brought in, the young people under 55 created joy and happiness.
[15:48] Speaker 5: What a crock.
[15:50] Speaker 1: We're suffering as a group, as a group of people. It's like being in a wagon train.
[16:00] Speaker 4: That's how it feels. There's nowhere to go.
[16:05] Speaker 1: I know I can't run. I'm getting sick lately, and I didn't get sick for almost 20 years, not even a flu.
[16:13] Speaker 3: But this is happening still with the depression, still with the anxiety.
[16:21] Speaker 1: It's, it's impossibly difficult. This treatment has been out of hand. And you guys have done so much. You have seen, you have had to watch, and sometimes you couldn't, you couldn't do a thing. But you are, you are moving. You are moving in the right directions.
[16:52] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[16:53] Speaker 1: And we need this.
[16:57] Speaker 8: We need you.
[17:01] Speaker 3: All these things that you're doing for us are really appreciated.
[17:08] Speaker 1: All these things—
[17:10] Speaker 3: you guys are being attacked, and I hope you're growing the best of turtle shells so this stuff is just rolling down your backs like nothing.
[17:21] Speaker 2: Nothing.
[17:21] Speaker 4: Because it is nothing.
[17:23] Speaker 3: These words, these people that are throwing things at you, they are afraid of you because you do, you do have the capacity to have some power to slow, possibly stop these nasty things that are happening to us.
[17:43] Speaker 4: None of us went out to do something that has this Craziness at us. I know that if I was to go out and jaywalk, I'd get a ticket.
[17:56] Speaker 3: But these guys face your laws and just— I can't do it, but they just do that to you and they don't care.
[18:05] Speaker 1: They're walking on you.
[18:07] Speaker 4: They started out with the threat from the first arbitration, we'll break you all. This is insanity.
[18:16] Speaker 1: I truly hope that you guys do band together, hang on to each other, hang on to us, because we want to hang on to you.
[18:28] Speaker 3: Truly, I will.
[18:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. Let's have the record show that Councilwoman Kater Thompson has joined our meeting for the evening. And last speaker would be in from the room would be Tina Yonkers.
[18:48] Speaker 4: Good evening. Well, I'm another one of the residents of Youngstown, and it, it does—
[18:54] Speaker 1: it makes me nervous when I have to come up and talk to people. And you know, you talk about your life experiences or whatever, right? Well, I moved into Youngstown about 4 years ago, and really why?
[19:06] Speaker 3: Because I was looking at affordable housing for when I could stop working, and I didn't have anything much but my Social Security.
[19:14] Speaker 7: So how was I going to do Well, that was the perfect solution.
[19:17] Speaker 1: Rent was very reasonable for the ground rent, and this would work out pretty well because you've got so many other expenses in life. It's just right now, it's ridiculous between your insurance, food, and all that other stuff.
[19:29] Speaker 4: So anyway, it turns out that it's becoming not affordable if we go along with what the large investment corporations would like to do.
[19:41] Speaker 1: It becomes not affordable. And if they can continue to sell to young families, and I understand young families want that housing as well, but they can afford it because they've got usually 2 incomes coming in and they can do it.
[19:55] Speaker 7: But in interest, I found out, I decided, well, I'm going to find out what else is going on here in the city.
[20:01] Speaker 3: So I was talking to PEP Housing and I said, well, okay, if I was renting one of those apartments, what would the rent be?
[20:08] Speaker 4: And I think it was like $1,625 a month.
[20:12] Speaker 3: Now that's a lot of money still for a person whose Social Security is $1,900 a month. And then I checked with another one, which is another senior housing here also in Petaluma, and I think they said it was $1,645 would be if you were able to get an apartment.
[20:30] Speaker 4: And, and these have long waiting lists. It's not like you're going to get it tomorrow. I mean, to tell you the truth, if I put myself on the waiting list, I'd be dead before I got an apartment there. But still, at $1,645 or $1,625, that's a lot of money. So it's just generally to give a comment as what's happening as far as the rent goes.
[20:53] Speaker 1: And it really kind of leaves the seniors like myself in the dirt, or the dust if you prefer.
[21:00] Speaker 4: Anyway, that's all I have to say on that. Thank you very much.
[21:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. I think that's our last speaker from in the room, and let's check on the internet.
[21:11] Speaker 3: We do not have any remote speakers.
[21:15] Speaker 1: No, no hands raised in Zoom. So that will close public comment on our closed session item for the evening. And at this point, we will adjourn to closed session, and we will return here at 6 PM or as we finish the business at hand. So we are adjourned. Okay, turns out we're back and the recording's all working, so we can kick right into the meeting, which starts with me apologizing and expressing that that went a little long. And we're glad you're here tonight at our Regularly scheduled meeting for the City Council and Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency for Monday, September 14th, 2026. Um, one note, as you, as you may know, we've begun accepting public comments both in person and by Zoom. And this is in compliance with State Bill 707, which is an update to the Brown Act, California's open meeting law. And because this is a new process, we do ask your patience as staff gets used to the technology. And we work on refining the process. Per our regular rules, if you wish to provide public comment tonight on tonight's agenda and, and are joining us in person, please fill out a speaker card. They're located in the hallway, and, um, and bring it to our clerk who's located here at the front of the room. And as per our new procedures, if you're joining us via Zoom, please raise your virtual hand when the item is called. Uh, Uh, or started. Those participating over the phone and in Zoom can raise your hand by pressing, uh, star 9. The clerk will provide these instructions during each public comment period, and please do not raise your hand yet on Zoom. Wait till that item is called. And please note that concurrent translation services are available for this meeting in Spanish and in a variety of other languages. And let's start with our roll call. Barnacle present.
[23:26] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson here.
[23:28] Speaker 4: DeCarly here.
[23:30] Speaker 3: Now here.
[23:31] Speaker 1: Quint here.
[23:33] Speaker 4: Shribs here.
[23:34] Speaker 3: McDonald here. And we do have a quorum.
[23:36] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[23:43] Speaker 3: To the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[23:54] Speaker 1: And a moment of silence, please. Thank you. As we have just come out of closed session, uh, it'll be this moment I want to Confirm with our attorney about the, um, a report out. Do we have a report out from the closed session? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's no action to report out. Thank you very much. And that moves us to our proclamations for the night. And tonight is National— or tonight we're reading for, uh, National Preparedness Month. And, uh, we have— we'd like to invite Tom Jordan, our emergency manager, to the podium to accept the proclamation. And introduce his community partners. And it reads: Whereas National Preparedness Month has been observed each September through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Ready Campaign since 2004 to promote family and community disaster planning throughout the year, and the year 2026 theme America Stands Ready calls on people to prepare proactively. and to help their communities become resilient. And whereas the City of Petaluma faces earthquakes, wildfires, smoke and extreme heat, severe storms, flooding, power outages, and other large-scale emergencies that can affect lives, homes, businesses, infrastructure, and essential services. And whereas prepared individuals, families, caregivers, businesses, schools, and organizations strengthen the entire community when they make and practice emergency plans, maintain supplies, subscribe to official alerts, plan for evacuation and communication, including pets, and account for access and functional needs. And whereas Petaluma's— Petaluma One's Petaluma approach recognizes that disaster resilience is a shared responsibility built through coordination among city departments, first responders, Regional agencies, community organizations, businesses, schools, neighborhood leaders, and volunteers. And whereas KPCA 103.3 FM staff and volunteers are strengthening Petaluma's community emergency broadcast capabilities, developing trained volunteer capacity and technical resilience so local— locally relevant life-saving information can reach the community during emergencies. And whereas the Emergency Neighborhood Resilience Group, NRG program, is being developed in partnership with Rebuilding Together Petaluma and is building neighbor-to-neighbor connections and practical local capacity so that residents are better able to share information, identify needs, and support one another before, during, and after large-scale emergencies. Now therefore be it resolved that I, Kevin McDonald, the Mayor of Petaluma, along with the members of the Petaluma City Council, Do hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Preparedness Month, and in the City of Petaluma, and encourage everyone who lives, works, learns, worships, and serves in Petaluma to make and practice an emergency plan, build or refresh supplies, subscribe to official alerts, and connect with neighbors and local preparedness opportunities. Thank you all so much. Good evening, Mayor McDonnell and council members. I'm Tom Jordan, and I serve the City Fire Department as an emergency manager. I'd like to start off with a quick plug for the 14th Annual Petaluma Community Emergency Preparedness Fair. It's Sunday, September 27th, 11 to 3 at Walnut Park, and as always, it's hosted by Scout Troop 9, Cub Pack 9, and it's a great event for everyone in the community. Thank you, Mayor and council members, for recognizing September as National Preparedness Month. and for recognizing the people and partnerships that help make Petaluma more resilient. Preparedness starts with practical steps: make a plan, gather supplies, signing up for emergency alerts, and thinking about how we will communicate and help one another when everyday systems are disrupted. These steps become stronger when we take them together.
[28:12] Speaker 3: That's what One Petaluma means in this work.
[28:15] Speaker 1: Each city department, schools, businesses, community organizations, and households bring knowledge, relationships and capabilities that our community may depend on during an emergency. I'd like to recognize some of those partners who are here with us tonight. Um, I think John Schwempf is the only one that didn't make it with Scout Troop 9, but we've got a really great cavalcade. First, starting off with the county partners from Emergency Management and Human Services departments, we have Jeff, we have Sarah and Eric. Thank you for being here. Um, we have a federal partner with the Coast Guard Training Center Two Rock and Captain Joshua Birch. Um, this evening we have American Red Cross represented, uh, by a Petaluma volunteer, Paula Roberts, and Leland. Where did you guys back over there? Way over there. Thank you, Leland, for that. Um, we have our Community Organizations Active in Disaster, Elaine Tokole. Uh, thank you for making preparedness part of your work and for helping us reach people through relationships that they already know and trust. I also want to recognize KPCA 103.3 FM staff members and volunteers that are here tonight. Andy, Aiden, Garrett, Michael, and of course Radio Rob. Their work strengthens community emergency broadcasting to connect a familiar local voice with an essential need, helping people receive timely, locally relevant information when they need it most. And our partners from Rebuilding Together Petaluma bring decades of experience helping neighbors, strengthening homes, and supporting people who make this community what it is. We appreciate their partnership in developing the Neighborhood Resilience Group program. This evening, RTP is represented by Drake Cunningham and Megan Kelly. Finally, I'd like to recognize the Neighborhood Resilience Group NRG planning team: Tim Thompson, John Vernon, Goldie Curry, Marshall Now, Stephen Morris. NRG planning team founding member Jim Reuters is unavailable to join us tonight because he's traveling outside the county. But I want to recognize his contributions alongside those of the team here this evening. The energy planning team has been meeting and working together for more than a year to shape a program that fits Petaluma, our neighborhoods, our relationships, and the way people here already look out for one another. That builds on many more years of work in their own neighborhoods, bringing people together, earning trust, and building the connections that become especially valuable when something goes wrong. The emerging energy program carries that experience forward, helping neighbors share information, recognize needs, and support one another before, during, and after local emergencies or regional disasters. Thank you, all of you, for your time and what you do for the community. You are helping turn preparedness into something people practice together right where they live. And thank you again, Mayor and Council, for recognizing their work.
[30:56] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[31:13] Speaker 1: Thank you all. Our next proclamation tonight is for Latino AEX Heritage Month, and I'd like to invite forward Herman G. Hernandez, Executive Director of Los Cien. and friends to the podium to accept the proclamation, which reads: Whereas the City of Petaluma recognizes Latino/a/x Heritage Month by honoring the histories, cultures, and contributions of community members whose ancestors came from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. And whereas the City of Petaluma is committed to continue building a welcoming and neighborly community embracing diversity and fostering equity for every resident. And whereas more than 22% of the City of Petaluma's population identifies as Hispanic or Latin American, or Spanish is the second most spoken language in the community, and 35% of the student population in this Petaluma City Schools District is Latino/a/x. And whereas more than 62 million people in the United States identify as Hispanic or Latin American, representing over 18% of the population nationwide, Latin Americans continue to enrich our nation's character, shape our common future, and strengthen America's promise. And whereas Latin Latino AEX Heritage Month, whose roots go back to 1968, begins each year on September 15th, the anniversary of independence of the 5 Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. And whereas Mexico and Chile also celebrate their independence during Heritage Month on September 16th and 18th respectively. And whereas National Latino AEX Heritage Month is observed from September 15th to October 15th to recognize the contributions made by Hispanic and Latin Americans in the United States and celebrate their heritage and culture. Whereas fostering a welcoming, welcoming environment for all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, or place of origin enhances Petaluma's cultural, economic, global competitiveness and overall prosperity for current and future generations. Now therefore be it resolved that I, Kevin McDonald, Mayor of Petaluma, along with all the members of the City Council, do hereby proclaim Latino/a/x Heritage Month in the City of Petaluma and encourage citizens to— residents to share in this special annual tribute through participation in the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee and other community events to learn about and celebrate generations of Hispanic and Latin Americans who have positively influenced and enriched our nation and society. Thank you. I just want to thank Mr. Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and, uh, city staff and guests in the audience today. And just appreciate the city of Petaluma for the proclamation to help kick off Hispanic and Latin Heritage Month. We're very excited to be here today and honored to be receiving the proclamation. Mi mamá es de León, Guanajuato, México, y mi papá de San Salvador, El Salvador. And our heritage started. Way before 1960 number, Mr. Mayor, um, just respectfully. But, um, we have organizations in this room who are really uplifting and investing into our community here in Petaluma. Um, I mean, there's North Bay Organizing Project, who I, I didn't know was going to be here tonight, but they are doing incredible work, and I, I'd be remiss to not give them a huge shout out. and appreciate the work that they're doing to really uplift our most vulnerable in our Latino/Latine community that needs our support the most. But we also have Hugo here, who's from 10,000 Degrees, who is focused on educational attainment and educational excellence. A very important part of our Latin culture and community culture is to continue our education. We also have One of my bosses actually and board members of Los Cien, but in his day job, he works for Petaluma Health Center, a place where anyone can receive healthcare regardless of their immigration status, and they receive it with dignity. And Los Cien is in an environment where we are trying to develop leadership, and we do policy and advocacy, but we're all doing this together, and there's so many people in this room and organizations, we all have a role to play, and we can't do it without our elected officials. And I appreciate you honoring and respecting Hispanic Heritage Month, and please continue to invest in these resources and in the cultural celebrations that I know you have here in the city of Petaluma, and continue to uplift our community.
[36:53] Speaker 3: And you could always count on La Sien as a partner.
[36:56] Speaker 1: And we've appreciated the partnership with your wonderful City Manager Peggy Flynn and Mr.
[37:02] Speaker 3: Mayor.
[37:02] Speaker 1: Thank you very much for your continued support as well. With that being said, let's go party. Let's— where's the fiesta at?
[37:10] Speaker 3: All right, thank you so much.
[37:12] Speaker 1: Have a great day. And I don't think there's a better opportunity than right now to Note to the public that they should all stop by the Petaluma Historic Library and Museum and see the exhibit there on this topic, Belongings: What We Leave Behind and What We Take With Us, which is a lot of cultural stories that needed— need to be told. So stop by the museum. This brings us into our regular agenda for the evening. And, um, up front I want to note that we have removed item 12, or we'll be doing that in this action, regarding multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans, and we'll put that onto the next agenda. And I'm looking up and down the dais to see if any other changes to tonight's agenda are requested, and seeing none, we'll accept tonight's agenda by acclaim and move right into business. So the first item of business, as always, is general public comment. And per our regular procedures, during general public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction and not listed on the current agenda. Public comments that are limited— are limited to 3 minutes per person. But depending on the number of persons wishing to address the council, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than 20 minutes. As per our new procedures, new state law, we will now be accepting public comments via Zoom, and if we have, um, we'll be granting that in equal time to the persons in the room. If we don't have, uh, 10 and 10 speakers at 1 minute, we'll backfill down to more and more time and more and more in-house or Zoom depending on where the voices are. Um, we will hear the in-person comments first, and, um, I will call speakers to the podium, and once we've concluded, then we'll go to Zoom and talk to the folks from Zoom. Now, um, tonight, um, there is a little confusion, uh, in that, uh, some folks we have requested to speak about North Bay Animal Services, and we have an animal services item on our agenda. The animal service item on our agenda, number 17, is not about North Bay Animal Services. So anything regarding North Bay Animal Services is general public comment. And hopefully, as you turned in a card to speak, that, that was made clear. Um, I do want to say a little something about that before we delve into the matter, and that is that tonight the council is taking an important step forward by approving new contracts for both animal shelter operations and field services. This completes our transition away from North Bay Animal Services, but it is not the end of our work. We've acknowledged what went wrong, we have made changes, and now we need to make sure we learn from the experiences, strengthen our oversight, and provide the level of animal services our community expects. One of the clearest lessons from the experience is the need for greater transparency and immediate options for enforcement. When services required under a city contract are not being delivered, assurances that things will get better is not enough. We need clear reporting, measurable expectations, regular oversight, and actionability when those expectations aren't met. With NBAS, vaccinations, adoptions, reporting, census, and other basic responsibilities were not being completed as they should have been. And whatever the reasons, these are essential services, and the city has an obligation to be sure they are delivered. Our new contracts reflect what we have learned. They provide greater oversight and public accountability, including annual review. Those reviews will happen publicly so residents can see what services we're, we're receiving, how well they're being delivered, and what problems need to be addressed. And what the taxpayers are paying for. We're also making substantially greater investment in animal services. We had been paying North Bay Animal Services approximately $500,000 a year. Under the new arrangements, we expect to be spending approximately $1.5 million annually. That's a significant increase, and we expect that investment to produce significantly better service. And moving forward does not mean forgetting what happened. We have heard the concerns from members of the community about the potential misuse of funds. The city has an audit underway examining the records within our authority related to NBAS and its contract with Petaluma. Irregularities or information that should be reviewed by the county, law enforcement, regulators, taxing authorities, and any other appropriate agencies or institutions will be referred to them. We are not sweeping this under the rug. We understand that doing better going forward means ensuring accountability for what happened in the past. Where the city has authority, we are and will investigate. Where other agencies have authority, we will provide the information we have and ask them to investigate. The animal services provided over the past several years did not meet the standards Petaluma expects. We all agree on that. We have changed providers, we have strengthened our contracts, we're increasing our investment, and we are continuing the work of determining what happened and ensuring further investigation where warranted. Tonight is an important step forward, and the work continues. Our commitment is straightforward: humane and reliable services for our animals, transparency for the public, responsibility for taxpayer dollars and a system that earns and maintains the trust of this community. So with that, I'd like to have the clerk start the messaging for general public comment.
[43:50] Speaker 4: Yes, we do have—
[43:54] Speaker 3: we did receive 27 public comments ahead of the meeting, and we have 12 folks joining us on Zoom. And at this time, I will start a 30-second clock. During these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk If they have not already done so, and members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand. Those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand, and speaker requests that we receive after this time may not be accommodated.
[44:20] Speaker 1: We have 20 cards received for general public comment. And may I ask, do we have Zoom hands?
[44:50] Speaker 3: We have no Zoom hands.
[44:51] Speaker 1: No Zoom hands. So all 20 will, um, be heard, and it will be 1 minute per person on the Zoom cards.
[45:01] Speaker 3: And, um, oh, I'm sorry, we have one Zoom hand.
[45:04] Speaker 1: All right, well then we'll add that in and we'll still use— so I will not read the whole list. I will read your name and the next name, and that's how we'll proceed through this, starting with Jody Johnson, to be followed by Jennifer Boyle.
[45:19] Speaker 4: Some of the newest egregious mobile park updates: Capri residents had their 3rd arbitration August 28th, a decision not till October But September statements showed the amount of the ask and an increase in ground rent unlawfully without any award. Littlewoods, whose park owners are trying to close, brought in new units and excluded residents from the closure process after they did a bait and switch in a ground rent upon sale where they changed his closed escrow ground rent and added $700. Youngstown management testified at the senior park overlay trial and perjured themselves. Although the truth was already stipulated that they had crossed off real estate purchase agreements to say Youngstown was no longer a senior park. Fraud, fraud, fraud, and more.
[46:09] Speaker 1: Our next speaker is Jennifer Boyle, to be followed by Michael Vander, uh, Vanderporten. Thank you very much. We're moving to Michael VanderPorten, to be followed by Elena Feldman. Good evening, I'm Mike VanderPorten. I hope I have a little more time. I'm here to talk about $1.8 billion of local Sonoma County taxpayer money. In particular, I'm here to talk about Santa Rosa Junior College Bond AB, which is the biggest money grab ever, and you need to take a good look at it. I've got some handouts for you, you have them in front of you. This is set up in such a way that we will be paying $1.12 interest on every dollar borrowed. On the current bond, we pay $0.34 of interest on every dollar borrowed. So when you write a check in the future, $0.51 will go to interest because this is so poorly structured. And we, we could go ahead and we could do $400 million more of projects if this project was properly structured. This is a terrible money grab.
[47:21] Speaker 3: The decision they're making is to get the money now rather than do the right thing.
[47:25] Speaker 1: So I'm going to encourage you to vote no on Measure AB, send it back to the SRJC board, ask them for the response. Thank you very much for the comments. And moving forward at 1 minute, it goes so fast. Um, Elena Feldman, to be followed by Linda Evans.
[47:49] Speaker 3: My name is Ilana Feldman.
[47:51] Speaker 4: I'm a 25-year member of the Petaluma community, not just a place on a map, but a community with a shared pulse, all of our lives and purpose intertwined. Right now, our immigrant neighbors, the backbone of our community, live in constant fear of ICE, a rogue agency where due process violations and human rights abuses grow daily. But Petaluma's heart is strong. Talking with our neighbors about our non-cooperation with ICE ordinance, I have seen our community rally and over 32 local businesses and organizations endorse this ordinance from local spots like Mi Pueblo in the Central Market to our educators, Petaluma Kumon Math and Reading Centers, to our faith group, Temple B'nai Israel, and the Unitarian Universalists of Petaluma, whose mission is to transform through love and act with courage.
[48:41] Speaker 7: This is a time to love our neighbors and act with courage.
[48:44] Speaker 4: Please pass our non-cooperation with ICE ordinance. Thank you.
[48:48] Speaker 1: Thank you. Linda Evans, to be followed by Calvin Volantes.
[48:56] Speaker 4: I'm here tonight to deliver a letter from the Immigration Legal Resource Center that will detail some of the particular reasons that it's so important that you pass the non-cooperation ordinance. What the attorney from ILRC suggests is that we call it a welcoming cities ordinance, which I appreciated. But it's very important that we recognize this is not about adopting policies but actually implementing those policies, and that is what an ordinance will give guidance to the city of Petaluma to be able to do. The Attorney General guidelines for implementing SB 580 have been issued, and this ordinance will allow the City of Petaluma to be in compliance with the requirements of that law. So we really would appreciate this call to action for the City of Petaluma not to cooperate with ICE, which is a criminal organization.
[50:02] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Calvin Volantes, to be followed by Gina Garibo.
[50:13] Speaker 3: Hello, my name is Calvin. I'm a Petaluma resident once again advocating for a non-cooperation ordinance with ICE. I'd like to highlight one of the documents we sent to you today, which is a letter from Nicole Warwick, who is the director of Blue Zones Petaluma, a nonprofit focused on public health and longevity. While Blue Zones cannot take a position on the ordinance, this letter highlights the public health impact of increased immigration enforcement, noting the increased fear and uncertainty being seen in the families served by Blue Zones and their partners. This letter notes that chronic fear and anxiety are well known to lead to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. We believe a strong non-cooperation ordinance will help alleviate fear among the public by showing residents that the city has their back. The letter also notes the demand among community organizations for practical guidance that would enable them to serve communities effectively during times of heightened uncertainty. The requirement for trainings and publicized information in the draft we submitted at the last, uh, previous meeting will help provide the leadership and support these organizations are looking for.
[51:14] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[51:14] Speaker 1: Thank you. Gina Garaybo, um, to be followed by Tom Chamberlain.
[51:23] Speaker 3: Hi, my name is Gina Caribo.
[51:25] Speaker 4: I live here in Petaluma, and every day I work hard to build community as part of Migrant Justice in Action, an initiative with Norbay Organizing Project.
[51:34] Speaker 3: I am an immigrant, a brown woman who wants to call Petaluma home.
[51:39] Speaker 4: A couple of weeks ago, I had the honor to read the Spanish— in Spanish, the city proclamation that our mayor read during the opening of an exhibition at the Historic Museum of Petaluma. About immigrant stories.
[51:51] Speaker 2: My story is there too.
[51:53] Speaker 8: I really want, and want you to make those words real for every immigrant here in Petaluma.
[52:01] Speaker 4: I want you to feel—
[52:03] Speaker 9: I want to feel that I can also belong here.
[52:06] Speaker 4: I want to feel safe when I'm walking on the streets and when I am at any city property. I need, and I deserve, that every city employee and contractor knows how to do, what to do, and how to respond to any interaction with ICE to uplift immigrant rights and dignity.
[52:24] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Tom Chamberlain, to be followed by Monica Navarro.
[52:29] Speaker 3: Good evening. Tonight I'm here once again, unfortunately, about asleep at the wheel. This time, recommendation 6, the city to establish a pet licensing platform such as DocuPet. The city's response: the recommendation will not be implemented.
[52:48] Speaker 1: Following timeline: 10 May, grand jury report submitted to the city. 9 June, city executes a contract with Marin Humane to implement document pet. 20 July, council votes to reject recommendation number 6.
[53:03] Speaker 3: To the 5 council members who voted to reject recommendation number 6, please in the future do your homework better.
[53:10] Speaker 1: To the two who voted no, thank you.
[53:13] Speaker 3: Your stance shown warranted.
[53:17] Speaker 1: Thank you, Monica Navarro, to be followed by Andreas Hayes.
[53:25] Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Monica. I'm a teacher, and I came here to be the voice for the kids and especially for my community. As a teacher, I have witnessed their fall and seen the kids at school. I felt the anxiety and the stress the child experienced whenever the parents don't arrive on time to pick them up, especially the children in my community. As adults, we know we're having difficult times, so I implore you to please put on the shoes of the children. Whenever— so I implore you to put on the shoes of the children, sorry. Whenever they are 2, 3, 5, 10, or any other age, How would you feel if your parents came— never came to pick you up from school? How would you feel if your parents never were stopped at any taking away from you just because they need to go work, they need to go to the store? How would you feel as a child when you never saw your parents, siblings, and family again?
[54:29] Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
[54:31] Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.
[54:33] Speaker 1: Andrew Hayes, to be followed by Warren Dranett.
[54:39] Speaker 3: Good evening.
[54:39] Speaker 1: I'm very happy to hear that we're entering Disaster Preparedness Month because the winter of '26-'27 will likely be much wetter than we've ever seen before. An El Niño that is shaping up to be could easily cause catastrophic flooding throughout California and Sonoma County in particular. Planning, strategizing, and acting now could mitigate or minimize damage in the very near future. Our city should emphasize outreach to those living in susceptible areas. Mailers should be sent explaining in plain terms flood damage risk and explaining options for flood insurance. Municipal crews should survey waterways and clear out as much overgrowth as possible before the rains hit. Many Petaluma creeks and rivers are choked with willow and blackberry. Which will greatly impede the flow. Citizens should look at FEMA maps, which are searchable by address, and assess their particular flood risk.
[55:39] Speaker 3: Make a plan. Thank you very much.
[55:41] Speaker 1: Thank you. Warren Drannett, to be followed by Dexie Mondragon. Good evening, Honorable Mayor, City Council members, and dedicated city staff. My name is Warren Drannett, and I'm speaking this evening on behalf of the Trestle Promenade Now steering committee. The Trestle Promenade Now campaign is focused on rehabilitate— rehabilitating Petaluma's historic riverfront trestle as a safe, welcoming public promenade. The campaign is led by a volunteer steering committee who understands that the first step to creating success is to create a unified community vision on how to transform this deteriorated railroad trestle. We will create this vision through an inclusive community process led by a nationally recognized community consulting firm working in partnership with the city. Our first step has been to raise $50,000 to support the visioning process. We are pleased to report that we have met our fundraising goal. We understand the contract with the consulting firm is coming before the city on September 28th. We think this contract will be worth your support. Thank you for your attention very much. Jaxie Mondragon to be followed by Sale White.
[57:09] Speaker 4: My name is Jaxie Mondragon, and I'm here on behalf of the Wine Country Young Democrats.
[57:12] Speaker 3: Thank you so much if you attended our fundraiser this Saturday.
[57:15] Speaker 4: I also want to thank the police chief for the detailed responses to our questions.
[57:18] Speaker 9: Thank you so.
[57:18] Speaker 4: much for your transparency. I'm still hoping to hear from the city attorney, Eric Danley, about some questions we had regarding the ordinance.
[57:24] Speaker 3: We hope to have time to understand some of the changes that will be made, translate it, and discuss it with the community to see if we find it to be acceptable.
[57:30] Speaker 4: A proposed ordinance would put in place legally mandated procedures for how city employees are trained on policies surrounding ICE, how city resources are managed, requires contractor compliance, and requires an annual report about the inquiries made by ICE. This structurally comprehensive ordinance would be more difficult to overturn than any of the resolutions previously passed by the city. Lastly, I wanted to speak on the danger that ICE represents for our democracy. Legitimizing ICE as a law enforcement agency when they have been caught on camera detaining a political candidate, tackling our U.S. senator, terrorizing our communities across the country, and even murdering several people is a vivid reminder of the gradual erosion of our American freedoms and constitutional rights. We must stand up to injustice. I trust this council will do the right thing. Thank you.
[58:11] Speaker 1: Thank you. Sale White, to be followed by Chantel Rogers.
[58:16] Speaker 4: Hello, um, this comment is about the city's response to requests for public records, and I'm going to kind of diverge here from what I wrote down because I also kind of want to respond to the mayor's statement that apparently now North Animal Services is very much under investigation for all the things that people have been concerned about for the past 8 years. Which the city seemed to not be interested in until approximately between March and July, um, some, sometime in there. So I've been actually making a lot of records requests so we can find out more about that. And in particular, I requested the records that North Bay— the electronic records that North Bay Animal Services had that contained all the animal information and all the financial data. That request was denied because it was claimed that there was an active criminal investigation related to all of those records. So then I made a request for that police report, and they— the police very kindly did fulfill that one request out of the 6 that I've made. And the police report was a report, not an active criminal investigation.
[59:18] Speaker 1: We the public need to know what happened, and I need those records.
[59:22] Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
[59:22] Speaker 1: Thank you. Chantel Rogers, to be followed by Linda Evans.
[59:32] Speaker 4: Good evening. Um, so I was gone all summer and I noticed there was a lot of hubbub about the new roundabout in, um, on Rainier.
[59:41] Speaker 3: Um, and I was in a place that has roundabouts at just about every intersection.
[59:46] Speaker 4: I love them, but I didn't understand what was going on with that. So when I came back, I went to take a look, um, specifically because it said they had speed bumps, and I have never ever in my life experienced a speed—
[59:59] Speaker 7: a roundabout with speed bumps going into it.
[60:02] Speaker 4: And sure enough, there are speed bumps over there, and there's a sign, you know, saying that there's a speed bump coming in. But what there is not is a sign saying that there's a roundabout coming up. There's no signs on the Rainier roundabout, you know, with the little circle and then the reduced, um, uh, speed limit like 15 or whatever. Every other circle that I encountered in Petaluma has that, and it seems It seems to me that if we want people to get used to them, they should all be the same.
[60:33] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[60:33] Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, Linda Evans, I think, spoke. So, um, moving to Ed Hines, it's our next speaker, to be followed by Tim Porteous. Mr. Mayor, City Manager, and Council, my name is Ed Hines. I'm a local realtor of 27 years. And I have a mobile. You've you know aware of this mobile home issue, but I'm selling a mobile home in Capri Villa number five ten. And I had it just so you know one instance. I had a buyer come in and make an offer, and I sent this application in with helping the buyer to get their space rent, and it was seven oh eight. The rent stabilization says it should stay the same. We got a response back from. Who was it? Hold on a minute.
[61:36] Speaker 3: From Harmony, Emily Harmony, to raise the space rent to $1,495. I sent her a copy of a letter saying we do have pet limit rent stabilization, so she called back and said, sorry, I made a typo.
[61:51] Speaker 1: But scared the buyer away. She left.
[61:54] Speaker 3: Talk gets around town, and it makes it really difficult. So thank you for the rent stabilization ordinance.
[61:59] Speaker 1: Thank you, Tim Portis, to be followed by Gabby Ortiz.
[62:10] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[62:12] Speaker 4: Thank you, everybody. You guys still.
[62:16] Speaker 1: You've been fighting.
[62:17] Speaker 4: You've had to listen to a lot of stuff in that room.
[62:22] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[62:25] Speaker 1: I have been waiting to hear what you have to say. I will wait, and I will be very glad to hear words from you.
[62:33] Speaker 4: I will support you.
[62:36] Speaker 1: I will support you.
[62:38] Speaker 3: I can only support 2 of you, but you are the 2.
[62:43] Speaker 1: And that hullabaloo that have been thrown at you by liars, exaggerators, ignorant people that don't know what's going on. Some of these crazy accusations, man, I hope you have that turtle back because they're useless.
[63:02] Speaker 3: And some of the runners against you?
[63:05] Speaker 1: No. I will do whatever I can.
[63:09] Speaker 6: I promise.
[63:10] Speaker 1: Thank you. Gabby Ortiz, to be followed by Sierra Morantz.
[63:15] Speaker 4: To the honorable Petaluma City Council, non-cooperation with ICE is not only effective leadership, it's a moral imperative. I stand before you as a proud daughter of immigrants, an opportunity made possible by my mother's sacrifices, and I've seen firsthand what immigration enforcement can do to families.
[63:37] Speaker 3: A close friend of mine works here in Petaluma and commutes every day while working 3 jobs to support her family.
[63:42] Speaker 4: Her father was targeted by ICE in Southern California while working for—
[63:45] Speaker 3: looking for work, deported and separated from his wife and children.
[63:48] Speaker 4: Now, as the oldest child, my friend carries the burden of helping support the family he was forced to leave behind.
[63:54] Speaker 3: This is not political to them.
[63:55] Speaker 9: It's personal.
[63:56] Speaker 3: It's a father missing from his children's lives and a daughter forced to carry responsibilities that should have never been hers.
[64:00] Speaker 4: It's easy to love Mexican culture, the food, music, traditions, and celebrations, But culture does not exist without people.
[64:06] Speaker 7: You cannot celebrate the culture while treating the people who built it as disposable.
[64:10] Speaker 4: If you love the culture, respect the people.
[64:12] Speaker 7: I urge Petaluma to protect immigrant families and adopt this ordinance. Viva Mexico, cabrones!
[64:18] Speaker 1: Thank you, Sierra Moran. Should be followed by Nina Zito.
[64:21] Speaker 4: I put mine in for item number 17. Oh, did the second one get put in?
[64:27] Speaker 1: It will be transferred over to 17. Okay, and, and Nina Zito.
[64:48] Speaker 4: Mr. Mayor, Council, City Manager, public, what an exceptional opportunity we have. Um, thank you for the resolutions and, uh, focus on animal issues. What an exceptional opportunity we have to again have an Animal Services Advisory Group. And between parks and roads and seniors, um, there's so much in the way of education and service that can be accomplished when the wisdom and goodwill of the community is brought to bear in this way. Thank you.
[65:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. And that completes our in-room comments on general public comment. We'll go to Zoom now.
[65:40] Speaker 7: Our only Zoom speaker is Lori Alderman.
[65:47] Speaker 3: Lori, if you could unmute yourself and make your comment.
[65:51] Speaker 7: Hi, can you hear me?
[65:53] Speaker 9: Yes, go ahead.
[65:54] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[65:54] Speaker 7: Okay, um, I just wanted to speak to This— you must not, um, value your Petaluma citizens because 1-minute Zoom, 1 minute is not normal. It's supposed to be 3 minutes for— is considered reasonable, and 5 minutes is that. You guys are not more important than these citizens, and limiting public comment to People running up there and running back is ridiculous. I do appreciate Zoom access. I have been doing it throughout the the cities in Sonoma County.
[66:40] Speaker 3: I was the first in City of Napa.
[66:42] Speaker 7: I do appreciate following SB 707.
[66:46] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[66:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. And that closes general public comment for the evening and moves us on to our consent calendar— no, moves us on to council comments. Getting ahead of myself, I apologize. And so with that, I'd like to invite our council to weigh in, and I'll start with Councilmember Schribbs tonight. Okay, just a few items. Yes, I do believe we have an ICE non-cooperative ordinance coming up. and in meetings we can maybe hear a little bit more about the process on that. I am currently walking the district. I'm up for reelection, and I've been around the Rainier area recently, this last week, and I heard a lot about it. So I'll be sharing that with the, uh, the traffic engineer. There's several, shall we say, recommendations for improvement, so I'll be doing that down the road here. I went to a meeting about BayREN, who is a 9-county Bay Area government organization, and they're announcing there's going to be a program called BAMBE, B-A-M-B-E program, which is for, uh, to help multi-family properties switch over from gas to electric. So a lot of money is going to come in, rebates and, and so forth, and pretty large amounts, uh, thousands and thousands of dollars per unit, uh, to do the conversion. So that's what's coming in. And just so that folks, uh, are living in a multi-family unit Um, tell your landlords to be paying attention to this because there's money coming their way to help do these conversions. Um, there was another workshop attended on the battery storage at the Monterey Fire. There was some science background that was delivered, and it did turn out that there's large amounts of cobalt and nickel that have been spread throughout a large region, and they were just announcing that. they were doing the scientific studies on large plumes and where it moved and how it moved, and they were able to model all that. So there is some contamination that's been documented now about battery storages. In another session with the watershed, they were talking about planning for water resiliency. And so they had an expert talk about resiliency and planning. And so there's a big movement toward adaptive risk management. And even though we have a specific thing that we're heading toward, we want to do this, this, this, but actually we also need to prevent failures. And there's lots of unknowns coming at us in many different directions. And so it's even more important now than it has been in the past to actually be prepared for those troubles that are coming. And then one of the topics that was not, I think, topic 12, which was going to be discussed today, but, um, it's going to be tabled. Um, that is from the county. And just as a reminder, uh, just, just so folks are aware, the county lists that the highest risk of, of trouble coming is from earthquakes and wildfires as the dominant things with high risk, other things at medium and low risk, and that Petaluma in particular is not as, um, hazardous for wildfires as some of the other cities. And that earthquakes are still our number 1 hazard. And, and for— so we heard about preparedness today, and that is the number 1 hazard we need to be prepared for that's coming down the line. So, just as a reminder, other, other things would be drought, extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme wind, flood, dam failure, landslide, sea level rise, tsunamis. And of course, I just heard some more about the Super El Niño that's coming in, and So we need to be prepared for large volumes of water. We don't know where it's going to hit, but when it does hit, we can expect flooding way above and beyond the 100-year level, maybe the 1,000-year level. And it may happen this year. We'll see what happens, but we need to be prepared for that to come. Okay, so those are my quickie on, on the 4 months of meetings, or 4 weeks of meetings. Great reminder. Thank you, Councilmember Quint. Thank you. Uh, in solidarity with our general public comment speakers, I'm going to try to keep this under a minute. I want to thank the Keep the Ice Out of Petaluma supporters who showed up to advocate and offer my support to that cause. At the April 6th council meeting, we held a workshop on potential Petaluma Transit service changes in response to changing financial conditions. Those changes were implemented on August 10th, and the changes went smoothly. Petaluma Transit staff have held a number of open community feedback sessions to gather input, and I, along with a few of my colleagues, attended one of those sessions on September 9th. Tune in tomorrow night's TAC meeting if you're interested in the outcome of the community engagement and an update on those changes to date. The meeting starts at 5, and it'll be an abbreviated meeting, will end at 6. There's a Petaluma Transit scavenger hunt coming up on September 19th. Uh, where, uh, that should be a lot of fun. Um, uh, I was looking where it's going to be at, but you can find information online. It goes from 1 to 4, and Mayor, I think you may be, uh, involved in that speaking or in some degree or another. PBAC on August 5th, we received an update, provided input on the Howard Street and the citywide active transport transportation wayfinding projects.
[72:11] Speaker 3: And I got to attend a number of events since our last meeting.
[72:15] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[72:15] Speaker 1: It's been 6 weeks. There's a lot of events, right? Council Member Nowell.
[72:20] Speaker 4: Um, in the light of the, the night, I am going to save you some boring, uh, groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting, um, information. But I want to thank the mobile home tenants for being here. Don't give up. We're, we're fighting. Um, it's a legal battle, but we're behind you 100%. And if you have any questions at Littlewoods, it's in my district, please reach out. Um, I've heard a lot of things and I've passed it on to the— our legal team. Um, but let everybody know that we have your backs. On, um, one of my meeting liaison commitments is for the Homeless Coalition And they are many Zoom meetings because there's like 60 participants and they're like 3 hours long. And one of them was on our Measure O, and I was very proud and kind of was— I stood up a little or sat up a little taller in my chair during my Zoom meeting when it was our own mayor with this comment, um, on the screen. Measure O is a game changer for Sonoma County. As a member of the oversight board, I've been firsthand how the fundraising supports vivid, vital mental health services across our community at a time of a critical need. Measure O represents an important step forward for mental health care in our county, and our own mayor is on the Measure O oversight committee. So I want to thank him, and if you get an opportunity, it's in English and in Spanish about Measure O. And I would like to have it maybe on a future agenda for, um, Nolan Sullivan from our Sonoma County Health Services to come and give the council and the public a little info on Measure O. We have a lot of mental health issues in our community, and I would like those to be addressed. And one of them is the Lumine Ice So I hope that comes to the council so I can support it. Thank you.
[74:32] Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Councilmember Barnacle. Yeah, first I just want to say thank you for raising awareness of the flood prevention. I think we've done a lot of education about fire prevention and preparedness, and I think we are looking at probably a new hazard than we have seen in quite a while. So I think I do support getting more worded out on that.
[74:52] Speaker 4: That.
[74:53] Speaker 1: Um, I have had one— well, I've had multiple meetings, but the one that was most consequential to this body was the Planning Commission. We had our first workshop on the zoning code update, um, a few weeks ago. Uh, we looked at, um, a whole host of things. I'm not going to go into all the details. Um, for the council members who are concerned about data centers, um, there's, uh— we basically outlined a belt and suspenders prohibition on that, um, that will basically define data centers, and we'll be able to weigh in on what the definition is. We will prohibit them in all the land uses, and in the definition that we have, the proposed definition, it specifically says data centers are a prohibited use. So hopefully that meets everybody's needs. We also looked at, um, really the, the focus of the— this segment is on small lot housing and small lot housing and our business permitting processes. Our staff did a listening session with commercial brokers, and one of the eye-popping things that they said was that 3 in 4 deals fall apart as soon as someone hears that there's a conditional use permit involved. And so, one of the big things that we're doing on the business permitting side is trying to really minimize the need for conditional use permits and then encouraging ancillary uses. So that if you own an art gallery, you don't have to get a second permit to do art classes, those sorts of things. So those are the things that we're really tackling with the zoning code update. We have another meeting tomorrow night to go into the details and look at some of the real specifics of the policy. And we've broken the, the public hearing into 2 meetings so that staff have a chance to implement the recommendations from the first meeting.
[76:44] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[76:45] Speaker 1: So that's it. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Cater Thompson.
[76:49] Speaker 4: Thank you, and I am looking forward to the ICE, uh, non-cooperative agreement coming back on the 28th. Um, I had my SCTCA meeting today, which is Sonoma County Transit Climate Action, and last week we took a bus ride. Actually, I just met them in Petaluma at our station down in Petaluma at the Smart Station, but there's going to be 3 buses in the morning from 6:17, 6:49, and 7:21 coming to Petaluma from Sonoma. And so they'll be able to use the SmartLine. And then, uh, at 4:26, 4:58, and 5:30 in the evening, there'll be buses taking you back to—
[77:32] Speaker 1: um, actually, it's— yeah, it's till 6:10 PM going back to Sonoma.
[77:37] Speaker 4: And so we're trying to really connect Sonoma and the rural areas that are not on the SMART line so they can use, um, the SMART train to get to work. And so this is a great thing.
[77:48] Speaker 1: And so we, we had actually a day and we got—
[77:51] Speaker 4: took the tour, went on the SMART train, and then we took the bus and we went to Sonoma, and then from Sonoma we drove home. But it's, um, it's a great opportunity and we're trying to actually do more of these opportunities throughout the county so more people can use other means of transportation besides driving. And today I had my— actually, I'm having my SMART meeting on Wednesday, but at the last SMART meeting, the pedestrian and bicycle trail from Penn Grove to Cotati has been funded with $2.1 million, and that's to start that process. And it's a complicated segment. So we're going to go ahead and study it, and hopefully that'll be done within a few years. But for the mayor, the 500 feet that we keep talking about from Lakeville getting onto Washington Street is going to be done this year, and that's $800,000 for that segment. And you've been waiting for a long time, Kevin. And I think it's really great that this is going to happen for Petaluma. And it's safer because it was really dangerous riding your bike on Lakeville getting to Washington Street. And I think I'm just going to leave it at that for today.
[79:08] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Vice Mayor.
[79:11] Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming out and speaking. I'll keep it to recent activities. So for the Airport Commission, we continue to look at fair compensation to the airport for non-airport uses. have from different departments at the city and the city. That's been going back and forth, and I think maybe the next time we'll, we'll have it done. Our new airport manager is getting his legs, and he's off to a strong start, and he's, uh, you know, assumed control of operations and is exploring new ways in which the airport can be more successful. So I think we're very lucky to have him. Last weekend, I attended the Petaluma Education Foundation fundraiser. They raise funds for their Fund the Future program, which they try to raise about $300,000 a year. It goes directly into our school system from kindergarten all the way up to 12th grade. They raised almost $200,000 the other night, so they got about 2/3 of their, their goals in one evening. So that was a really great cause. You know, anybody that can support that and them in the future, that's a great thing to do. And for them, every little bit helps because it goes directly to our students and their futures. And then it's also been brought to my attention that the majority of tenants at the fairgrounds their contracts are up in the next few months. And so I'm hoping that staff can make that, uh, bring, bring that to council a little bit more so that we can understand what their contracts might look like in the future. You know, we're, we're trying to make an effort here to, uh, you know, do the Fairgrounds Master Plan and really make sure that the Fairgrounds, you know, stays a place for the community. And I think those tenants are a huge part of it. So I think that, I think that's something that the council should participate in as much as possible and see what's going to happen there. Thank you.
[80:56] Speaker 1: Thank you. Like I said, it's been a long time. A lot of things happened in the last 6 weeks. I do want to thank and give a shout out to Councilmember Cater Thompson for organizing the Corona Overpass Improvement conversation on August 5th, right after our meeting, and that's likely to bring federal money into Petaluma for improvements there. And We have our homeless coordinating meetings that, uh, it's, it's a constant effort here. Um, and, um, also the skate park is still on track. And if you haven't seen the construction and the, the art meeting was recently, and, um, it's good to see skaters engage in more of that. Um, I also had a chance to tour the Petaluma Historic Railroad Museum, which, if you haven't done that, that's an opportunity we have, uh, heritage, uh, staffers who, who have all the records of every railroad that ever happened, right? And it's over the North Coast, and it's right here in Petaluma. I also attended Casa Grande, the Petaluma City School District's Casa Grande campus theater improvements. And I just want to remind everybody, attendance at meetings is what makes things happen. You know, the meetings— when an agency holds a meeting like that, or when the SCAPE meeting is held, or when this meeting is held. It's just really nice to see faces and voices in the room. And with that, I will pass it over to our city manager.
[82:21] Speaker 7: Thank you, Mayor, Council, community. Thank you for bringing up the FEMA flyer. The city participates in what's called the Community Rating System as part of FEMA, so we can discount flood insurance rates for people that live in those areas. And we do put out a flyer every year to kind of, in both English and Spanish, to let folks know flood prevention tips and storm prep.
[82:52] Speaker 4: And also our staff are working on our stream maintenance program.
[82:56] Speaker 7: So every year we do clear out the channels to, to reduce flood—
[83:02] Speaker 4: flooding.
[83:02] Speaker 9: Thank you.
[83:04] Speaker 7: risk. So thank you for that. And then, um, we are—
[83:08] Speaker 4: staff are actually in the process of extending those leases for our fairgrounds tenants and happy to update council when we reach negotiations with, with each of those tenants.
[83:20] Speaker 7: So thank you very much.
[83:21] Speaker 1: Thank you. And that brings us to our consent calendar for the evening, and I look up and down the dais at the beginning of the consent calendar and note, you know, noting there are 11 items on it. Is, uh, is there any council member who wishes to, uh, address one separately?
[83:40] Speaker 3: I'd like to pull item 11.
[83:42] Speaker 1: Item 11. All right, so, um, the way we do a consent calendar is we do, um, all the, uh, public comment on, on things, and, and then we bring it back up and we deal with, uh, items 1 through 10 and 11 separately as requested. So I'm going to pass to our city clerk right now, see where we are on public comment.
[84:08] Speaker 3: Uh, we have 11 folks joining us on the Zoom. We did not receive any comments ahead of time on the consent calendar, but at this moment I can start a 30-second clock. Um, during these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards Oh, thank you. To my desk, uh, and those online should raise their hand. If you're attending via phone, press star 9 to attend, uh, to speak, uh, and speaker requests received after this time may not be accommodated. I don't see any hands and I have not received any cards, so—
[84:49] Speaker 1: No hands, no cards, so We've opened public comment and we've closed it, and we're moving now to, um, the council. And, um, let's see, let's, uh, uh, go to item 11 and, and invite the vice mayor in. Your comment.
[85:05] Speaker 3: Thank you. So after reviewing item 11, you know, it made me think about, you know, when I've been on outside bodies and I have to, you know, vote the way that the city would like me to. I always have to do that, to vote the way that the city council decides that we're going to vote. And so, you know, with, with this item being the Cal Cities Conference and electing the city manager and city attorney to be, um, our voting body for that, you know, it— we don't even know what they're going to be voting on. So we've given them no direction, and at the same time, they're neither elected officials. And so for myself, I don't, I don't feel like that's an appropriate balance, and I don't know that we should be delegating Good point.
[85:48] Speaker 1: So may I ask the city manager to weigh in on what voting matters are anticipated? Is it extensive or limited?
[85:55] Speaker 7: Actually, I'm going to ask our city attorney because he sits on the Cal Cities board.
[85:59] Speaker 1: I think there's supposed to be one resolution.
[86:04] Speaker 2: I don't—
[86:05] Speaker 1: I haven't— and I think we may be anticipating another. There's an opportunity for what are called floor resolutions to be presented. There's a process for that to the membership, the voting delegates, and it's a very tight time frame for that. They can be— I think they can be submitted as late as Thursday evening, and they get a vote on the Friday morning session. So I apologize, I don't have detailed information on that. What I can tell you is, in my capacity Um, as a member of the, the Board of Legal California Cities, and I have that role as a past president of the City Attorney's Department, um, and the current, um, representative of the City Attorney's Department on the board, is that, um, just like the council members when they serve on the board, um, the focus is on, um, local control. And, and, and when I speak at the board meetings and when we debate that those are the positions I take in support of local control. So we have the maximum amount of latitude for our city council as the elected representatives of the city to chart the course of this community. So that's— that reflects, um, the kind of participation I have and what the board are charged with. Um, and I'd be happy to provide further information to the council, um, based on the materials that are being readied for the annual conference. Thank you. Any other council member wish to weigh in? Council Member Quint? Are there any other council members that want to go or be considered?
[87:43] Speaker 4: Well, I'm going to be down there, but I have to be home Thursday night, and so I had— and the voting is usually on a Friday, but I can review everything and then determine what's going to be voted on.
[87:55] Speaker 1: Yeah, but do you want to go and be considered as a voting delegate? I'm just curious because if no one else is going and wants to be there to vote, then that weighs into the decision.
[88:06] Speaker 4: Well, usually then the city manager or the city attorney can vote for me. Okay, so, so we'll go over the resolutions, what needs to be voted on, and— but sometimes we don't get them until like the night before.
[88:25] Speaker 1: Yeah, but my question, my question is Do you want? Do you want to be? Do you want us to vote for you to be the voting delegate?
[88:32] Speaker 4: I'm not going to be there Friday morning. Okay. I'm leaving Thursday night to come home. So that's why the city attorney or city manager would take my place. That's perfectly normal.
[88:46] Speaker 1: Council Member Schrebs. Yeah, since you mentioned that local control might be a particular issue. I'm not sure if the council might want to have a direction for that in one way or the other, given state versus local control on items. So is there— well, is there any opportunity for us to learn about what the resolutions are before the vote in any way so that we might be able to weigh in? And might I ask also, between now and the conference, there's no additional meeting for us to gather our thoughts. This is, I think, what we're heading into, is, um, do we believe the city manager and, and the city attorney have the interests of the council well enough in hand that we authorize them on this basis? And, uh, like you say, if things come from the floor, even, even if it wasn't a city council member, they would be voting on their own idea of the council or individual decision-making at the time. So I have confidence in the motion that's proposed. Councilman Barnacle, as long as we're supporting things that support local control and, um, oppose unfunded mandates, um, I mean, those are the two big things that I feel like come up at Cal Cities. And so as long as you're gonna, you know, keep that as your sort of North Star lunges, then I support it. And if you have questions, consult with Janice, um, while you're down there, and I trust your judgment.
[90:15] Speaker 3: And I, I can read the resolution title if it will be helpful. Um, please, the one that's there: A Resolution of the General Assembly of the League of California Cities calling for a working group to consider a state constitutional amendment or other form of initiative to ensure final local authority over housing and land use decisions.
[90:36] Speaker 1: That's it. Seems like something we support.
[90:41] Speaker 4: Okay.
[90:42] Speaker 3: We have no supporting— I mean, there's— we've had no time to review that though.
[90:46] Speaker 1: Understood. So— Can I make a motion to—
[90:52] Speaker 8: You may.
[90:52] Speaker 1: Forward the items. So we have a motion, and do we need a second here?
[90:57] Speaker 5: Second.
[90:57] Speaker 1: We have a motion by Quint, the second by Barnickle, and I'd like a roll call vote, please.
[91:05] Speaker 4: Barnacle.
[91:06] Speaker 1: Hi.
[91:06] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson.
[91:07] Speaker 4: Yes. DeCarli.
[91:09] Speaker 3: Is this item 11 or 1 through 10?
[91:11] Speaker 1: 11.
[91:12] Speaker 4: 11.
[91:12] Speaker 1: Let's clarify the motion, please. That's item 11. Clarifying to move item 11 for— Thank you. And the second stands at item 11. Councilmember Barnacle. For 11. Second stands. Yeah, thank you. Good clarification. And where were we on the roll call vote?
[91:28] Speaker 4: Barnickle was aye.
[91:29] Speaker 7: Cater-Thompson, aye.
[91:30] Speaker 4: DiCarli?
[91:31] Speaker 3: No.
[91:31] Speaker 7: Okay.
[91:33] Speaker 3: Now?
[91:33] Speaker 2: Yes.
[91:34] Speaker 1: Quint?
[91:35] Speaker 3: Yes. Schribbs?
[91:37] Speaker 1: Yes.
[91:38] Speaker 3: McDonald?
[91:39] Speaker 9: Yes.
[91:39] Speaker 7: Motion carries 6 to 1.
[91:41] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[91:42] Speaker 1: Um, now we'll move to 1 through 10. Uh, any comment on 1 through 10 or a motion?
[91:47] Speaker 6: So moved. Second.
[91:50] Speaker 1: We have a motion by Barnickle, a second by Cater-Thompson, and a roll call vote, please.
[91:54] Speaker 7: Barnacle?
[91:55] Speaker 1: Aye.
[91:56] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson?
[91:57] Speaker 2: Yes.
[91:57] Speaker 4: DiCarli?
[91:58] Speaker 3: Yes. Now?
[92:00] Speaker 4: Yes.
[92:01] Speaker 10: Quint?
[92:01] Speaker 4: Yes.
[92:02] Speaker 1: Schribbs? Yes.
[92:03] Speaker 3: McDonald?
[92:04] Speaker 4: Yes.
[92:04] Speaker 3: Motion carries unanimously.
[92:06] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And, um, that brings us to item 12, which is a resolution adopting the applicable portions of the 2026 Sonoma County— nope, that's the one we moved on. Keeping up fast tonight. Okay, so we, we deleted that from the agenda, 12, and we're moving to 13, which is 2nd reading of an ordinance, uh, 2932, the City Council of the City of Petaluma, amending the Scott Ranch Planned Unit Development Standards to rescind prohibiting pools and to add a table of land use residential district swimming pool, hot tub, spa as permitted, subject to specific use standards. under implementing zoning ordinance section 7.080. And to help us with this, we have Mike Janousek, senior planner.
[92:54] Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor McDonnell and council members. I'm Mike Janousek. I'm a senior planner consulting with M Group, and this is the second reading for the PUD amendment to allow swimming pools as a permitted accessory use at Scott Ranch. Because the first reading of the ordinance was not a unanimous vote. We are back here this evening for the 2nd reading. It is a full public hearing. That said, I do not have a formal presentation prepared for this evening, but I did want to note a couple things. The first is there's additional discussion on the issues resulting in no votes in the staff report, pages 4 through 6. These topics include The pool prohibition source, native landscaping, the park component of the PUD, noise, geotechnical review. And also want to note that this item was noticed by mail, August Courier, and onsite posting 10 days in advance on September 4th. No public comments have been received prior to tonight's hearing. Um, and I'm available to answer questions. Um, if you want to dive into any of the discussion topics, the applicant's also in attendance, um, from the home builder Davidon and is available as well. Thank you.
[94:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, to council, any questions on this? And, uh, seeing none, um, let's go to public comment. I'll invite the clerk in to read the public comment messaging.
[94:34] Speaker 3: Yes, we have 12 people online in the Zoom. We did not receive any new comments on this item, um, and at this time I will start a 30-second clock. During these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk if they have not already done so. Members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand. Those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand. Speaker requests received after these 30 seconds may not be accommodated. I see one hand up so far. I have not received any cards. Okay, that was 30 seconds. We do have one, uh, remote speaker.
[95:21] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Not having anyone in-house, let's go directly to our Zoom participant.
[95:29] Speaker 10: Great.
[95:29] Speaker 4: S. Kirks. Yes, good evening. Susan Kirks. I would just like to continue to express my strong opposition to the way this was managed, to how it was brought forward to the Planning Commission, to the council liaison's comments. Thank you. I just want to make a comment about how we shouldn't be preventing kids who need swimming pools from having them in this luxury home development where you will now have a developer with the opportunity, with your action, to put in 28 swimming pools in that luxury house development. It goes completely against everything that was discussed when this was approved with the park extension, which I, by the way, opposed, uh, because of the sensitivity of that wild land, which has now been completely devastated and ruined. And I just think you are a very irresponsible body of decision makers who are supposed to represent the best interest of the community and particularly our environment. It is really wrong what is being done. So I am just expressing my continued opposition to this new ordinance allowing swimming pools with those homes.
[97:02] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[97:06] Speaker 6: And thank you.
[97:07] Speaker 1: That concludes our That concludes our public comment on the item. Close this public comment. I'll bring it back up to the council for any council comments or input or motion. Well, I just—
[97:23] Speaker 4: I'll make a comment. Just that you said 28 homes that are built, they have backyards, and originally pools weren't allowed, I think because of the drought and the drought. And so now they requested if they could put pools in. The homes are built, there's backyards, there's fences around them, and I will make that motion, or I'll, yeah, make the motion.
[97:48] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[97:49] Speaker 1: Let's, let's hold the second for a heartbeat here. Um, Vice Mayor DiCarli.
[97:55] Speaker 3: Um, I just want to be consistent from the last meeting and say that this is kind of a— this undermines our entitlement process. You know, it wasn't that pools weren't allowed. They removed it from the equation and now they're trying to add it back in. And so part of my qualm with this whole thing is that, you know, we talk about making homes more affordable up here all the time, and adding this to the equation makes those homes more expensive. And that only benefits the developer doing it. You know, anybody that wants a pool could go in after the fact and apply for one. And with our permits being as streamlined as they are now, Should be a pretty easy process to do. So that's why I feel that this, this is not a good idea, and it only benefits the developer, not our community. And so I don't think we should be supporting this, and I won't.
[98:43] Speaker 1: I just want to make one comment. Um, I went up to Councilmember Peter Thompson.
[98:49] Speaker 4: I went to the developer, the development, after, you know, the meeting last time. Most of the homes are sold, so they're not raising the cost of the homes.
[98:58] Speaker 3: They're already expensive.
[99:00] Speaker 4: And they're not raising the cost. So I don't know.
[99:02] Speaker 3: I think they may have been—
[99:03] Speaker 1: This is not— this is— let me recognize each of the council members who wishes to speak at the completion of a prior council member's comments. Council Member Barnickle. So I'll second the motion, um, but I'll say that if a homeowner— if we don't do this and a homeowner wants to put in a pool, they're going to pay the cost. So that means that, um, we are, uh, The, the developer is shouldering the cost to get the zoning and— or the, the land use entitlements in place so that a pool could come forward. Uh, otherwise, said homeowner is going to have to do it. So it's, it's not like, um, they can just come in and get a streamlined permit. They can get a streamlined permit now because we're going to vote on this and it's going to pass, but they couldn't otherwise. So just to make that clear. Council Member Schribbs. Um, yes, I did go over to the development myself and ask these questions. Um, I looked at the what would be called backyards and where they're located and how they're situated. And just to reiterate what I said last time, only so there was 5, 5 homes that already wanted to have pools. And my understanding, what I was told by the salesperson, is those folks would pay for the addition of the pools being put in there. So that needs to be clarified, a statement as to whether or not who's going to pay for these pools. And these are going to be extra expensive pool constructions because they're on, I would say, fragile hillsides, because the hills were completely remolded tremendously. If you go out there, very steep hills completely bulldozed in. So it's not like it's natural soil that these things are going into. So So, um, so I have a lot of concerns that, um, whether leakage and, and the actual soils on, on these, whether to mean to have these pools there. Also, we talked about the, the rationale why we would— why pools were not repulled. It wasn't just for, oh, it's, it's, it's, it's a drought and no water is allowed. There was a large discussion about, um, uh, being ecologically minded and sensitive for these homes to be next to this wildland habitat. And so that was a large part of that discussion and agreements, uh, in the communications. So adding these pools is, is basically a, a nice thing for the developer to do for the particular homeowners, everything. But I think I would— I'll go with this, what we said earlier, um, no pools in this area, uh, at this point in time. So I'm going to be voting no on this.
[101:37] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[101:38] Speaker 1: Councilmember Quint? I could be wrong, but I seem to recall from the staff report on the first reading of this ordinance that there wasn't really anything in writing that talked about why it existed. It was kind of like a mystery. So in terms of, you know, deep public debate on the issue, I don't recall that being the case. Thank you. And we have a motion from Cater Thompson and a second from Barnacle. And I'd like to call for the roll call vote.
[102:20] Speaker 2: Barnacle?
[102:21] Speaker 6: Aye.
[102:22] Speaker 1: Cater Thompson?
[102:23] Speaker 7: Yes.
[102:24] Speaker 4: DiCarli?
[102:25] Speaker 3: No.
[102:26] Speaker 1: Now?
[102:27] Speaker 4: Yes.
[102:28] Speaker 9: Quint?
[102:28] Speaker 1: Yes.
[102:29] Speaker 4: Schribbs?
[102:30] Speaker 6: Nope. McDonnell?
[102:32] Speaker 1: Yes.
[102:32] Speaker 3: Motion carries 5 to 2.
[102:34] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And that takes us to item 14. And thank you to, uh, staff for, um, that presentation. Item 14 is an ordinance authorizing acquisition of permanent easement from Sonoma Water along Lynch Creek Trail and authorizing the city manager to execute all related documents. To help us with this, we have Paige Bullock, our project manager.
[102:58] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor, council members. Good evening, my name is Paige Bullock. I work in the Public Works Department as a project manager. The action before you tonight is the first reading of an ordinance authorizing the city to acquire 4 permanent easements from Sonoma Water along the Lynch Creek Trail. As a brief preface before I walk through the individual easements, an easement gives the city specific rights to use and access property owned by another agency without transferring transferring ownership of that property. So in this case, Sonoma Water will continue to own the underlying land while the easements will provide the city with the legal rights needed to construct, operate, access, maintain, and repair the trail and its associated infrastructure. There are 4 easement parcels before you. Caitlin, if we could share that on the screen when you get a chance. Thank you so much. Um, Parcel A covers a portion of the trail corridor between Holly Lane and the Payran Street areas. Parcel B and C expand the city's existing pedestrian pathway easement near Holly Lane, and Parcel D provides the additional rights needed for utility infrastructure near Burlington Drive. Um, your packet also includes Exhibit A, the draft permanent easement deed, Exhibits A1 through A4, which contain the legal descriptions and plots for for the individual easement areas and an overall map showing the easement boundaries. So these specific easements are needed to complete the planned Lynch Creek Trail improvements, including paving the remaining unpaved trail segment, improving accessibility, and installing related trail infrastructure. This will also clarify the city's long-term access and maintenance rights within the trail corridor. Approval tonight will also, or will allow staff to advance the easements through Sonoma Water's approval process advanced construction of the trail.
[104:53] Speaker 3: Thank you for your time.
[104:54] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any question from any— from Council? Councilmember Schribbs? Yes, on the first, just on Parcel A, I think there is a little piece there that we will be extending out and modifying to widen out that trail. Is that correct?
[105:11] Speaker 9: Yes, that's correct.
[105:12] Speaker 4: That's my impression.
[105:13] Speaker 1: Okay, good. And then in Parcel D, it looks like instead of along the trail, it goes over the creek. So is there a plan to actually put a bridge there at that point?
[105:22] Speaker 4: No, that is for a conduit. It's an existing, um, pretty much it's an existing meter box off of Burlington Drive. Um, it's like a pedestal, and then directly across the river between the path, there's an— between the path and the creek, there's an existing electrical pole box. So that will just allow us to basically maintain that electrical connection if we need to pull wires in the future. Um, it's not a bridge, but it does look like that.
[105:49] Speaker 1: Okay, but, but I was just asking for the rationale. Why is it going across the creek there?
[105:54] Speaker 4: It goes underneath the creek.
[105:55] Speaker 1: Underneath the creek?
[105:56] Speaker 8: Yes.
[105:56] Speaker 1: Okay, that's what I want to make sure.
[105:59] Speaker 10: Yeah.
[105:59] Speaker 1: And then, um, so the, the parcel B and C, um, are, are going to have the, uh, probably the more permanent pavement being put in, or cement. But the rest of the path is, is asphalt that is falling apart. Is this part of the plan also in this project to redo the asphalt section so that it is a much better surface?
[106:21] Speaker 4: Yes, we will be, um, removing the old and cracked asphalt and replacing that, repaving it as part of this project.
[106:29] Speaker 1: Okay, and something that's not going to crack?
[106:31] Speaker 4: Yes, yes.
[106:34] Speaker 1: Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Um, what type of easement is that for D? Is that a public utility easement or is it a public access easement?
[106:46] Speaker 4: A utility easement.
[106:47] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you very much. Um, seeing no other questions, let's go to public comment on this item.
[106:53] Speaker 3: At this time, I will start a 30-second clock for public comment. Uh, during these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their Speaker cards to my desk. Members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand, and those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand. Speaker requests received after this time may not be accommodated. And we do have 12 folks online. I don't see any hands yet, but I do have one card.
[107:23] Speaker 1: We have one card. Do we have any, uh, Zoom hands?
[107:39] Speaker 3: We do not.
[107:40] Speaker 1: We do not. Uh, Ben Peters is our speaker on this item. Uh, good evening everyone. I just want to say I'm an enthusiastic supporter of, uh, continuing the, uh, paving of this trail.
[107:55] Speaker 3: You know, the easements are great.
[107:56] Speaker 1: This is such a gem we have This portion of the LCT. I do want to make a couple observations. I use this trail basically every day. The ingress to the park there on Payrand, that is a pretty dangerous area. And so I would like to highlight just how dangerous it is when you're riding your bike and need to make a left turn to enter that. There's, you know, the traffic is coming up the hill and there really needs to be some traffic calming or other type of mitigation to actually be able to enter that portion of Payran Street right there. So, I know it's not directly related to easements, but this little section of our city is so important to being able to access the LCT. And another thing I'll mention, this is certainly more on the medium term, but the city also owns a couple parcels right around that area, and this is really potential for adding more density into our city, which is so important. Uh, and so there's a couple houses there on either side of Payron. We could increase the height, we could add some ADUs.
[109:03] Speaker 7: And the other thing we could do, there's those flood walls there.
[109:06] Speaker 1: If, as part of longer-term LCT planning, if you could get over those flood walls, you can suddenly access that portion of that large property, which is. cut off from the railroad crossing, right? And so there are things that we can do in this little portion of town which are so important. So again, I'm a huge, uh, supporter of this particular item, uh, and the importance of the LCT to our community. Thank you. Thank you very much. That brings it up to council. Any last thoughts or motion?
[109:41] Speaker 4: I'll make the motion.
[109:41] Speaker 1: Motion by Cater Thompson.
[109:44] Speaker 4: A second.
[109:44] Speaker 1: And a second by Now. And a roll call vote, please.
[109:52] Speaker 2: Barnacle?
[109:53] Speaker 1: Aye. Cater Thompson?
[109:55] Speaker 2: Yes.
[109:56] Speaker 4: DeCarli?
[109:57] Speaker 3: Yes. Now?
[109:58] Speaker 2: Yes.
[109:59] Speaker 1: Quint?
[109:59] Speaker 2: Yes.
[110:00] Speaker 1: Shribbs? Yes.
[110:01] Speaker 5: McDonald?
[110:02] Speaker 1: Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Appreciate that, um, project manager. Already gone. Um, and, uh, our next item is the introduction of an ordinance for the Municipal Code, replacing it with a new Chapter 1721 entitled Certified Unified Program Agency, CUPA. And to help us with that, we have Amy Segui, our fire marshal.
[110:31] Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, city management, city staff, and the community.
[110:39] Speaker 3: This is essentially a housekeeping item.
[110:42] Speaker 4: It's going to bring our CUPA ordinance into alignment with current state law. During our most recent CUPA evaluation, they—
[110:49] Speaker 7: our existing ordinance, which dates back to 1997, was identified as being inconsistent with current state law.
[110:56] Speaker 3: This update resolves that deficiency by removing outdated local language and relying directly on the state requirements that govern the CUPA program today. It does not reduce nor expand regulatory oversight or create any new fees. It simply ensures our municipal code stays consistent with state law moving forward. So staff recommends adoption, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[111:19] Speaker 1: Thank you. And, um, let's go directly to public comment on this.
[111:24] Speaker 3: At this time, I will start a 30-second clock. Members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk. Members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand. Those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand. Speaker requests received after this time may not be accommodated. We have 12 folks joining us on Zoom. No comments were received on this item ahead of the meeting, and I have not received any cards, and I do not see any hands as we finish up these 30 seconds.
[111:57] Speaker 1: Well, thank you. That closes public comment on the item, brings it back to council. Comments? Motion? I'll make a motion to move it forward. I'll second that. We have a motion by Quint and a second by Kater Thompson. And may we have a roll call vote?
[112:12] Speaker 6: Barnickle?
[112:12] Speaker 5: Aye.
[112:13] Speaker 7: Kater Thompson?
[112:14] Speaker 4: Yes. DiCarli?
[112:15] Speaker 3: Yes.
[112:16] Speaker 5: Now?
[112:17] Speaker 4: Yes.
[112:17] Speaker 3: Quint?
[112:19] Speaker 1: Yes.
[112:19] Speaker 3: Schribbs?
[112:20] Speaker 2: Yes.
[112:21] Speaker 3: McDonald?
[112:22] Speaker 2: Yes.
[112:22] Speaker 7: Motion carries unanimously.
[112:24] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you, Amy. That moves us to item 16, which is certifying the final environmental impact report for the Petaluma General Plan 2050 and adopting the Petaluma General Plan 2050, rescinding General Plan 2025, adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding consideration, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. And to help us with this, we have our general plan team of Brian O., Community Development Director, Heather Hines, Special Projects Manager, and other staff. So, um, it is yours, Ron. Who's starting here? Do we have enough chairs yet? Okay.
[113:10] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[114:32] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[114:48] Speaker 7: Okay, um, Mayor, council members, uh, we are very pleased to be here this evening, um, a major milestone in a multi-year process, um, for the general plan update and the associated environmental document. Uh, so I am here with a team that's probably starting to look a bit familiar, um, and this presentation, um, we're all going to have a role, um, and we'll go through our presentation and then, um, welcome questions from the council. Uh, next slide, please. So the purpose of the public hearing tonight, we're here, uh, for the council to hold the public hearing and consider resolutions for adoption. Um, adopt a resolution certifying the final environmental impact report, as well as a resolution to adopt the general plan. Um, and as part of that resolution, it's also rescinding the current general plan. adopting findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. So that's the associated pieces of the associated environmental analysis that needs adopted as part of that action this evening. Next slide. So our overview touched briefly on the community-driven planning process. There was a lot more detail about this in, um, the staff report, as well as many staff reports that have come before the council to date. Uh, review community feedback that we received during that 52-day, um, public comment period that ran till your last hearing on May 18th. So touch on a summary of comments we received and some recommended general plan modifications that are in your packet in response to some of those comments. We have also received some recent public comments over the, over the weekend, the last couple days, so we want to also touch on some of those comments that have come in, um, and then talk a little bit about the other things that are underway, such as the digital general plan, um, which is an exciting next step, bringing, um, Petaluma kind of bringing this document into a more usable format for a broader, a broader audience and some of the implementation underway. And then I'm going to hand it over to my colleagues to talk specifically about the final environmental impact report and those pieces, findings and overriding considerations. And then we'll end with, again, that recommended action and acknowledgments. So with that, I am going to pass the microphone to Ron Whitmore, who has been the project lead on behalf of the consultant team over the last 5 or 6 years.
[117:51] Speaker 1: Thank you, Heather, and great to see everybody again tonight. Appreciate you making time on your agenda for us. This is a momentous occasion. Very excited to be here. towards the conclusion of the General Plan update process. We have met with you many, many times, and so we're not going to go into great detail about the very robust planning process that included significant public engagement as well as very extensive technical analysis. But in short, you've, you've been through with us throughout this process, starting with confirming a vision and set of guiding principles, reviewing in depth draft policy, spending better part of a year reviewing land use change options and providing specific direction.
[118:45] Speaker 3: And now we're at that point.
[118:47] Speaker 1: And then we released the draft general plan earlier this year, which again went through extensive review along with the draft EIR. And now we're at that final point where, based on all of that input from the broad community, as well as clear direction from you, we've presented a set of very relatively minor changes at this point based on public comment, which to me indicates that the process worked as designed. So we are at your disposal this evening to answer any final questions you may have about the draft and proposed revised General Plan and final EIR.
[119:21] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[119:24] Speaker 1: Again, there's been significant public engagement throughout the process, um, 40 GPAC meetings, 16 Planning Commission meetings, and I believe this is the 16th meeting with the City Council. Um, and you've provided critical direction at each stage. I'm going to briefly recap some of the feedback that we received during the public Review period for the general plan and EIR. Um, high-level summary, um, as has been the case throughout the process, there was a lot of feedback on allowable heights. Um, many comments were focused specifically on your decision to, um, on a single parcel adjacent to the smart station downtown, Um, apply the station mixed-use designation, which allows up to 8 stories. Um, and it's in the draft general plan based on your direction at the end of last year. Um, and again, in the May 18th, uh, City Council meeting, you reconsidered it and again affirmed you want to retain that designation on that parcel. There are also a whole range of other comments covering the gamut, some related to agricultural land and open space, infill, building design, how the GP is going to get implemented, comments about how to implement the GP through zoning code updates, bicycle safety, solar programs, and public comment at city meetings. So based on that, staff reviewed every comment, considered it carefully, and in the attachment to your staff report recommended a range of substantive and non-substantive revisions. On the non-substantive side, people have looked at this document carefully, and there are some, as is to be expected, corrections to make in terms of misspelling, typographical errors, making sure agencies whose names have changed over the course of the planning process have their updated names included, et cetera. And then a number of very useful suggestions for refining language, all of which— many of which are non-substantive in nature. So you see in the attachment a few of those for the natural features element, the historic and cultural resources element. safety element, transportation element, and land use element. There are a handful of proposed new actions. The first one is in direct response to a comment from the Department of Toxic Substance Control, and you see it there. It's under the policy related to discouraging the use of toxic materials in the city, and they had a very helpful suggestion to update the code to ensure that imported soil and fill is not contaminated. That action was very consistent with an existing policy. There's also a very useful set of comments from a former Historic Commission member, one of which resulted in a recommendation for adding a new action under an existing policy related to identifying and designated historic resources, focusing specifically on a range of remnant structures, for example, cobblestone curbs, railroad tracks, and the like, that are sometimes found not as part of an existing historic district or historic building, but are worth identifying and potentially preserving nonetheless. And so we added this suggested action in response. Also in the downtown, on the edge, on the westmost western edge of the downtown, in the area that's designated downtown mixed-use, there are some properties where flexibility in the application of that designation is warranted, very much consistent with an existing policy related to encouraging the efficient use of high-density residential and mixed-use land. And specifically, the proposed new action is to add to the list of updates to the zone municipal code tools, for example, for example, an overlay that would allow 100% residential and/or other flexibility with the minimum ground floor active use requirements and properties designated DTMU. Also, council's direction has been consistent over the years at ensuring that the general plan land use map is consistent with and supportive of the plans of the River Park Foundation. Most recently, the foundation has confirmed that the designation they would prefer for their Parcels in the vicinity of Hopper are the neighborhood center mixed-use designation, and so that's another recommended adjustment to the general plan. And then, um, one— I also wanted to revisit the, um, suite of strategies that the council considered at length related to the upper portion of the river because there were comments that came in related to the river buffer. And these are slides from previous meetings where you basically asked staff to take a two-pronged approach with the upper sections of the river, the long-term strategies being support efforts to advance the Petaluma Greenway project, but also over time acquire and/or collaborate with partners to pursue acquisition of open space, vacant parcels along the river. And then more in the near term, apply a no-build resilience area, a 330-foot river buffer, and be very clear about the proposed locations of future river parks and the Need for allowing and retaining space for a river— a greenway along the river, in addition to noise mitigation measures and providing land use flexibility to encourage residential cluster development to maintain open space and keep development away from the river. And so the draft general plan included a use of a buffer area, and this is the direction you provided for us back at the end of 2025. And there were some very good questions raised by property owners within that buffer area. And in discussing it with, with those property owners and looking again at the definition of buffer areas, we're recommending a slight adjustment in the language of the definition of buffer areas simply to clarify clarify the intent, not to change the direction or thrust of the policy, just to make it as clear as possible how the policy is applied on vacant parcels within the buffer area. Also, just, just to remind folks, since you discussed this at several meetings, but just to remind you of the direction you provided us previously about the the station mixed-use designation in December, and again reaffirmed in May of this year. You wanted to include the new designation called station mixed-use, which allows up to 5 storeys— excuse me, 8 storeys, an FAR of 5.0, and would be applied just to a single parcel adjacent to the Downtown Smart Station. And based on previous council direction, we're not recommending a change to that parcel. And just reminding folks that from a big picture perspective, this is a natural incremental change from the allowed 6 stories in many parts of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. And it's only applied to a single parcel, and that the designations through the FAR and established minimum maximum densities provide sufficient protections to regulate the form of future proposed development for that site. And at this point, I'm going to pass it back to Heather, who's going to address some of the more recent comments received.
[128:31] Speaker 7: Thank you, Ron. So in the last couple of days, end of last week and over the weekend, we did receive several comments Um, focused around the proposed land use designations along Petaluma Boulevard North, north of Shasta. So wanted to take a minute to just kind of focus in on that area, talk about some of what's proposed. Brian has had the opportunity to talk with some of the property owners, so I also want to turn the mic over to him in a minute to summarize that. and provide some, just some further background for discussion this evening. So this is showing that area. The, the first visual is existing land uses. And so one of the, one of the processes we went through was to identify what land uses are in existence before we we looked at the proposed land use designations. So as you can see, there's a lot of colors in a pretty small section of this area, and that's really representing that there's a lot of different land uses happening here. So you've got commercial, you've got industrial, you've got some residential, you've got, um, you've got some office. So you've got a real variety. The 2nd graphic is the current general plan designation. So you'll see in this area, much of the area is currently industrial on the east side. Exception is actually the slaughterhouse property, which is actually currently designated for medium density residential. That's kind of at the top end of that. And then you've got, um, the mixed-use designation closer to Shasta, um, and, uh, community commercial that is that red on the west side of the boulevard in this area. Um, so when we were looking at this as part of this process, and this has been unchanged, uh, since the, um, I believe 2024 is when the, the land use um, map was coming together. That dark, uh, maroon color is maker microbusiness, um, and so that is across much of the industrial area, with the idea that the maker microbusiness, um, designation and the implementing zoning for that would really provide a great level of flexibility for these areas with this designation, a greater level of flexibility than we often find in our current code. One of the things about our current code is it identifies commercial, it identifies office, it identifies industrial, and it often doesn't let multiple of those uses coexist in the same area. So something we looked at recently as a city was Um, Heritage Salvage, and we were looking for a new location and we kept running into this issue. When we'd find a site that accommodated the industrial aspects of that business, it wouldn't allow the retail aspects. And if you found a place that allowed those more commercial retail aspects, it wouldn't allow the industrial. So we know that we run into this with our current outdated zoning. And so Really looking at the maker micro business as an area that would allow a great level of flexibility. You also see the light purple south of Cinnabar. That is a neighborhood commercial mixed use. So that is looking— the idea along the boulevard was transitioning as you got further away from downtown from a more intense mixed use. And as you went north, it kind of decreased in density and intensity to a lower neighborhood center mixed use, which is that lighter purple. Similarly, on the opposite side of the street, much of that community commercial going to that neighborhood center mixed use. So some of the comments that we've received are concerns about existing businesses. How do they fit in? Uh, how do they ensure that their business can stay despite changes? So really want to spend a little time, um, focused on that. The intention with these changes was not to, um, to make businesses non-conforming or limit the opportunity for businesses to stay. So, um, next Next slide. Um, wanted to take a minute to focus on the maker microbusiness. Um, really, and this, um, we are simultaneously working on updates to the zoning code. So actually tomorrow night, the Planning Commission is, um, doing, um, a first look and discussion on the draft zoning code. So the maker microbusiness, which is much of that existing industrial, is proposed as maker microbusiness. The intent of that is really to create a flexible, supportive for local economic activities, and it really allows almost all nonresidential uses. If you'll remember, we talked about this, this designation in quite some detail previously in terms of what would not be allowed are hotels, residential, heavy industry. Heavy industry is actually something that's not allowed in our code currently. Our code really tops out at a medium intensity industrial uses. So that's not a significant change. It's not taking something that we currently allowed and taking it away. So when we looked at the industrial area in along Petaluma Boulevard North, this seemed like a great a great place for a maker microbusiness because it allowed many of those industrial uses within the context of, of this designation and zoning code. It actually is looking at a, a pretty innovative approach, very different from our other zoning districts. So that is— That we've got a draft that's been published. It will be before the Planning Commission tomorrow. Um, but really thought that all of those industrial uses in there, um, would be able to stay under the maker microbusiness. Brian, do you want to summarize a little bit about outreach?
[135:40] Speaker 1: Thanks, Heather. My name is Brian O., Director of Community Development. I see that there's a number of our local businesses and property owners, um, in the audience. I'd love to give them the opportunity, if they choose, Uh, during the public comment period, but I did spend, you know, a few hours this afternoon, um, in response to a number of the comments. I did not get in front of every single one, um, but I think the primary concern, which Heather just addressed, is the legal nonconforming. Um, the intent— I mean, if there's a existing business, even with the shift, at least those that I spoke with, even with the shift to the neighborhood center mixed use, those are permitted uses even within the proposed zoning code. And so there's no issue with the legal nonconforming on those. Again, there's a little bit of a hodgepodge there, and so I'm hopeful that If others in the audience that we have not been able to connect with, I think it's important to note also throughout this process, there's a number of parcels that are being proposed to be redesignated through this process, and we've reached out to each and every one of them. There's been multiple attempts to engage directly. And we look forward to hearing more from the community and from the council and happy to answer any follow-up questions.
[137:20] Speaker 7: Um, yeah, so this slide kind of shows those, those 3 designations that are being proposed in, in that area that we're talking about. There's some room for flexibility where some of those lines maybe have been designated moving from neighborhood commercial or neighborhood center mixed use to the maker micro. So that could be part of conversation this evening. If, if there is a use that really should be in maker micro that is in neighborhood, um, neighborhood center mixed use, that is something definitely have the latitude for discussion and consideration of changes in. in where that line is drawn. Next slide. Oh, and now I'm going to turn it over to Ron to talk a little bit about next steps with the digital general plan.
[138:23] Speaker 1: Yeah, just really quickly before we have our EIR team brief you on the final environmental impact report, did just want to give you a preview of a couple of things coming up. So while we've been finalizing the GP and the EER, we've also been working on the ePlan or digital general plan that has been— we've been planning to do all along. And the advantage of this is rather than have a static printed document or only a static printed document, the idea is to have a very accessible, dynamic website-based version of the general plan available to people. So I just want to give you a quick preview of What we're doing with that, which you can look forward to then seeing a few months down the road after the general plan is adopted. So, really quickly, main point here is there's going to be multiple ways to access the general plan. One is via the elements, which is the typical way in which people want to look at the land use or housing element or transportation, as the case may be. But we also know that most people come at a general plan with a particular topic or neighborhood or area in mind. And so we are also providing very accessible routes to search the general plan and find what it says across a range of topics. And so that's that 3rd heading across the top of the navigation bar. Likewise, for places, we know we— the plan has subareas within it, and within the General Plan, both in the land use element as in an appendix, we have identified different goals and policies that speak to each of those subareas. And so through the Digital GP, we can make all of those very accessible and kind of map-based and visual in nature. And then finally, there'll be a library of resources related to the GP, as well as a page specifically focused on progress made in implementing the General Plan. Couple examples of how a web-based or digital General Plan can provide some dynamism that's otherwise difficult to convey in print format. As you know from the executive summary in the General Plan, we're very— try to be very thoughtful about organizing the GP in a series of chapters which very much kind of layer upon one another, starting with the natural and historic and resilience base. And then land use, and then infrastructure on top of that. And so there'll be a page that visually demonstrates that, that interconnection and holistic approach to the General Plan so that people can understand particular elements or topics within the GP within this broader framework about a whole systems approach to thinking about the future of their city. And then within each element, in addition to obviously having easy links to maps and other resources, There'll be a cascading approach where people can kind of very quickly and easily zoom in and out between goals, policies, and actions. You don't see it so much here, but we're going to use the same approach in the vision and guiding principles where if you were to click on one of these plus buttons, you'd see the text associated with the guiding principles that are— that you see the signpost for here. So just a few examples of a way in which through a web-based format you can make the general plan very accessible and make it really easy for people to find what they're looking for. So just want to give you a preview of what's to come, and I'm going to turn it back to Heather at this point, who's going to give you a preview of the ongoing implementation.
[141:50] Speaker 7: So there's a number of things that are already underway. Next slide, Ron. Um, one being the Petaluma zoning reform, as I previously mentioned. Um, that is underway, uh, with Tomorrow night at Planning Commission. So we're, we're looking at Phase 1 currently, which is implementing objective standards and technical mapping from the General Plan, as well as some of the zoning-related programs from the Housing Element and the Blueprint for Climate Action. Also making sure that any inconsistencies with state law is updated in our code. Um, as we've discussed many times, there has been a lot coming out of the state of California, um, and important to keep our, um, zoning code, um, up to date and transparent, um, for syncing up with those. And then also, uh, as part of Phase 1 is those highest priority regulatory needs related to housing and economic development. So, that is what's underway already, and you'll see in the general plan, many of the actions call for updates to the zoning code to implement the intent of the general plan. Next slide. North Petaluma Station specific plan is also underway. So, we've had some initial workshops. The community outreach partners working group was formed and has met. Um, the existing conditions report is available. Um, so, um, that has been, uh, an exciting, um, planning effort, um, around Petaluma's 2nd station. Next slide. Uh, also currently, um, getting ready to really kick off the Central Petaluma Specific Plan update. This is another grant-funded Um, and it's to update the existing specific plan as well as the associated smart code. And similarly, uh, the fairgrounds master plan, which kicked off, and the vision and concept development is underway, um, with that. So these are all, um, actions that are referenced in the general plan that we are currently working on, um, for implementation.
[144:18] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[144:19] Speaker 7: And finally, infrastructure financing. So this will be a next step after adoption of the general plan. This is looking at impact fees and making sure we update those synced up with the general plan. Um, so we have those, um, set and updated to help us fund the vision for the city. And I think now it's time to talk about environmental analysis, and I'm going to hand it over Thank you, Heather.
[144:51] Speaker 3: Uh, good, good evening, Mayor and council members. Uh, happy to see you all again. Um, next slide, Ron. I'll be kind of walking through a high-level overview of our CEQA process due to the California Environmental Quality Act, because there's a discretionary action on the general plan. An environmental impact report was also prepared coupled with, um, the process and analyzes the impacts of the, of the general plan update. I'm happy to say that we are at the very bottom of this graphic, which we've shown many, many times beginning way back a year plus ago when we began the notice of preparation process and scoping period. If you'll recall back in the spring when we met, we were in the middle there in the green during the public review period of the draft EIR. Since that time, we've prepared the final EIR, which includes a number of documents. The first thing is actually responding to all the public comments that were received. as part of that, and we'll summarize some of those here in a second. Um, the next piece is actually developing a mitigation monitoring reporting program. That's a summary of all the mitigation measures and designating which, uh, which key city staff or departments are responsible for implementing those mitigation measures and when, um, when individual projects come forward at later dates, whether that's next week or 20 years from now, what the process is for implementing the mitigation mitigation measures that are built into the EIR. We also developed and have before you tonight a findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts, and we'll summarize some of those in a second as well. So key thing here is tonight before you is the hearing and decision on the project, but also a decision to be made on whether to certify the environmental impact report before you're able to make a decision on the general plan update.
[146:30] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[146:31] Speaker 3: Next slide.
[146:32] Speaker 1: So, quick summary of, of the process.
[146:37] Speaker 3: Again, just as noted, CEQA requires that any project must do an environmental review. In this particular case, an environmental impact report, and specifically a programmatic environmental impact report, which is wide-encompassing of all the programs that are part of the general plan, was performed. What I do want to note is that where we could identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less significant levels, there are some instances where impacts remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation is implemented. And that includes cultural and historic resources, specifically as it relates to historic buildings, greenhouse gas emissions, noise specifically related to construction noise and transportation and traffic. Through the process, we had a public comment period for 52 days running through late March to mid-May. And at this point now, we've responded to comments, and that is before you as part of the final EIR. And we published the final EIR on September 1st, and we also notified all commenters about the final EIR and the responses that were within those.
[147:44] Speaker 1: Next slide.
[147:44] Speaker 3: So we received 54 comment letters, including from individuals and from 5 public agencies. We've got a wide range of comments across the board. We responded to comments. Some— in many cases, it was asking a question or clarification. In some instances, perhaps a different viewpoint than what is proposed as part of the general plan. And in some cases, there were corrections or clarifications or suggestions on how to update the EIR analysis. All of the comments were responded to and are numbered accordingly. The changes that were updated in the EIR were minor in substance, and meaning did not alter significantly the findings or the analysis in many ways, but were clarifying in that they actually helped inform the analysis or stand by the analysis. So while we received a number of great comments as it relates to water supply or utilities, those comments were often updating the analysis to confirm some of the findings or suggesting new sources of information that we then added and provided, but it did not actually alter or increase any of the environmental impacts. The point there is, if there was new information that required a change of the analysis, we would potentially need to recirculate the document if there were substantial changes that warranted such a recirculation. We did not have any of those. All of the changes were minor and are summarized in the addenda errata section of the final EIR. Next slide. This just lays out as a high-level overview of what the contents of the final EIR are. I do want to point out that the final EIR is a shorter version of the EIR, but the draft EIR and all of the analysis, the very detailed technical analysis of all the sections, including all of the appendices, are still a part of the final EIR. They are simply listed as a, as a supplemental document. So before you is the final EIR, but the draft EIR is still part of that, and any changes that were noted are in the errata section in Section 3. The also— the other point too is that we do have the mitigation monitoring reporting program as part of that. That is also a part of the findings document and will carry forward and be a living document for the city for many years to come.
[150:02] Speaker 1: Next slide.
[150:06] Speaker 3: So before you tonight, we have 2 resolutions. The first one being the CEQA resolution that the EIR is now before the council to consider certification. And then part of the general plan resolution also connects to the EIR in that there are findings of fact, and those are recitals that document the process, including the key dates and milestones, the findings that the city That confirms the city has complied with all requirements of CEQA, that the city has responded to the public comments that were received during the public review process, and that mitigation measures have been prescribed and a mitigation monitoring reporting program will be adopted. The last piece is regarding a statement of overriding considerations, and that due to the fact that we have significant unavoidable impacts, we are identifying that the benefits of the general plan update actually outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts related to cultural historic resources, greenhouse gases, noise, and transportation. And those benefits include social and economic considerations, providing a mix of housing, job opportunities, utility infrastructure, uh, preserving and enhancing human and natural resources, um, the protecting waterways within the city, cultural resources, open space, and as well as fiscal benefits. Those are all detailed in the statement of overriding considerations at the bottom of the of the findings of fact. With that, I'll turn it back to Heather.
[151:33] Speaker 7: So we're at the end of our, um, presentation. Um, just to touch back on the recommended action, so, um, conducting a public hearing, um, on the general plan and associated FEIR. Uh, as Matt mentioned, the first resolution before the council is to certify the EIR the final EIR. The second resolution is to adopt the general plan with the recommended revisions. And just for— to make sure it's clear, the draft general plan has not changed. Instead, there's the draft general plan and there's a memo, which is Exhibit D to Attachment 2, that is that list of, um, modifications that are recommended. Those were are also outlined and discussed in detail in the staff report. And together, those 2 things would make the final General Plan. As part of that action, it also includes rescinding the current General Plan and adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Next slide, please. Wanted to, because this is such a significant milestone in this project, and this project is really—we couldn't have gotten here without so much help and support and brainstorming and collaboration from a variety of both internal to the city and external. So the planning commission as. As Ron mentioned, I believe we had 16 meetings, something close to that, with the Planning Commission through this process. So, um, a lot of great input from the Planning Commission, a lot of time, um, spent reviewing and considering, um, very lengthy packets. We also, as you may recall, we went to almost all of the committees, commissions, and, and boards, although we don't really have boards But committees and commissions per se, with with the policy frameworks to get their input early in this. So acknowledgement and thank you to that long list of committees and commissions that were part of this. Acknowledgement to city staff from all departments. This is not. This is a general plan. This is. the, the overriding vision for the community, and this is not something that's done by one department in a silo. This takes the entire city. So we worked with city staff from all departments and cannot thank them enough for their input, their time, their resources, their collaboration. Um, and the consultant team, so Ron with Ramey and Associates, and the list of subconsultants as part of that team. This was a very important part of Ramey being selected as the consultant. We had a long list of wishes when we put out that RFP, and Ramey put together a really incredible group of subs to touch on all those. Next slide, please. And then really wanted a special thanks to the General Plan Advisory Committee. Um, I, I believe this, when they first came on, it was something like maximum 2 years, and I can't remember, 12 meetings or something like that. And they stuck with us, and we did a total of 40 meetings with the General Plan Advisory Committee. So this was really um, the heavy lifters in this, um, and some great conversation, um, some great exploring options and refining recommendations that I think, um, just made this plan, um, what it is. So definitely want to— a special thanks to the General Plan Advisory Committee, um, for their hard work on this effort. And with that, Mayor, um, I will turn it back to you for any questions that you might have prior to public comment or directly to public comment, whatever works.
[156:06] Speaker 1: Okay, great presentation. Thank you very much. It is a milestone date here, and, and I appreciate you thanking the planning commissioners and, and GPAC members, many of whom are in the room tonight with us And so thanks for coming out tonight. And then, are there questions? Let's— maybe we'll actually focus on separating questions from comments tonight so we can have more dialogue when we're in comments and more succinct questions first. So looking for questions first. Councilmember Quint.
[156:43] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[156:46] Speaker 1: Can you, uh, bring the slide up that shows the existing— so North Petaluma Boulevard, the existing, the current general plan, the proposed general plan?
[156:58] Speaker 3: Is that possible?
[156:59] Speaker 5: Yes.
[157:12] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[157:13] Speaker 1: So one of the things that struck me when I was looking at this is our existing use is, as you, you described it, it's a, it's a variety of different uses. And, you know, from my perspective, that's That's a good thing. If you look at our current General Plan, it portrays something different than what is currently being the current existing uses. Uh, and so when you look at the proposed General Plan, the purple is the maker microbusiness, right?
[158:03] Speaker 10: Which—
[158:03] Speaker 7: Correct.
[158:05] Speaker 1: We're encouraging With that sort of a variety. My question is, are there existing businesses that are legal nonconforming today because what they're doing doesn't really match the current general plan that would then become conforming because of the new designation?
[158:31] Speaker 7: Um, theoretically, so we, we have not pulled, like, looked for use permits or, you know, those kind of things for every property. But I think the, um, the, uh, the old slaughterhouse, I think, is a good example there. That is a use that is important to the community and, and many of the, um, principles that went into discussion about ag support, and it's currently designated for housing. So that, that is a nonconforming use and is more aligned with the flexibility in the maker microbusiness designation than it would be in the medium-density residential. So that's one example there.
[159:20] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[159:24] Speaker 1: Um, yeah, it just seems to me like the newer designation may support more or be more aligned with what we're actually doing today. So thank you for answering the question. That's it. And if I could, one follow-up. Um, so the general plan makes that distinction or difference here. Now we're going to adopt a different thing. The new thing, is it intentional, like it says we like this, as opposed to transactional, it says you can do this? I mean, I think it's more comforting to know exactly what you can do rather than, you know, presuppose it's a dialogue at a later date.
[160:14] Speaker 7: So And Andrew is here in the back if I, I need to call a friend. So one thing is the zoning code is in draft form, so it has Planning Commission and City Council still reviewing. So what we're— what, what is shown in the Planning Commission packet is draft at this point, but the intent is to transition away from a list of permitted uses. And more transition to an approach where all nonresidential uses, except for a very short list of prohibited uses, could be allowed. And there to be more looking at impacts that may require additional review instead of just a list that says, if you are this, you have to get a use permit. I don't know if that— but it's, it's trying to build a much more flexible, um, less process-driven regulatory framework for this zoning district.
[161:27] Speaker 4: Great.
[161:28] Speaker 1: Okay, thanks. Councilmember Schripps. Um, yeah, there were several, um, resident citizens who came forward with sort of like, um, queries, questions, comments, and the like, and I don't think they were fully addressed. So I'd like to ask hopefully the questions that they had and let you address them. One of them was about our future water use and that there was some inconsistencies that was discovered between maybe the water agency and the county versus the city. And I was wondering if if you could respond to, to that query as to, uh, do we have adequate water in the future?
[162:12] Speaker 4: Is—
[162:12] Speaker 1: are we over— overestimating our, our water source so that we can do development? Um, so if you could respond to that, please.
[162:19] Speaker 3: Sure, happy to. Yeah, so, um, one of the commenters as public agencies was Sonoma Water, who provided some clarifications that were made in the final EIR. What I will point out, and a couple comments that came in over the weekend, we're unsure, kind of responding to some of those comments. What we are confident is the water supply assessment, that's Appendix E of the draft EIR, that was performed was an analysis of both Sonoma Water's Urban Water Management Plan as well as Petaluma's Urban Water Management Plan. Because Petaluma gets water from Sonoma Water, they need to make sure that those 2 things align and also align with the projected buildout of the the General Plan, the growth that's anticipated that would occur as part of the General Plan. In both of those documents, it confirms that there are a number of risk conditions, in essence, drought, future drought years, drought scenarios. And in those drought scenarios, there may be some times when there is an overexceedance of the supply due to demand, but that the city has a number of actions in place, a number of programs that are built into the General Plan, that are built into the city's Urban Water Management Plan, that are built into Sonoma Water's Urban Water Management Plan, and also some additional plans in place to ensure that when, even in those dry years or in uncertain circumstances due to climate change conditions or future scenarios where there is an overdrafting of water supply, that there would be a plan in place to correct those and ensure that the city does not exceed its So we have adequate adaptation and mitigation that we can do? That is correct. And a number of those programs are laid out both in the draft EIR and then summarized as well in the response to comments to ensure that there are some future actions. The reality is there is going to be a time when there's some uncertainty, and the city has a number of programs in place to ensure that the steps are, are to be taken to ensure that we can continue to to ensure that during those times there is an appropriate plan in place to avoid an overexceedance.
[164:25] Speaker 1: Okay, the next one was concerned somewhat about the biological resources and species wildlife corridors that weren't as detailed as might be expected from when projects come forward. They're much more detailed, and yet we tend to do more of a surface treatment, more very, very high-level treatment of that without really getting into specifics of real evaluation or ground-truthing. And it's running as— because some of the corridors slightly modified from what we've seen in the past, but still general around the city, not inside the city. And which didn't even— We talk about riparian corridors and river corridors. for some of the traffic, but not really, and no ground truthing really as to do we really have that here or not, especially with the animal species. So the depth of the biological resources and the ground truthing, is that really adequate for our general plan level?
[165:31] Speaker 3: Or do we really, do we need to go back and maybe emphasize and do a little bit more work in Yeah, at, at this stage in the process of a general plan, when you're looking out at a horizon of 25 or 30 years, the level of detail that's provided and the sources that were used as part of the analysis are absolutely adequate. They are the, the, the gold standard for what, what is utilized. Um, we confirmed with, with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, who, who maintains a lot of those databases and the searches, um, they actually had some suggestions for mitigation measures and some for So for some of that future ground truthing, when individual projects come forward, what that individual analysis would entail and would be put onto individual projects to do at the time prior to applications and during the application process. The sources, we did update a number of sources as well in the document. And I want to emphasize that both the general plan and the EIR with its mitigation measures have a number of policies and programs that now will live through the mitigation monitoring reporting program and our prescriptive mitigation measures with a number of steps involved. So when an individual project comes forward, there will be an— a site-specific biological resource assessment that is required, and then a number of steps based on how that initial search is performed, what may occur. So for example, if there are nesting bird burrows on site, that would kick into the nesting bird required specific actions mitigation measures that would need to follow in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife protocol and necessary permits that may happen that would ensure that during construction none of those burrows or nesting birds would be impacted. There's a long prescriptive list of those measures. I feel confident that that is— that the city is doing its absolute due diligence as it relates to biological resources, and it's reflected as part of the General Plan update as well. a number of the policies and programs and actions, that the biological resources and natural habitat is very important to the community of Petaluma, and that we've developed both a plan and mitigation measures in the EIR to reflect that and ensure that future projects, in accordance with the General Plan, actually carry out those and reduce the impact on the environment to the level possible.
[167:43] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Okay, there was another Uh, business owner. Um, I think it's the old motorcycle shop, uh, that's right there on, on Petaluma Boulevard where it crosses over right next to the river. And, um, not only was— has the shop been there a long time, but the area around it was graveled, I believe, um, and worked on, like, used for a lot of parking and things. And so they're looking at type of proposals. There's floodways involved. So the question is about The current use right now, being that it has been sort of like getting ready for development or do something with it, like the work that has been done, are with the new general plan with the flood zones and the like and the mapping, is that going to prevent them from their grandfathering in of their concepts, or can they— will they have opportunity to actually develop something? something, um, and what are their limitations?
[168:40] Speaker 7: Um, so Council Member Schribbs, I believe you're talking about the letter from Mr. Cabral, um, corner of Industrial and Old Redwood Highway. Um, so that is 2 parcels that are owned by that property owner. One is already developed with a building, um, so that is up at industrial that has been built up is— and is— there's no— there's no— nothing about the river buffer, which is most of what the change is to that property, impact the ability to continue to use the building, to continue to tenant the building consistent with the land use designation and the zoning in place. That property does have floodway, but it is not across the entire property. It takes up some of it, so there's no development allowed in the floodway, but there's much of that property that is outside of the floodway. The river buffer does extend across almost that entire property, but one of the things is Policy LU 5.1, which is one of the things we tried Clarify. The intent was to provide a pathway for development if you had a vacant parcel with no current use on it that is completely covered by the river buffer, to provide options for use of that property. Also, while trying to stay true to the intent to minimize impact along the river within the river buffer. So it would be something that we would work with the property owner on uses and development standards in the underlying zoning and try to keep it as far away as possible from the river itself in keeping with trying to protect and preserve that riparian corridor.
[170:49] Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. That was— I was asking these questions because there's other properties that may have similar type of situations, and there's some concerns as to what they can actually do with their properties and what situations. And so there is some flexibility here, and we have to really work with individuals is what you're saying. Okay, I just wanted to get clear. Then the last area here that I was worried about, lots of folks again were talking about the 8 stories near the SMART station. A lot of comments come back. I think you've mentioned that we're going to maybe revisit that and, and look at that one more time as a council decision, um, based on the volume of comments that came out on that. And I think one of the concerns that was coming up is, um, that with that density in that entire area being developed leads to congestion, which, which impacts safety and energy use, which may lead to gridlock, which may lead to emissions of lots of carbon dioxide emissions from gridlock in that type situation, which is an environmental impact. And, um, so was there any consideration for the group of buildings and everything downtown in that area, from the SMART train, the 6 stories, the 8 stories, all being— if it was all developed and could cause emissions issues, that wasn't really seemed to be addressed.
[172:06] Speaker 5: Can—
[172:07] Speaker 1: do we need to address that? And is that part of the EIR that we need What would you do?
[172:11] Speaker 3: As part of the EIR's air quality analysis, modeling for the entire city's growth anticipated, including on that parcel, was developed. So there was traffic modeling that was performed, and then from that traffic modeling, those— the estimated number of trips that are assigned throughout the town were then modeled to demonstrate whether an increase of air quality emissions would exceed thresholds that are developed by the Air Pollution Control District. Based on all the analysis, there are no significant unavoidable impacts related to vehicle emissions. There are mitigation measures and actions built into the General Plan in order to reduce those, but no specific significant unavoidable impact was identified at that site or any of the other sites amongst the city.
[173:00] Speaker 10: Okay.
[173:00] Speaker 3: When a future project would come on board, an additional analysis may need to be required that is more site-specific, similar to the biological resources conversation we had before, in that there may be some further actions that need to be developed in that, depending on how the ingress/egress of the site is, if there are localized emissions, carbon monoxide hotspots, those type of things, or gridlock in any of those, when the plan is being— the application is being reviewed, there would be an additional assessment at that point in time for those more site-specific issues.
[173:29] Speaker 1: Okay.
[173:29] Speaker 3: site-specific air quality issues.
[173:31] Speaker 1: So there is a reference somewhere to that modeling, and there's some data available that folks can see, or mapping of that for that particular area?
[173:40] Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no mapping individually for each, like, individual intersection as part of the general plan EIR, but for— but there is the modeling that's built into the air quality section of the EIR, the overall emissions citywide. Again, because we're looking citywide emissions, We're pulling it out and looking at it that way, as opposed to parcel by parcel or intersection by intersection.
[174:02] Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm talking about that whole group of roads because you have a lot of intersections of major transport happening in that area. I was wondering about the mobility and emissions from that possible congestion that might occur. So that particular area, was that ever drawn into the modeling, or was it just generic over whole city that we're looking at?
[174:23] Speaker 3: Generic into the whole city, but, but individual, uh, the individual density increases associated with the parcels were assessed for what the increase of transportation trips would be and then looked at cumulatively throughout the city.
[174:36] Speaker 1: With the city. Okay, so it wasn't— so it didn't have a really specific for that particular area, and it was that whole thing from, uh, Pendleton Boulevard to Lakeville, from Washington to D Street.
[174:47] Speaker 5: Those—
[174:48] Speaker 1: that was that section. There was no individual analysis of the traffic and emissions from that particular area.
[174:55] Speaker 3: Not, not separated out from the rest of the analysis.
[174:58] Speaker 1: And that was not required for, for, uh, for the general plan?
[175:01] Speaker 4: Correct.
[175:01] Speaker 1: I just want to make sure that's clear.
[175:02] Speaker 3: That's correct.
[175:03] Speaker 1: Okay, good. That's, that's why I wanted to check in with you. The questions is what I have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Cater Thompson.
[175:12] Speaker 4: I just have kind of a quick question. I want to go back to the the area north of Petaluma Boulevard. So we have J&Bills, we have Brody Tires, and then there's auto— an auto body store, and there used to be a marble fabricator, and I'm sure there's other businesses down there. So with this designation, would those businesses, the way they exist today, would be allowed?
[175:44] Speaker 7: Yes, we believe that the existing uses that are the industrial uses, uh, in, in that stretch, uh, would be allowed under the maker micro. One of the ones when we've been looking individually as things have come up and questions have been asked, one thing I think we should look at is Shotwells, which is, um, Auto body collision. So that's more of a major, um, a major auto— I can't remember the exact land use code for it, but it's a— it's not considered minor vehicle, it's major vehicle. And that is on the south side of, um, Cinnabar, which goes to the neighborhood center mixed use. So that might be a good reason to to pull that Maker Micro to that parcel on the south side of, of Cinnabar to make sure that, uh, that they're allowed to continue without any nonconformity on that parcel.
[176:46] Speaker 4: Okay, explain why they wouldn't be in with the existing—
[176:52] Speaker 6: with—
[176:52] Speaker 7: So, um, so can you pull that map back up?
[176:58] Speaker 6: Yeah.
[176:59] Speaker 7: the, the 3 options. Um, so currently the way it is proposed, um, Cinnabar is a dividing line, and everything— that whole section north is the maker microbusiness, and south is the neighborhood center mixed use.
[177:16] Speaker 4: Mixed use.
[177:17] Speaker 7: So a major vehicle, um, use, major vehicle collision repair, um, would, would not be a permitted use in A mixed-use designation. So currently, as proposed, um, that, that is neighborhood center mixed-use. It might be a good, um, reason to pull that, um, maker micro—
[177:41] Speaker 4: Bring it into the—
[177:42] Speaker 7: Bring it down a little bit.
[177:43] Speaker 4: What about Brody Tire? Because they're—
[177:45] Speaker 7: Tire would be a minor vehicle repair, and that is proposed as a permitted use in neighborhood center mixed-use. Okay, under the current draft.
[177:55] Speaker 4: Okay, um, thank you.
[177:56] Speaker 1: So, Councilmember, one thing we did commit, or I did commit this afternoon, um, would be to confirm just that, uh, by producing a letter, essentially a zoning conformance letter, to say this is the existing use, it, you know, listing out everything that Brody's, Tom Rose, etc., um, operates, and then just confirming, uh, you know, on a city letterhead essentially that it's carrying over, it's a permitted use. there's no legal nonconforming issue. And so that's something we would be working on.
[178:27] Speaker 4: Just for clarity, so you would bring that into the maker micro, or would you change that line?
[178:34] Speaker 1: We don't think we need to change those. So with what you see on the far right, the— what's that, periwinkle, light purple in the middle? Brody's, Tom Rose, are proposed to be neighborhood center mixed use. Within the neighborhood center mixed use zoning designation, how they operate now is going to be considered a permitted use or is considered a permitted use. So, there's no need to reconsider those changes. What Heather is raising is Shotwells, which is just east of Brodie's, that's a different business operation. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to meet with them this afternoon. I know they're here.
[179:26] Speaker 4: Uh-huh.
[179:27] Speaker 1: I'm hopeful that, you know, they provide some public comments so we can better understand. But on the surface, what we did look and explore at is they do have a different use that's not being proposed as the neighborhood center mixed use. So, one idea that staff has would be to essentially kind of go back to current—
[179:54] Speaker 2: what is it?
[179:55] Speaker 1: So, existing— ironically, so existing uses, Shotwells is that little gray one that's just on an island.
[180:05] Speaker 4: Mm-hmm.
[180:06] Speaker 1: And so, there's a couple options there. to, um, ensure that the business continues as it currently is.
[180:13] Speaker 4: Can we bring that into the Maker Micros? So that's what we would do, and then—
[180:17] Speaker 1: okay, thank you.
[180:18] Speaker 7: That's a— that, that's for council consideration, but that would be one thing, is to modify that boundary of the Maker Micro to come down a little bit south and pick up the Shotwell property, and then, um, We think that—
[180:35] Speaker 4: I'd like to see that happen. Thank you.
[180:37] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. No other council questions? Vice Mayor Takarli.
[180:46] Speaker 3: Uh, thank you all for the presentation and, and for you guys coming back here. So I'm wondering, why was there not a proposed alternative to pass the general plan without changing height and density in the EIR?
[181:07] Speaker 7: Um, I can take a pass at that. Uh, so the, uh, alternatives analysis is driven by, uh, significant impacts and also by the project objectives.
[181:25] Speaker 4: Uh, and so when looking at all of those on balance That was not the—
[181:30] Speaker 7: those were not the things that were driving the alternatives analysis. So we tried to focus the alternatives on those things that would stick with the objectives and would avoid significant impacts.
[181:42] Speaker 3: But that would have given us a baseline for everything, you know, to, to go ahead and pass the general plan but keep everything else land use-wise, etc., as it is.
[181:54] Speaker 7: Um, so, uh, the current general plan EIR provides that for us because we have the current, um, height and zoning as it is. And so we have an EIR that already has that.
[182:08] Speaker 3: If I could just add one of the things, and I think you're talking about the station mixed-use property in particular about heights. Kind of across the board. I mean, there's several parcels that got rezoned.
[182:24] Speaker 1: Sure.
[182:25] Speaker 3: When it comes to heights, what we're generally looking at is what drives an impact. An aesthetic impact is generally what we see from heights. So we did look at a reduced alternative with reduced density across the board, across the city, showing lower growth overall. Theoretically, that could be considered as part of the lower height. Generally, when you're lowering heights, you're actually reducing impacts or lowering impacts. So when you are considering if there is a potential for lowering the heights at this stage of the process, there's no need to actually analyze a lower height, because that's actually a lower impact than what would be analyzed with a higher height. So in this particular case, if there was a consideration to lower heights across the board, there would not necessarily need to be additional EIR analysis done, because the worst-case scenario has already been done at the higher heights. Oftentimes in alternatives, what we often will see if there's a comparison between 2 heights is actually looking at a higher height to compare what that impact would be compared to the proposed project, and then you have that comparison. But when you're generally going to a lower height, in essence, lower density, lower number of residential units, you're actually reducing those impacts. And then, um, You know, in the, in the past, it had been said kind of up here and by staff that 8 stories, um, anything above 8 stories was kind of unlikely or impossible around the train station. So, can anybody elaborate on why density bonuses, et cetera, wouldn't apply to this?
[183:53] Speaker 7: Density bonus applies. Based on state law. So we're not saying that density bonus wouldn't apply. Density bonus can be used on all sorts of properties based on state law, which has been in place, I think, since the '80s, '90s. So we, we at a local level don't have a lot of control over what the state adopts as density bonus law. So, um, a compliant project has opportunities for density bonus and the associated concessions that would come along with that. What we can say is that density bonus has been used very sparingly in Petaluma over, over time. We have had projects that have requested a density bonus. Examples of that, the Midpen project on the boulevard, the Burbank project on Petaluma Boulevard South, where they maybe requested a slight increase in density, or they maybe requested a slight concession from a development standard that was challenging their ability to reach the densities that they needed, and including affordable housing. So we haven't— the history in Petaluma has been we haven't seen density bonus applications that have shifted either the density or the development standards a lot. One of the things I can say also about this general plan is The Central Petaluma Specific Plan, the boundary, which is a large portion of our downtown, is— does not have a density maximum. There is no density maximum in that area. It is governed by a form-based code, and really what that says is if you can fit it in this form, you can do as many units as you want. That is one of the things that at the local level, um, the city does have the discretion to define density, and that in turn helps an application for a density bonus. There's a very clear— you're allowed this much density, um, whereas if you don't have the density maximums, the applicant can prove how many units they think they can fit within that form. And the density gets added onto that. So, by establishing density minimums and density maximums in all of the designations in the city through this general plan update, it is trying to ensure that where the city has local control, we have that in place to, to Better, um, have a more, um, clear path with a density bonus project.
[187:18] Speaker 3: Okay, no, thank you for that. But I— but like, going back to my question, you know, everybody that was concerned about 8 stories going above 8 stories, you know, the— they were met with that could never happen and that won't happen and how unlikely that is. And trying to make their arguments seem, um, you know, almost laughable. And so, I mean, can you, can you speak to that at all? Because that was, that was kind of the consensus people were saying, was that it would never happen here in Petaluma. It would not go above 8 stories.
[187:53] Speaker 1: Um, so I, I think there's— what Heather's pointing to is just the reality. This document, this vision is for the next 25 years. Part of what we did early on in this process was really take a hard look at the economics for residential. And so that, you know, I don't think we— I mean, I think we should be honest what the current economics are. And so that's where— I mean, that's really the rationale behind Um, you know, what's the likelihood of seeing something to come to Petaluma, or really to this region, that would exceed the 8 stories? Um, it's important to note existing now, it's 6 stories. Um, and I think that gets missed a lot because it is a vacant parcel. It's one parcel. It can accommodate 6. State density bonus law. Since the '70s, '80s, '90s has been in place and it's never come to bear in the way that I think there's a lot of concern. And so I don't believe it's laughable, but I think it's— I mean, it's the reality, right? We are seeing incremental, maybe a unit or 2, maybe a foot or 2. To think that, you know, anything that the council considers tonight is going to introduce, you know, something that exceeds 8 stories is just, um, not economically feasible, um, in, I would say, in the near and midterm future.
[189:39] Speaker 3: I mean, do we have any data to actually support that? Because other than it being said, I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's not economically feasible to go above Is there—
[189:55] Speaker 1: so, yeah, so I would point to the feasibility. So we did a residential feasibility as part of our early existing conditions, and that's what really drove us to have this conversation about, okay, it's currently 6. We know that the high resource areas are in and around our SMART stations, our high-quality regional transportation. if there's a place that this could work, it's around our, our smart stations where our, um, transportation is. And so, you know, we had an industry expert, Greensfelder Strategic Economics, and then Greensfelder on the, I think, non-residential side, um, to take a hard look at it. Um, and so, you know, I think that's pretty common for cities to rely on third-party Um, economic firms. Um, we ground truth that data, um, and that's really what's, um, brought us forward, um, at this point today.
[190:56] Speaker 3: Well, I was going to discuss it later on, but, um, you know, I mean, it certainly seems feasible because if you look at San Rafael, they're looking at 17 and 24-story proposals. So it's, it's very much a possibility. That somebody could come in and purchase that property and build something, you know, at least around 11 stories, maybe 12?
[191:18] Speaker 1: I don't know the specifics to the handful of projects we have met with San Rafael. Um, uh, but, you know, there's a couple of things that, uh, distinguish us. Um, we don't attract the rental rates that San Rafael does. Uh, most importantly, They don't have a density established as part of those areas in San Rafael. And so, what Heather was explaining earlier was that there's a vulnerability there. And so, that's what you're seeing in San Rafael. Will those projects ever actually move forward? I mean, that's hard to say with the economics where they're at right now.
[192:05] Speaker 4: I mean, I—
[192:05] Speaker 1: You know, I don't know about that, but there's a number of things. So this is why it's really important for us to establish some ranges and really have control, local control, true local control as much as we can within our regulations. So that not only includes height, which is important, but FAR, so floor area ratio, 5.0 on the 4.5-acre site. It is going— it's essentially 2— it's going to be 2— it's going to be split up down the middle with a pedestrian sort of promenade from the station to the river. And so there's more development constraints that go beyond just the 8 stories. And then what also distinguishes us from San Rafael for that specific parcel, the only parcel that is is being proposed as 8-storey, it's owned by a public entity. So, Smart owns it. There's a whole surplus lands process that they would have to go through, you know, multiple steps, multiple public process before, you know, anything could get approved there. This is an important step, but there's multiple steps that would need to happen to actually fully realize that site.
[193:24] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[193:25] Speaker 3: But with density bonus, they wouldn't have to go through some of those. And then, you know, Santa Fe not having density defined, I mean, that, that doesn't matter in Petaluma's case if density bonus laws are applied to go above 8 stories here. I mean, that's still very much a realistic thing.
[193:42] Speaker 1: But density— so right now there's no unit count established for any parcel within the smart code. So essentially everything in and around the downtown. What we're doing proactively as part of this update is to establish that— I think it's 125 on the top end, maybe 90 to 125 for the smart parcel. And that provides the control, that provides the certainty. State density bonus— we're not introducing state density bonus as part of this process. State density bonus has always been there. If there was a project that wanted to utilize state density bonus Today before this action is made, um, that could have happened. It didn't happen. It's in the control of a public entity, um, nothing is changing from today to the end of this hearing, um, with respect to state density bonus law. It's always been there for before I was born, I think, at this point.
[194:46] Speaker 4: I think 1970.
[194:48] Speaker 1: Oh yes, before I was born, right?
[194:51] Speaker 3: Yeah, it's always been there. That, that wasn't really the question, but why would we, um, not consider having done a traffic study specifically in the area between Washington, D Street, uh, Lakeville, with the potential impacts of this building around the train station? I realized that we kind of did what is The state bare minimum, but why didn't we analyze it closer in this area? Because that area is already so impacted already. What is, you know, an 8-plus-story building with no parking requirements going to do to that area?
[195:27] Speaker 7: Uh, so typically when we do an environmental analysis, uh, we do that based on a specific project, given the certainty of that application, so that that analysis can provide for meaningful conversation, informed decision-making.
[195:50] Speaker 3: Here we don't have that.
[195:51] Speaker 7: We don't have an application. What we have is a regulatory change that would allow for someone to submit that— such an application. They may come in and submit 4 stories. They may submit for 6. They may submit for 8 if that goes through tonight. So So, um, at the time that that application comes in, that is when we would do that detailed level of analysis, um, both for VMT, for traffic, for, um, air quality, should there be queuing. So, um, the analysis for environmental has to be, um, scaled appropriately to the project at hand.
[196:26] Speaker 4: And so here we have a programmatic-level EIR, and so that is what it is scaled for.
[196:31] Speaker 3: Yeah, but nobody's going to come in and purchase, you know, property for the value of an 8-story property and then build 4 on it, you know. And I mean, I don't know why we'd wait to consider until there's an application. Well, what's this going to actually do to traffic in town? I mean, right?
[196:49] Speaker 1: I think you're drifting into the commentary part, and we're going to try to stay focused on the question part.
[196:53] Speaker 3: Yeah, but anyway, so So from, from your CEQA analysis you mentioned earlier in the presentation, can you elaborate on which historical resources or structures could potentially be affected by the new General Plan? We have a list in, in the section. If you give me a moment, I could find the table of listing of historic resources. The other piece that's important to note is that historic resources in California are potentially anything over 50 years or older. So for this analysis, one of the impacts, and the significant impact that we've identified, is that there could become— there are existing structures that may not be 50 years or older or may not be currently identified as a historic resource, either locally at the city level or at the state level or the national level, but in the next 10, 15, 20, 25 years, the life of the General Plan, they could become historic. So I cannot say for certain which of those are going to be impacted, outside of the ones that are already identified. And I'll pull open the table that's listed that demonstrates that list. And what that list is saying is these structures within the city and within the general plan area are already identified as historic structures or historic resources or potentially historic resources. But there are— there may become others that may be impacted due to construction. So, for example, if a new site in downtown Petaluma were to go up and construction included bulldozing or pile driving or something that could actually damage the neighboring structure, of which may be a historic structure, but we don't— hasn't yet been certified as one, that's a potential impact. And that's what's identified in the EIR. And I'll get back to you on what— where the table is of existing sources.
[198:42] Speaker 10: Okay.
[198:47] Speaker 1: Um, let's move that over to public comment and open that on up for us, please.
[198:53] Speaker 3: Yes, at this moment I will start a 30-second clock. During these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk. Members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand. Those attending via phone should press star 9 to raise their hand. Speaker requests Comments received after this time may not be accommodated. Also, I just wanted to note that we have— how many folks joining us online? We have 10 attendees online.
[199:25] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[199:26] Speaker 3: And we did receive 31 comments ahead of the meeting, which are posted online.
[199:29] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[200:06] Speaker 1: Okay, uh, we have 13 cards submitted and I'm told 4 hands raised online. And as an item on the agenda, it's a 3-minute clock set, and so we will start with that. Our first speaker is Betsy Gattelli, to be followed by Ted Cabral.
[200:26] Speaker 4: I'm going to give my minutes to Mark Emiley.
[200:32] Speaker 1: Um, are you, um, Betsy Gattell?
[200:37] Speaker 5: Yes.
[200:37] Speaker 1: And this is on the general plan? And, and so, um, this is on the general plan, not on North Bank?
[200:47] Speaker 4: That's right.
[200:48] Speaker 1: Let me roll this one down under where, where, um, when you come up, I'll cook that in. You want me to sit down?
[200:55] Speaker 2: Please.
[200:56] Speaker 1: Yes, Ted Cabral, to be followed by Darren Rakazin. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council, city staff. My name is Ted Cabral. Uh, my family owns the commercial properties at 13 1365 and 1375 Industrial Avenue. For more than 60 years, these properties have contributed to Petaluma's economy. The proposed general plan establishes a 330-foot buffer from the river that could severely limit their future use. Although I have to say, it sounds like there's been a little wiggle room put into the language as far as what I've heard tonight. But I'm going to cut— I'm going to move forward and question the actual buffer zone itself. I appreciate the city's concern about flooding. I've served many for many years as a chair of Sonoma County Zone 2A Flood Advisory Committee, where I helped implement multiple flood control projects in Petaluma. That experience is why I have serious questions about the direction of this policy. Before making a decision that could have long-term consequences, I believe we need to be sure we have the answers to some important questions. What actual flood risk or engineering supports this buffer? The city's modeling shows little to no flooding on our property, with less than six inches shown on only a small portion. And where exactly is the top bank from which the buffer will be measured? In 1993, the Moorhead Industrial Avenue Floodway Project improved and terraced our property, effectively widening the waterway to increase flood capacity. Also, were the more recent flood control projects along the Industrial Avenue, the Denman Reach ones, considered when establishing this buffer? And was the actual flood history of the area considered? To my knowledge, our properties have not flooded since those improvements were completed. Even the 2017 event from those multiple atmospheric rivers that went up into the Sonoma Mountains, those— that event, the reason that part of the town flooded was because a rancher drove his bulldozer down Copeland Creek and altered the streambed. It blocked part of it. It crossed Russian River watershed water. Into the Petaluma River watershed, into Lehigh Creek, flooded Penn Grove, flooded the northern portion of town. So with those changes also, where the more recent flood control projects along— oh, I already said that. Why aren't FEMA regulations, zero-net-fill requirements, and site-specific engineering enough to determine what can safely be developed? That's a lot of government work that needs to be done. Permits and processes to be able to move forward. We have been presented this development opportunity, electric vehicle charging stations. Okay, so this would make— one of the big tenets of this is it also provides access for the Riverwalk Trail. So they want to incorporate that into the project. So I'll skip down here because I'm running close on time. So basically, if a project can meet FEMA requirements, maintain zero net fill, address the actual flood risk, provide EV charging, and improve trail access, what public purpose is served by prohibiting it simply because it falls within this buffer? Thank you. Thank you, Darren Rackison. And I have Also with Chantel Rogers, and I'll have also with Wayne Ekstrom.
[204:34] Speaker 5: There we go.
[204:35] Speaker 1: So we're setting for 3 maximum.
[204:37] Speaker 3: Here we go. We'll try to, we'll try to race through it and not use it all.
[204:43] Speaker 1: Great.
[204:43] Speaker 3: Uh, thank you, Mayor and council members. Darren Rackeson, Petaluma resident, business owner, former planning commissioner.
[204:50] Speaker 1: Submitted a letter on what I'm going to discuss tonight that goes into much more detail, but really I wanted to go over Some of the underlying kind of urbanist policy that's underlying a lot of the current general plan, and then move that into some asks or changes that I'd like to see in the plan.
[205:06] Speaker 3: But really, the biggest change I'm going to talk about is the shift from when we examine this general plan or land use more broadly. How are we changing the lives of people who live here as the goal setting, not just density or property tax per acre or any metric like that?
[205:21] Speaker 1: But how do we really focus things on how we change the lives of people who live here?
[205:25] Speaker 3: So for years, the 5 years since I've been involved, since I moved to Petaluma, I've heard some mantras around land use and development that really center around like density always makes things more affordable. Density adds a better quality of life. Chasing property tax per acre and a good Urban-3 map is the key to a good city. And I wanted to test that. So I spent the past couple of months assembling financial reports from 70 Bay Area and Northern California cities. To match them with qualitative metrics I could find about quality of life.
[205:56] Speaker 1: So, that's pulling census data, crime rates, homeownership burden.
[206:00] Speaker 3: That's pulling Atlas Upward Mobility Index data, the progression of low-income families and where their children are likely to end up, California Healthy Places Index. These qualitative metrics of quality of life of living in a place to compare it with the very real financial metrics, including things like you can back into density, you can back into property tax per acre.
[206:20] Speaker 1: Paired that with the city's own fiscal analysis for the general plan to start to ground truth some of the theories that have been driving a lot of our policymaking.
[206:28] Speaker 3: So to overview, first, the metrics we chase tend to be poor measures of a good city.
[206:33] Speaker 1: Just density and property tax per acre— how much property tax a city collects per acre is only weakly related to health outcomes or upward mobility.
[206:42] Speaker 3: Density itself shows almost no relationship with livability scores. or Atlas Upward Mobility. Petaluma is a great example.
[206:49] Speaker 1: We rank near the bottom of the cities I examined in property tax per acre.
[206:53] Speaker 3: We sit right in the middle in density, but we rank near the top in livability, actually first in Sonoma County. Most of the cities that rank highly in third-party livability standards fall in this same moderate density range from the data set I looked at. It's always the caveat. Secondly, density does not solve affordability in what is a competitive regional housing market with High construction costs by itself, right? So Petaluma is a place that people want to live, a characterful, moderately dense river town near the coast within reach of wine country, Marin, and San Francisco.
[207:25] Speaker 1: So that means demand comes from across the Bay Area and even beyond and sets us at high prices.
[207:30] Speaker 3: Construction costs are the other half of our high housing cost equation. In 2023, UC Berkeley's Turner Center modeled a 120-unit apartment building and found it cost roughly $637,000 per unit to develop that kind of structure in the East Bay. And that was assuming no environmental review and no affordable housing requirement.
[207:50] Speaker 1: So obviously lenders only finance if rent covers those costs. So new units built in that kind of structure at that price are coming in at the very top of market.
[207:58] Speaker 3: It makes me think of the 8-story building we're talking about in the sites tonight. Not to make everything about that.
[208:04] Speaker 1: I think this is a much broader critique, but at its maximum, the station site would add about 560 homes.
[208:10] Speaker 3: which is roughly 0.3% of Sonoma County's new households priced at the top of this regional market.
[208:18] Speaker 1: So 8-story buildings in this— these couple that we're adding aren't going to change the math for affordability. They're not going to change prices in Petaluma. And if they affect affordability at all, it will be at these top-of-market prices.
[208:30] Speaker 3: What does put homes in reach of working families, teachers, service workers is generally the inclusionary requirement that we have 15% of new units need to be priced below market or a fee collected that funds them.
[208:43] Speaker 1: In our general plan, we have 970 income-restricted homes estimated by applying that requirement to our full build-out. But I've heard on council now that there's some talk about getting rid of the inclusionary requirement, and I'll talk about how this conversation has evolved, originally couched in affordability to promote density, but we've kind of moved away from that. But if affordability is the goal, we'd be much better served by protecting inclusionary housing than just by adding a couple 8-story buildings.
[209:09] Speaker 3: Third, growth has real costs, and the biggest are police and fire. So this correlates in the data set I looked at that you see increases in police and fire costs positively with density, of course. But in the fiscal study associated with our city's general plan, we see that we would add about $12 million a year in police and fire costs at full build-out of what is proposed, roughly 2/3 of all new general plan fund spending. And it's the residential growth portion of the plan that pushes the whole plan into the red. From what I was reading, about $270,000 a year we would be short at full build-out, so we would see a negative to our general fund of about $270,000 a year, and that's even counting 280 new hotel rooms. So police and fire already account for about 3 quarters of general fund operating spending. The EIR requires no mitigation in this respect because we say development fees would cover supplies and materials and vehicles that police need. It's not clear to me if that would cover salaries as well, because we're talking about this big spike as we increase density.
[210:12] Speaker 1: We need police and fire. Are salaries covered? Should that be a mitigation somewhere, or are they really covered by impact fees?
[210:19] Speaker 3: So this all points to something bigger, bigger, I think, a bigger concept.
[210:23] Speaker 1: Cities grow differently, and their residents shape their cities' identities. Petaluma is a moderately dense river and farm town, and that identity has served us well.
[210:32] Speaker 3: The general plan itself celebrates our unique identity as an agricultural and river town with a strong sense of place. So beyond theory crafting about density and again property tax per acre metrics that we're supposed to be hitting, it really tells us little about what eight stories or some of these higher densities that we're pushing for will do in Petaluma in terms of outcomes for residents. And really, our state housing obligation doesn't require us to build the eight-story buildings. We certified the housing element in 2024. With a room capacity for 3,200 homes against a target requirement of 1,900.
[211:07] Speaker 1: And that all came 2 years before we were talking about 8-story buildings. So, RENA is met. It's not clear will affect affordability at all. Density and some of these other metrics aren't tracking with actual livability of a place.
[211:18] Speaker 3: So it seems the trade-offs might be lopsided. The EIR is clear about the costs in this full build-out, significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources, construction noise, driving.
[211:28] Speaker 1: The promised benefits, affordability, and a stronger budget are the part of the data I'm not seeing. My concern is that as this concept has evolved, we talked about affordability being the driver for density, and then it became, well, we just need housing options.
[211:41] Speaker 3: Now it's, we just need to build something. And my concern is revenue is becoming the real driver of land use policy, property and transfer taxes for the general fund, development fees for capital projects. When revenues drive the decision solely, Almost any project looks like a win, and the trade-offs get less scrutiny than they deserve. So we push aside concerns about sense of place and aesthetics because we need the money. By the city's own numbers, though, the full growth build-out won't strengthen the general fund. Again, we hit a negative. So residents may be better served by a city that lives within our revenue base it has and makes land use decisions based on their merits.
[212:15] Speaker 1: There's good work in here, infill in the— there's good work in the general plan. Infill in the urban growth boundary, flexibility of uses, residential and mixed use.
[212:23] Speaker 3: These are good things.
[212:25] Speaker 1: But first, I really want to ask us to move the lens again in this plan and general land use policy.
[212:31] Speaker 3: Look at resident outcomes. Can we look at emergency response times, officer and firefighters per population, park space per capita, whether households can afford a home, more households every year? We should report those kind of qualitative metrics with the budget. And then when we have major land use decisions, ask how are we impacting those kind of livability metrics for people who live here? I've said enough about the station. I think we should move the 8 stories to 6 stories.
[212:57] Speaker 1: I don't see we get much from 8 stories other than potential negative downsides to character, sense of place.
[213:03] Speaker 3: If we think those considerations aren't worth our time and we need the money, or we think there's going to be some benefit, that I'll leave that to you.
[213:09] Speaker 1: I also hate Maker Microbusiness, hate Flex, get rid of both Maker Microbusiness.
[213:14] Speaker 3: Should be just a zoning designation over business park or industrial. Just make a second zoning designation. You don't need all 1-to-1 general plan land use and zoning designations.
[213:25] Speaker 1: So density and tax revenue are tools, and they should serve one goal: making residents' lives better.
[213:30] Speaker 3: Most of us have made the largest financial commitment of our lives to live here in this town as it is. A plan measured by our health, safety, and quality of life will serve the people.
[213:41] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[213:41] Speaker 3: Here now and the people who come here next. Thank you.
[213:44] Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, I'm gonna go backwards one step. Betsy Gattelli, um, did you intend to have Mark speak for you, or to— was that as a replacement of you? Okay, I didn't understand that. I thought it was ceding time, and I looked for Mark's name. I couldn't find Mark's name, so Mark, you're, you're on now, to be followed by Mac Thompson. So the general plan appears headed for approval and adoption tonight. And while reviewing documents on that, I was surprised to see a change in the land use designations in the downtown area around the SMART train station, changes that will allow construction of a tall or Or number of tall 8-story buildings. This is unheard of in Petaluma ever since Petaluma began to exist. What's worse is that when big developers come into Petaluma to keep getting rich by transforming the look of our town, they have the ability to use the California density laws to increase the building height up to 11 stories. And there's really nothing we can do to stop them if they do that.
[214:59] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[215:00] Speaker 1: Now think about that for a minute. You know how tall an 11-story building is? It's about the same height as the grain silos are that we have along the river downtown there. Imagine what that will do to our skyline. Imagine how that's going to change the look and the vibe of our town. And when they build these new buildings, the new buildings look nothing like what Petaluma is known for— big ugly boxes they put up. But it gets even worse. The requirements for parking lots, parking garages, any parking at all— there's no requirements. How can that even be? There's no requirement to provide parking. Imagine putting 1,000 new apartments downtown with all the associated retail space, all that traffic, but providing no parking at all. It seems like the majority of this council has an agenda to force people to stop driving and rely entirely on bicycles buses and trains. To me, this seems doomed to fail. I foresee gridlock downtown and people parking cars all over the place where they don't belong. Petaluma is not New York or San Francisco, but it's headed that way, and I feel like we've had the wool pulled over our eyes on this because previously the land use map and land use designation that was part of the draft general plan did not allow for these tall buildings in that area or anywhere else. It's been changed. I looked into that and I found that on December 15th of last year, this council made those changes late at night in Christmas season when not many people were attending or watching that meeting, myself included. So to me, that's unethical, to say the least. There had been public meetings on this subject in the past, and we thought we citizens had some meaningful input. The draft plan with land use map was made ready They changed it when we weren't looking. This is unfair. Once the people catch on to what's happening here, they will be angry. So tonight I urge this council to vote no. Don't give your approval to the general plan as it is right now. Please make some well-thought-out changes. Thank you. Mac Thompson, to be followed by Anthony Bordessa. Good evening, Mayor McDonald, Vice Mayor DeCarli, council members, City Manager Flynn, dedicated staff. My name is Mac Thompson. I'm the union president for the Petaluma Firefighters Local 1415. I'm here tonight to extend appreciation for this process and this long process. And, uh, just thinking as I was sitting here about the emails in my inbox of all the GPAC updates and, and, uh, how long this process has gone on, um, and all of the stakeholders involved and appreciation for the Planning Commission and the advisory committee and all of the people that have been involved in this, um, really any strategic planning process. Uh, or even Measure U and the goal setting, all of the different, uh, sessions of, of hearing the voices here tonight, um, but sitting through these long meetings until, you know, 10 or 11 at night. And, um, just appreciation for, for your service to this community. Um, obviously, as a firefighter, I, I have a public safety lens on this general plan, but I'm here tonight Uh, representing the— a large employee group for this city. And, uh, just, um, a big focus for me is, is making this city, uh, uh, focusing on working conditions for us as firefighters and, um, and, and making this a place to retain quality employees and attract quality, uh, candidates to come work here. just as we are also want to retain quality businesses and attract quality businesses and residents and families and all. And I appreciate your time on working on this. So thank you.
[219:12] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[219:12] Speaker 1: And thank you, Anthony Berdessa, to be followed by Bill Ryder. Good evening, Mayor, council members.
[219:28] Speaker 3: My name is Anthony Bordessa.
[219:30] Speaker 1: My father Michael and I own and operate John's Dairy and Pool Supply at 1305 Petaluma Boulevard North.
[219:37] Speaker 3: That business has been there at that address since 1960. My dad bought it in 1986, and I came back to run it with him in 2019.
[219:45] Speaker 1: My parents own the property, and we employ 7 people.
[219:49] Speaker 3: We're one of 3 businesses left in this region that delivers dairy sanitation and milk barn supplies, and we're the last one with a storefront where a farmer can walk in and buy them off the shelf in Petaluma, the town that put itself on the map with dairy and chickens. We also are the only pool supply in, in this town. Before anything else, I want to thank Councilmember Alex DeCarli. He is the reason we knew that this was happening at all. He brought it to us directly, and without that, without that, I would not be standing here tonight. I also want to thank Director Brian O. He came into our store after we emailed a letter addressing our concerns, sat down with me and talked with me about what this rezoning means for our business. We appreciate that.
[220:30] Speaker 4: He told—
[220:33] Speaker 3: Brian told us that if we described exactly how our business operates, like he mentioned earlier, the city would make sure those operations were accounted for. And the new zoning. I'm here tonight to take him up on that offer.
[220:44] Speaker 1: I'm not going to read our operations in the public record tonight.
[220:48] Speaker 3: We've offered it to Director O directly— excuse me, to Director O directly— and we will put it in, and we will put it in whatever forms his team needs. What we are asking for is a seat in the conversation and a commitment that we have— A commitment that what we hand over actually ends up in the code. My ask tonight is that before the council adopts the new general plan, you give the businesses that are potentially being rezoned a process to submit how we operate and write those operations into the NCMU or Maker Microcode as permitted uses, permitted by right, not grandfathered, or not legal non-conforming. The real difference is grandfather means we can keep the lights on, but we can't expand. God forbid we can't rebuild if there's a fire, and most importantly, we cannot pass these multi-generational businesses down to the next generation. That's not protection, it's a slow exit. We would like to see the language before the code is adopted while it can still be changed. If the council cannot make that happen, then our request is simple: leave us C-1 until you can deliver on the ask. We have been at 1305 for 66 years. We're not asking for permission to exist.
[222:05] Speaker 1: We're asking you—
[222:07] Speaker 3: we're asking you to write it in the code. Do that and we'll be around for another 60. Thank you for your time.
[222:13] Speaker 1: Thank you. Bill Ryder, to be followed by Tom Gaffey. Uh, good evening, Mayor and City Council members.
[222:29] Speaker 3: Uh, my name is Bill Ryder. Myself and my father, Bill Sr., own and operate Jay and Bill's Tire Service located at 1282 Petaluma Boulevard North, adjacent to Cinnabar Lane. I'm here to express serious concerns regarding the general plan updates and the rezoning of our industrial zones. For a decision that completely alters our livelihoods, there should have been more community outreach, engagement, and clarification. By forcing longstanding businesses into a legal nonconforming status, You are creating massive financial uncertainty. We need direct answers. Uh, upon retirement, can we sell our businesses as they currently operate, or will this zoning strip away our equity by limiting future uses for our properties? Will we, will we, will we be allowed to lease to new industrial tenants, or our specialized buildings be unrentable? We urge you to pause, reconsider, and stop the rezoning of these industrial areas. Until local businesses— business owners are properly brought to the table. Thank you for your time.
[223:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. Tom Gaffey, to be followed by Ben Peters.
[223:37] Speaker 6: Hey, everybody.
[223:40] Speaker 3: Uh, Heather and Ron, again, you guys did an incredible job.
[223:45] Speaker 4: It was herding cats for a while, and it really worked out well.
[223:48] Speaker 3: Uh, the only issue I have still is the, uh, SMART train lot. Petaluma has been asked by the state of California to at least build 1,900 units plus.
[224:01] Speaker 4: We've submitted a plan.
[224:03] Speaker 3: Those are residential units. Petaluma submitted a plan. The state said, yeah, that looks good. And we have housing going up all over town right now, and it's going up at 4 stories. We don't have to go to 8 stories in that train lot. If the only reason we want to make it attractive And allow developers to go to 8 stories is just for that reason, to fill that space. That's not something that Petaluma even needs to worry about as a city. We don't own that property.
[224:31] Speaker 4: Someone else owns it.
[224:32] Speaker 3: They came in late, they bought it, they knew what they've got. It's not the city's job to bend to what the developers need. 8 stories that could possibly lead us to 11 and 12 stories in that area would be a terrible situation. So John mentioned that, uh, this— that maybe the council will come back and take a look at that, and I'm here to say please do. I think, uh, I think you're probably going to go ahead and sign off on this thing tonight, but please leave the door open to reconsider those heights in that area.
[225:04] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[225:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. Ben Peters, to be followed by Jessica Moses. Great conversation thus far. I'll kind of touch on a couple things that have been said, you know, about the density topic, right? So, uh, there was conversation about density and affordability and, you know, things like that. Um, I was the chairman of the Climate Action Commission when we adopted the blueprint, and when we were talking about density, we were talking about climate. Okay, and so what is clear is that density reduces vehicle miles traveled, period. It was interesting to hear commentary around there would be congestion and there would be possibly emissions from that, and maybe we should do some air quality studies. What I hear is NIMBY talk. Okay, if you care about the climate, You would have gone to the Climate Action Commission. You did not. I invite you to come to the next meeting if you care about emissions. If you're using emissions to fight against a project that you do not like, that is the tool of the NIMBY, and we need to be clear about that. Okay, the second theme that I heard was around a failure to have a vision for the future where people do not have cars. And what I have heard is the people who struggle with that vision do not have young children. I have a couple young children, and what I am working towards is a future where they do not need a car. That is a future that I am working toward. And when I hear people say, I cannot imagine a future where there are no cars.
[227:04] Speaker 4: I can.
[227:05] Speaker 1: A lot of people can. A lot of people with young children can. If you were to poll families in Petaluma and ask them, what do you see for the next vision for the next 25 years? They would say, a tall building next to a train station so that my kids can grow up and take the train.
[227:34] Speaker 4: That—
[227:35] Speaker 1: those are people that can see that vision. Now, I recognize that there are people that struggle with that and that they are in the minds that they are. I do— I do not mean any disrespect to that. But I want to acknowledge that failure to see that vision for the future. Okay, the last thing that we talked about was quality of life, right? We will not have a future if we do not work on our climate impacts, and so higher density for our future, for the climate, is the right decision.
[228:13] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[228:14] Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Jessica Moses, to be followed by Christine White.
[228:20] Speaker 7: Good evening, City Council, staff, and members of the public.
[228:35] Speaker 4: I'm Jessica Moses, a member of the Planning Commission who had the privilege of serving as chair for the last 2 years.
[228:41] Speaker 7: I want to offer a hearty congratulations to everyone involved in the general plan, especially the members of GPAC who put so much into this multi-year process, and to staff who have shepherded this complex process through many, many, many hours in chambers and throughout public workshops, surveys, and comment periods. On Planning Commission, we had lots of opportunities to weigh in on the general plan, and we get the distinct wonky honor of. Carrying this vision forward into policy implementation by way of the aforementioned zoning reform.
[229:12] Speaker 4: Come on back tomorrow night if you want to party on that.
[229:15] Speaker 7: With that, I want to make two points. It is important to remember firstly that height restrictions are an upper limit, not an edict for development.
[229:25] Speaker 4: The question of six versus eight has been a hot topic, and I think after decades of six being the limit, we ought to give it a shot at allowing up to eight.
[229:33] Speaker 7: To see if we can get any traction on a vacant, on a vacant lot that would be a great location for Petalumans to live. Would-be residents who get to make their home at that location would be supported by public transit and enjoy a rich life with proximity to downtown and all it has to offer.
[229:51] Speaker 4: 6 hasn't been working. The lot has sat empty, and an incremental change to 8 is, I think, very reasonable.
[229:59] Speaker 7: Point 2, a lot of thoughtful input, feedback, and public engagement has gone into this multi-year process.
[230:07] Speaker 4: It has been a robust conversation across our body and the other city committees, along with numerous public workshops and comment periods.
[230:16] Speaker 7: To throw out that effort at this stage would be malpractice as an elected official.
[230:21] Speaker 4: I implore you, as our democratically elected representatives to respect and support that effortful process by approving the plan as recommended here.
[230:33] Speaker 7: Thank you and congratulations again.
[230:34] Speaker 1: Thank you. Christine White, to be followed by Brent Newell.
[230:39] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members, and all those who have spoken on this issue. I'm just going to piggyback off what Alex said, you have proposed that we have an 8-story building in that lot by the SMART train. And your comment was, I believe, that just because we say 8 stories doesn't mean it will happen.
[231:02] Speaker 3: It hasn't happened yet. So Alex was talking about the City of San Rafael.
[231:07] Speaker 4: The City of San Rafael approved a 17-story, 180-foot-tall residential tower featuring 200 dwelling units and commercial space.
[231:16] Speaker 3: It will place an empty office building and become the tallest building in Marin County. There's another proposed by a developer. It's a project that features 13 stories, 189 apartment buildings.
[231:29] Speaker 4: This is not just, oh, maybe it's going to happen.
[231:32] Speaker 3: These are happening. And lastly, the city has planning maps also note a preliminary application for a 24-story mixed-use housing development with 345 residential units.
[231:44] Speaker 4: So you say, yes, we should do this 8-story.
[231:47] Speaker 3: But to me, you're opening it— that 8-story becomes 10 stories, or I think it's 11 because of the state.
[231:53] Speaker 4: So that's not Petaluma. Santa Fe is not Petaluma.
[231:57] Speaker 3: I don't disagree that we need something by the SMART train.
[232:02] Speaker 7: But I think you can go—
[232:03] Speaker 3: look at the adobe structure.
[232:05] Speaker 4: You can go 4 stories and have multiple building there and be able to support the number of dwellings that you're trying to get.
[232:14] Speaker 3: I think that is a good location for something.
[232:16] Speaker 4: It is close to the SMART train, not so close to a grocery store unless they like Grocery Outlet.
[232:21] Speaker 3: But anyway, something to think about.
[232:24] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[232:24] Speaker 1: Thank you. Brent Newell. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members, my name is Brent Newell.
[232:39] Speaker 5: I am—
[232:41] Speaker 1: been recently asked by my colleagues on the Planning Commission to serve as chair of the Planning Commission following Jessica. Jessica, thank you for your hard work.
[232:52] Speaker 6: Where'd you go?
[232:53] Speaker 1: Over here.
[232:54] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[232:55] Speaker 3: I'm also an environmental attorney. I served on the General Plan Advisory Committee, and I'm running for City Council to represent District 2. I'd really like to take this opportunity, most importantly, to thank the staff of the Planning Department, the M Group consultants retained to support the Planning Department, Ron and our other retained consultants, And especially the General Plan Advisory Committee. General Plan Advisory Committee, I hope members of the audience attended some of those because those people worked really hard.
[233:39] Speaker 1: They spent a lot of time providing very thoughtful recommendations that formed the basis of this draft General Plan that came before the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission considered In many, many meetings. You know, this represents the most comprehensive, hands-down, public planning process the city has ever undertaken. There have been hundreds of meetings. There have been thousands of hours of volunteer time, not volunteer time on all those commissions and committees to review different elements of the plan under their purview. It's just astounding to me how many Petalumans cared enough to show up to help develop this plan. I think that's a great I'm not going to go into everything that it, it does. I'm just going to do 3 of my favorite things. It's going to support more affordable home choices.
[234:54] Speaker 3: It's going to encourage more small businesses and more small business development through the concept of neighborhood centers and more walkable neighborhoods. That's going to flourish More small business opportunities, and it's going to address really important key goals for transportation in our community.
[235:19] Speaker 1: All of these things are going to help make Petaluma thrive. I urge you to vote yes and approve this plan because of all the time and effort and very good work that it has taken to put this together now.
[235:37] Speaker 3: It's the best thing for this community.
[235:39] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And with that, we go to Zoom.
[235:42] Speaker 3: We did actually receive one additional card after the time.
[235:47] Speaker 1: Please read the name.
[235:48] Speaker 4: Uh, Fred Shotwell.
[235:50] Speaker 1: Fred, you have the floor here. Good evening. My name is Fred Shotwell. I own the property on Cinnabar Lane, 213 Cinnabar. I got here a little bit late this evening, but my understanding that that's been mixed-use, uh, my property since like '91, I think. So I would urge you to continue with that. I would hope that you would grandfather that in. The people that are running that business now, that own that business, uh, just recently bought that. They invested a huge amount of money there. They bought it to be able to retire there at some point in time. So I would hope that when the time comes to sell that, they could— it could continue as a body shop. Um, that's my main concern really, is for them. They put in a lot of hard work, a lot of big money. Went out on a limb for that. So I appreciate if it stays mixed use, mixed use, and for them to be able to sell that at some time for retirement. So I urge you to consider that, and thank you. Thank you very much. And now to Zoom.
[237:19] Speaker 3: Our first remote speaker is Susan Kirk. If you would unmute yourself.
[237:27] Speaker 4: Thank you, Caitlin. I'm Susan Kirks, speaking about the EIR and the general plan before you this evening. I wanted to thank Councilmember Schribbs, the only council member who raised important issues at your last review of the DEI. EIR, and I am here to say this evening that your consultants have not done the work that they should have done that was requested. There has been no ground truthing, which is a very important component of bringing theoreticals into reality when you're looking at a general plan and an environmental impact report. It's very important to really understand the environment. That's why an EIR is completed. It isn't just about what parcels you can select, what projects can then be proposed, and then have site-specific environmental reviews done. This general plan should reflect the environment of Petaluma. That includes the natural features, biological resources and open space. And because my time is limited, I just want the community to know that we have 6 documented wildlife corridors here in Petaluma. I have mapped them. I offered to meet with the consultants. I have contacted the consultants over the last several years, never received any response whatsoever. Councilmember Schribbs asked the consultants to do the ground truthing, to do the extra work, to look at the biological resources. They've used things like the California Natural Diversity Database. They've used internet and online tools to try and identify some of our biological resources, and they have really missed a significant amount of biological resources, and they don't have any of the wildlife corridors because they don't know where they are. The idea that Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor is even included in the Petaluma General Plan and EIR is frankly laughable. Why is it even there? It's a small wildlife corridor. Over in the southeast portion of Sonoma County. It does not extend to Marin County or out to the coast. It stops and meets one of the wildlife corridors in Petaluma. Petaluma Valley is very significant for the geographic location of our environment and how wildlife live here, try to survive, and move So if you approve this tonight, you are selling short our Petaluma community and our, our natural environment, our features, and all of our wildlife that I would say now people in Petaluma care more about than ever.
[240:38] Speaker 1: And our next speaker.
[240:42] Speaker 7: Our next speaker is Maureen.
[240:46] Speaker 4: Uh, oh no, I'm sorry.
[240:47] Speaker 3: Our next speaker is Matt Francois.
[240:55] Speaker 4: Matt, can you hear us?
[240:56] Speaker 1: Yes, I can.
[240:58] Speaker 2: Good evening.
[240:59] Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
[240:59] Speaker 3: Yes, thank you.
[241:00] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[241:02] Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor McDonnell and members of the City Council. My name is Matt Francois, and I'm a land use lawyer. My firm represents Sires Properties, the owner of the Plaza North Shopping center. First, I want to applaud the city's efforts to proactively undertake this large land use planning effort to guide your future city growth and congratulate you on reaching this major milestone. As you know, my client's property has been used for decades as a commercial shopping center in accordance with city approvals and planning and zoning regulations. My client has made substantial investments in the center. And plans to make additional investments so that it can continue to operate Plaza North as a shopping center for the foreseeable future. So, my client's property has historically been used exclusively for commercial uses and will likely continue to remain devoted exclusively to commercial uses. Based on our understanding that the proposed general plan allows 100% commercial use, commercial uses on the Plaza North site. We do not oppose the general plan update. If there were to be any changes or conditions requiring or mandating a mixed-use development on the site, we would oppose such provisions as being inconsistent with the general plan. Thank you for your consideration of my client's views on this matter, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
[242:39] Speaker 3: Our next speaker is Maureen.
[242:41] Speaker 1: Hello, can you hear me?
[242:47] Speaker 3: Yes, we can hear you.
[242:49] Speaker 10: Go ahead.
[242:50] Speaker 7: Hi, um, this is Maureen Gottschall.
[242:54] Speaker 4: Uh, I too want to thank everyone. I know this has been a long road, a lot of work. And I appreciate all the efforts. So when staff called the eight stories a natural increase, there's nothing natural about it. This council agreed to six, then a majority of this council overrode it to eight. That's a decision; that's not nature.
[243:19] Speaker 7: What is not being heard here is the community. The community engaged.
[243:24] Speaker 4: We were there were significant groups of people engaged in.
[243:29] Speaker 7: And what came out of that, and the majority— what the majority said is that we want 6.
[243:34] Speaker 4: These are your constituents. Please listen to them.
[243:38] Speaker 3: Yes, the density bonus law is from 1979, but what the city failed to mention in its explanation is that the rules that matter are new.
[243:50] Speaker 4: Since 2022, no parking can be required near the station. Since 2023, a second stacked bonus takes the maximum to 100%.
[244:00] Speaker 3: These are the incentives developers are now starting to use.
[244:04] Speaker 7: This council cannot change state law, but it can set the base. Set the limit at 6 and the bonus lands at 8.
[244:13] Speaker 4: Set it at 8 and you're inviting 10 to 12. 6 is, is the mitigation. It is where we have the control. San Rafael is the test case.
[244:26] Speaker 7: We are next, without a shadow of a doubt.
[244:29] Speaker 4: Please take this into consideration.
[244:32] Speaker 7: Now, staff said there are plans in place to mitigate water.
[244:38] Speaker 4: The ERA names them mandatory rationing under the water shortage contingency plan, wells the city says it cannot rely on, And recycled water already counted.
[244:51] Speaker 7: Not one is a new supply. The city's own consultant projects a 12% shortfall in every dry year from 2030 on.
[245:00] Speaker 4: The plan for that gap is to make existing ratepayers use less because the utilities costs are fixed and pay more for it. This is not mitigation. That is a rate increase with extra steps. Please take this into consideration. Thank you.
[245:20] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[245:23] Speaker 3: Our next speaker is Nathan Spindell.
[245:40] Speaker 1: Good evening. Nathan Spindel here, parent, homeowner, and business owner in District 5. Thank you to the GPAC, the Planning Commission, city staff, council, and everyone else who put years of work into this plan. Please adopt General Plan 2050 tonight. I want Petaluma to be a place where families can afford to live, where kids can safely bike to school, and where the city stays on solid financial footing. This plan moves us on all 3. Tonight, I'll speak to 2 of them. First, affordability. The 2008 General Plan projected 6,000 new homes by 2025. Petaluma only built about half of that, and every family trying to live here is paying for it. So is every senior who wants to downsize. The new plan makes Petaluma more affordable for the next generation because every new home built softens prices for everyone from market rate to affordable. Secondly, sustainable financial footing. Petaluma is already behind on the roads we have, and infill on existing streets adds taxpayers without adding pavement. That's also my answer to Darren Rapkisson's recommendation about living within the revenue sources Petaluma already has. That doesn't square with how city budgets work in California. Prop 13 limits the growth of existing property to 2% a year, while the cost of police, fire, and paving rises with inflation, which ran above 4% in recent years.
[247:09] Speaker 3: A city whose revenue grows at 2% and whose costs grow at 4% is not living within its means.
[247:14] Speaker 1: It's falling a little further behind every year. The services Darren rightly calls essential need a revenue base that gently grows to pay for them. Smart dense infill does exactly that. New homes on existing streets are assessed at today's property tax values. I'd be interested to hear what other solutions folks have in mind, because I don't see how we keep providing essential services without growing the revenue that pays for them. Congratulations on General Plan 2050. It's a step in the right direction for Petaluma. Thank you. Thank you. And that closes, um, general public comment for the night.
[247:54] Speaker 7: Correct.
[247:54] Speaker 1: Like to bring it, uh, back up to dais. Um, a lot there. I appreciate, uh, all the, uh, property owners who came in to speak and others who came in to speak. And, um, where shall the deliberation start? So, Council Member Barnickle, you're the planning liaison. Please kick us off. Happy to. Thank you. Um, I want to start by addressing one of the, the the comments about Marin County because I feel like there's some things that are maybe either I'm misunderstanding or someone else is. Um, so when I looked into the Marin County, um, they have a form base code, right, that has no density, right? Right now at the train station, it's 6 stories with no density limits, right? So like the thing that is enabling Marin County to go up to 12 and 24 stories right now is what we currently have at the station, which is no density limits. So I just want to set that, like, in terms of, like, putting this into context, we're introducing density limits where there currently is none. And so the— we are more likely to see, like, extremely dense development right now than we would be in a future scenario where we introduce a maximum density threshold. So if someone says let's keep it just the way it is now, what they're saying is, is we want unlimited density at the train station. And what we're seeing in Marin County is that unlimited density is resulting in significantly taller buildings than they envisioned in their planning processes. So I just— is that, is that accurate? Did I misconstrue things? Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure that I, um, that I, I get that right because that's how I interpreted it, and I just want the public to understand that. Um, so now I'll move into my sort of comments. Um, this is the culmination of 5 years of work, as, as already been pointed out.
[249:51] Speaker 10: Yeah.
[249:52] Speaker 1: Um, and it's really about the type of city we're, we're trying to become in 25 years and the choices we're going to make. A ton has changed since our last general plan in 2008. We thought retail and sales tax was going to save us, and then we saw online retail come on, and that has dramatically impacted brick-and-mortar retail for our entire city. And we see it in our office part, or we see it in our commercial centers. Work from home, Zoom has completely changed the work environment, and now we have a bunch of vacant office buildings that we need to try and fill. Um, in 2008 when this was adopted, homes were, uh, well under $300,000, and right now the median home value is over $900,000. Wages have not grown that fast, folks. Um, our population is aging. A third of our population are senior citizens right now. And as I think it was Council Member Quint shared from a, a forum he was at That could grow to 40% by, uh, like mid-2030s, I think it was. Um, so we've got a population that's aging, uh, increasingly going to be relying on fixed incomes. Um, and our tax base, as Nathan pointed out, um, Prop 13 limits our tax base growth at 2%. Um, and meanwhile, our, our benefits and things like that for our employees are growing Well, in advance of 2% a year, they're growing at more like 7 to 10%, if I'm not mistaken. Is that, is that accurate? Okay, um, so we've got, uh, a lot of things that we are, um, that we're tackling. That's just the sort of like bare bones reality of the data and how things have shifted over the last, um, 20 years. Um, and the general plan has to hold all those things at once, and it's not going to be perfect. But planning isn't an exercise at optimizing for one thing. It's an exercise in balancing multiple priorities, and I think this plan does that pretty dang well. It's 5 years in the making, and we've had thousands of hours of paid time, thousands of hours of volunteer time, and we're not all going to agree on everything. But I think when we get down to it, there's a few things that I think we just all need to hold here. Um, last— in 2024, we made a plan. We, the 70% of Cali— of Petalumans, extended our urban growth boundary out to 2050. And there's a basic bargain there that we're not going to grow outward. And so what we did is we protected. Um, and then the other thing is, is this plan of the 9,000 acres within our city We're talking about— it touches like maybe 5% of the land uses in our city of the 9,000 acres and looking at very targeted areas of change. So the bargain that I see here is, is that we have preserved the acreage on the outside of our city, the agriculture, the rolling hills, the green farms, the things that I think really define our community, and we have preserved the neighborhoods that we all live in. We're not putting 4-story apartment buildings in every single-family neighborhood. We're not putting 8-story buildings along every corridor. This is a pretty darn targeted thing. So the trade-off here and the bargain here is, is that we're preserving our neighborhoods and we're preserving the edges of our city for roughly 5% of the land in our city getting changed over the next 25 years. And, um, the fact that we're here talking about one 4-acre parcel is like, you know, when I looked at the public comments, the thing, you know, obviously, uh, the 8 stories was the, the number one thing in there, right? So one 4-acre parcel out of the 9,000 acres is the thing that has got us up in arms. Um, I, I, uh, I respect everybody's feelings on that. And, you know, my position is, is that if there is a place to do that, it's there. So I want to take a minute to just address some of the challenges or some of the concerns that I've heard. One, the comment about density and affordability. I don't think anyone says that density alone is what the driver of affordability is. What people say is that housing supply is critical to solving affordability. And, Darren, your, your paper, which was very helpful, actually acknowledges that straight up. And I'm just gonna share something. Councilmember Scripps and I were on a call last week, and there was this really, uh, great graphic that I grabbed a screen grab of that I thought I wanted to just share tonight because it shows— it's from Pew Research, obviously a very reputable research firm. And what it shows is that the places that build housing compress rents. The places— and the United States overall has not, and you can see what the result is. So when we talk about building housing, that's why, is because the pathway to affordability is through supply. If we graduate— Councilmember Now and Councilmember Cater Thompson did an op-ed on this— we graduate 700 seniors a year and we build Close, roughly 100 homes. The math doesn't work out, folks. We've got to build housing. Where that housing goes when we can't go out, um, is really the question, and that's what we're trying to solve for here. And so that is fundamentally why I support this plan as it's written. I think it does an excellent job of trying to identify specific areas within our community and build um, build character and community where maybe there isn't some, um, and also retain the character in the community where we have it. And so, um, with that, I think, um, I'm willing to accept all the policy recommendations that staff brought forward. If there's others that came up as a result of the, um, of the public comments, I'd like to entertain those. But, um, I'm really excited about this plan. I think it's a watershed moment for our city, and I'm looking forward to supporting it.
[256:05] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[256:08] Speaker 1: Great point. And with that, I'd like to remind staff— I mean, or have staff remind us— there are decision points we're going to revisit sort of after questions and comments here to gather whether any of the recommendations, which of the recommendations are adopted or not adopted in tonight's conversation. And Councilmember McHader Thompson, are you up? I think I'm just going to speak about the recommendations because that's what I'm most interested in afterwards.
[256:39] Speaker 4: Like with Mr. Shotwell when he was speaking, I just want to make sure that he understands that if the other actually gives more flexibility, and same with John's Dairy Supply and Jane Bill's, I just want to make sure that we understand that, that it gives them more flexibility And then mixed use. Mixed use is more problematic.
[257:02] Speaker 7: Mayor, so I did have a few notes as follow-up to that. So John's Dairy and Pool Supply, we have looked at, and we believe that there— it does not become a nonconforming use. It is a permitted use under the neighborhood center mixed use that is proposed on the east side. So we do not think I don't think it is creating any nonconformity or issue with maintaining that use in perpetuity as it's proposed as neighborhood center mixed use. The same—
[257:37] Speaker 1: Can I ask?
[257:38] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[257:39] Speaker 1: And Director Oh had mentioned something on letterhead, and are we able to provide that as direct comment on letterhead?
[257:46] Speaker 7: Sure. Similarly, Jay and Bill's Tire, we also— that is one is proposed for neighborhood center mixed use. We have looked at that in terms of the draft for that zoning district that is before the Planning Commission. No issue there. It would be a permitted use, so there's no issue with selling it in the future or leasing it to a different operator. Obviously, any, um, any change in use— so there was a question about, can I lease it to another tenant? Obviously, any tenant that would be a new use needs to follow one of the allowable uses under the zoning. The Shotwell property is, um, As mixed use, that use we do not believe would be an allowed use. So that would be the one that I, I think the recommendation would be to pull the maker microbusiness down to that property that the Shotwell is on, on Cinnabar, which the maker microbusiness then would allow the automobile, the collision repair use as a allowable use.
[259:09] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[259:16] Speaker 1: Anything?
[259:20] Speaker 4: I have one more. Sorry. Um, Ted Cabral on his property. So, but if, if the building was torn down, he could not build the This on the same footprint, is that correct? So I just want to know if he has a proposal for the EV, how would that work on his property?
[259:42] Speaker 7: Any development that would happen on that site does need to comply with the base zoning and land use designation. So the river buffer is more akin to an overlay than, for instance, floodway is a zone. is a designation, is a zone.
[260:02] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[260:02] Speaker 7: The river buffer doesn't act in the same way. It applies over whatever your base designation and zoning. So anything that is proposed there would need to meet the development, the land use and the development standards of the zoning, the applicable zoning. In terms of, you know, for the vacant area that is covered by the river buffer, It would be something that city staff would work with the applicant to find the best solution for allowing use of the property and doing everything feasible to avoid or lessen the impact within the river buffer. I think it is important to acknowledge that the river buffer isn't just based on flood. This was based on a meta-study that was done that looked at appropriate buffers based on the objective of the buffers. And so the 330 was based on, you know, not only riparian corridor and habitat protection. And so that's where the 330— so it is based on a meta-study that was done. for those purposes. So it's not just based on flood modeling or FEMA mapping. It is based on trying to limit the further encroachment of new development into a buffer along the river in order to preserve it, which has been an objective of the council and the community.
[261:42] Speaker 1: Well, and just to add to that also, So, Heather mentions the base zoning designation. So, this is commercial, and I don't know the details of what Ted is proposing with this EV charger outside of just the concept currently. So, regardless of what you consider this evening, if he were to have submitted that project yesterday, the zoning for commercial wouldn't allow for that use, we'd have to reconsider. So the council has the opportunity when the zoning code comes forward, when Planning Commission sees that. Currently, how the code is written, EV charging station is supposed to be secondary or ancillary. So if you can imagine, we have commercial zone property all over town.
[262:38] Speaker 4: Mm-hmm.
[262:40] Speaker 1: And so one thing, a policy that both Planning Commission and the council will want to grapple with is, are we okay with using commercial property for EV charging solely? And so as it stands, regardless of what you do this evening, without knowing more detail, I believe the project could not move forward. Without a consideration of a zone change, essentially, to go from an accessory use. So you see at Target, you have the Tesla, you know, charging station, and that's secondary, right? It's a small component to the larger commercial, and that's typically how we see EV charging stations. That doesn't mean to say— we may not want to consider that, but just something to be mindful of. As proposed, if it's fully EV charging, that wouldn't be— that'd have to be some sort of zone change. He also mentioned the river access. I believe that would be a requirement anyways along the river, per— I think since the '90s we've had that rule in place. Anytime something redevelops along the river, there's public access that gets incorporated to any future project. So again, we're looking forward to hearing more about it. We've worked on a number of ideas, and so it's, it's top of mind. So I suspect as we work through the zoning code, we want to balance everything, all the different options that have been contemplated for that site.
[264:29] Speaker 4: I appreciate that. But when that happens, if you can bring up the paperwork for the auto mall, that would be helpful because we have talked about this before. It was almost as though his property was not downzoned, but it, it wasn't zoned accordingly.
[264:46] Speaker 1: Like, he can't have an RV repair shop there.
[264:49] Speaker 3: It's my understanding.
[264:50] Speaker 4: standing, that that may not be an allowable use. So I just want to make sure that he has more allowable uses than what was restricted when the Auto Mall went in and all that agreement was done.
[265:04] Speaker 1: We can definitely look at— so the Auto Mall likely has a planned PCD, so a planned community development master plan, a set of permitted uses. So, we would definitely, you know, we can have that prepared as part of the zoning code, but really the thing that would be most helpful is wrestling with the commercial zoning designation and the allowable uses. Are they permitted? Are they a use permit? Should it remain secondary? Can it be a primary? These are all things that we'll be working on in 24 hours from now.
[265:45] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[265:51] Speaker 1: Vice Mayor.
[265:52] Speaker 3: So I've got several things I want to talk about in regard to the general plan, but I'm going to start with the 8-story. And, you know, I already said it in my questions earlier, but, you know, we're seeing this happen in other cities. It's happened in Novato. San Rafael has been the example with 17 and 24-story buildings. It is not impossible to see tall buildings up here. You know, it's, it's, it's a very real scenario. And I want to address some other council comments about density. Density is not the issue around this 8-story building. That's kind of just a distracting argument. The issue is that Petalumas do not want this building, whether it be 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 stories tall. We don't want it. And I don't know how many times people have to say that before it sinks into other people's heads. Uh, we don't have a traffic study for how that's going to impact us. This would be the tallest residential building in Petaluma. I would think everybody would want to know how that's going to impact things and not wait until an application comes in to figure that out. You know, we've got, as mentioned before, we've got our viewshed and sense of place to consider as well. People move to Petaluma because they love seeing the hills. They love seeing the river, the Iron Front, the old downtown, all the other neat buildings we have, the grain silos. You know, a lot of that would be ruined if all of a sudden, right in the middle of town, you're looking at something over 100 feet tall that's just, um, nothing but the most modern plain building you can imagine. I don't know if staff can pull up in the briefing booklet On page 39, it's all the examples you included of what an 8-story building would look like. So I don't know if you can do that, Heather, and see if you can find that while I'm speaking. But, um, and then there's— so there's sense of place to consider as well. You know, wherever you are in Petaluma, you want to know that you're in Petaluma, not somewhere else. And, you know, what would likely be built here again is a big boxy modern building, and we don't have very good design standards here in Petaluma. So until we develop those, we shouldn't even be considering bigger buildings. And then, um, you know, obviously there's, there's the no parking requirement from the state, the state laws, and how many units are going to go in. You can't live in a fictitious world where you say nobody's going to have cars in the future. they will. That's reality. And, uh, we— that would just be devastating to that entire area. You know, it's already so hard. We, you know, have talked about crosstown connectors, but those are so expensive, and we've pretty much bonded ourselves out this year in, in bonds that— how would we build Caulfield at this point? It would be nice to, but we don't have a way to do that right now. And so Without something like a crosstown connector, we couldn't even begin to think of how we're going to alleviate traffic in that area. And then, um, you know, it's— I, I think this has been discussed enough that I really feel like, you know, I'll pause for a second on my comments. I feel like I'd like us to do a straw poll and see how the council feels about 8 stories.
[269:15] Speaker 1: I think it's a good suggestion to have the council weigh in on that topic, and we could each take our turn. Um, I mean, I think we'll move to the next person and let them go through their comments and go through and go through so that we get everybody's comments on, um, on everything, including 8 stories.
[269:31] Speaker 3: Well, they could still make their comments on it, but I mean, we could pause for a moment and just take a few seconds and do a straw poll.
[269:39] Speaker 1: If you would like to cede time to the next person. I'll ask for their comments in total.
[269:44] Speaker 3: We can wait to do it then, but I would like to do a straw poll tonight on that.
[269:49] Speaker 1: I like the idea.
[269:50] Speaker 3: So, and if you go back into the briefing booklet, it also says that participants in the GPAC surveys, they wanted 4 stories. So it's, it's in there that 4 stories was more desirable around that area. You know, and I've, I've discussed it before, but we should be taking every opportunity we can with the general plan to protect ourselves from density bonus laws and other state laws that allow for buildings that we cannot control. In this case, if 6 was the desired amount, we need to go to a lesser height that, you know, that, that 6 stories could be hit through those density laws.
[270:32] Speaker 4: We—
[270:32] Speaker 3: that's how we protect ourselves, is we lower the bar and knowing what, what state laws can do to us. So, you know, I don't know how many people have to write in and say that they don't want 8+ story buildings in downtown before the council listens to them. And the decisions to add 8 stories, I'll remind everybody, was slipped in almost 4 hours into a meeting right before Christmas. Where nobody on the public side was worried about something like this happening. And I stand by my words at that meeting where I said this was a very unethical thing to do, along with some other things that were done. You know, I would say that those of you that are up for election right now, go around and start campaigning at every door that you want to see 8 stories and that you voted for it. But you won't do that because you know you'd get voted out of office right away because Pendletonans don't want that. So now I'll go on to rezoning businesses. Back in May, I brought up to council and staff and I said, hey, we're rezoning all these businesses to new designations that we really don't know what they are. And that was the opportunity— staff should have already done this and done better outreach. But that was an opportunity then for staff to reach out and speak to these businesses and say, is this okay with you? Or say, this is what this is. Or, or at least bring them to the table and make them part of the conversation. Because if they hadn't found out that this was happening, it would have all just happened. And like we just uncovered, and I'm glad you did, Shotwells would have been a legal nonconforming use. And so, you know, I did some background research, and I'll pull it up here. You know, there's there's a an old land use book out there, and it quotes something from the California Supreme Court, and they laid down the following rule: said California cases have firmly declared. That zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if it provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved. So, though we may today never do something like that as a city, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen to these businesses in the future. Why would we do something that makes anybody vulnerable? We should be protecting all of our businesses. And and that's the direction I thought we were all going in this year when we said we're going to make permitting easier, we're going to do more outreach to businesses, and it doesn't seem like that's happening. So I think now is a good opportunity to meet with all of those businesses, everybody that was rezoned, and see if that's actually what they want because that's their properties, that's their livelihood, that's their future, that's their retirement. I don't think anybody should be making that decision except them. So I'm glad that the businesses came and stuck it out tonight and spoke, spoke about all this and voiced their concerns. And I want to see that staff meet with them and do what they want with their properties. And I want to make sure too that Maker Micro and Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Are fully defined before any decisions are made. You know, that, that's another thing is nobody can say with any confidence what the future of these properties will be until that's done. Everything else until then is wishful thinking. So, I also want to see— I don't think it's appropriate for us to be passing the general plan tonight without going through these new land use designations and actually defining them in places where we've made changes. I kind of just said that already, but I want to emphasize that because all we have is some loose framework, framework around what they are. We don't have them fully defined. I do feel that maker micro should be removed. I don't, I don't understand why it even came into existence in the first place. It's basically business park. I don't want to see, I don't want to see flex. I think that needs to be removed as well. You know, for years we've been considering properties that could be considered flex zoning, and there are no flex zone properties, none that we've identified. We considered some, the council said no, and so I don't think it makes sense for us to keep that. We don't have any flex, so we should be removing that right now. The river-dependent industrial parcels along the river, I think those need to retain their zoning. We should not be converting those to housing. Our river is such a valuable resource. You know, most towns and cities do not have that, and so we have a unique opportunity that most don't. to promote river industry and bring that to Petaluma, help create jobs, help use our river, you know, make the best use of our river. And what a lot of people don't realize is, is you can look at freight traffic on river, that takes an enormous amount of vehicles off the road. That does a lot for our climate right there. That's going to do a lot more than sticking a bunch of apartments on those properties. Then, you know, I, I— in the transportation section, you've got the ATP, the Active Transportation Plan. That's another thing Petaluma didn't ask for. That was a small group that pushed that, and everybody's really upset about roads around town, the roundabouts, D Street, you know, McDowell with the green bollards all along it. Petaluma didn't ask for that, and they didn't ask for the ATP that got passed. passed last year. So I don't like that that's in this plan. Then, you know, going back to my questions, I do want to see the alternative considered in the EIR to pass this general plan as is with everything we've added to the general plan in combination with keeping building height and density where they're at. I think that's— I don't know how we missed that. But I think that's important to consider because we, um, you know, we— it's important to consider because, um, you know, we may be just well enough off the way that things are instead of the direction we're going. Because as was mentioned, you, you look at our housing numbers and with this new general plan, We're sitting at 3 times the amount that are required. So why are we making all of these big changes? That doesn't make any sense to me. So I would like to— after the others have spoken, I would like to make an alternative motion, but I would like to wait to do that to hear everybody else first.
[277:54] Speaker 7: Sure.
[277:57] Speaker 1: Sure. Council Member Nowell, any thoughts?
[278:00] Speaker 4: Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, 20 years ago I sat at this very dais and approved our current general plan. I'm going to be the only council member that's been, um, on 2 general plans. I did have 20 years in between Um, being on the council, but I am seeing now in 2026 a better general plan for our future. We have numerous staff, numerous council members, numerous hours by the public giving us input, the various volunteers that were on our boards, and I want to thank the planning commissioners and the GPAC for giving their input and listening to the, to the public. Um, the looking forward, the general plan is a, um, a plan. It's just the vision for 20 years from now, what's going to happen, and it will take us into the future where You know, it's going to be safer roads for my grandchildren to ride bikes. I'm not going to be riding bikes. I'm going to be using that public transportation, maybe because maybe I won't be able to drive. I don't know. I want to age in Petaluma. I want to get old in Petaluma. I want to free up my home so some family can move into it and have it as a starter home. I want to see first-time home buyers buy smaller homes and then work their way up to a larger home the size of the one I have that I bought 40 years ago. I want to look at the future. I want to see jobs, um, and like I mentioned, the homes for my 7 grandkids who hopefully will go off to college and then come back and find jobs and homes and significant others and make their future here just like their parents. Um, I want to be able to provide for the friends that I have that are aging in Petaluma, and they're complaining that there's nowhere for them to live. They don't want a big house. They can't get into PEP housing. The waiting list for PEP housing is 6 to 7 years. I think someone said they may not be here when that— when their name gets to the top. We just had a groundbreaking on a new senior living. It's already 50% full, and it's not even going to be ready for 2 more years. So I don't want to go over 4 stories. I do not like more than 6 stories at all, but What if those were apartments for my friends who want to age in Petaluma, or my grandkids who want to take the SMART train to the junior college like their parents did when they moved out of our home and moved into Eden Housing and took the bus and worked downtown? So I have, um, you know, in 20 years we didn't even have social media. So now we have this social media. We didn't know what AI was. Now we have that. I mean, we knew what E.T. was. He was from a movie. It was a character in a movie. We didn't think that there would be anything, you know, sci-fi in 2026. The Crosstown Connector, Rainier, 20 years ago, that was voted in by the voters more than once. It's not going to happen. I have to face that reality. We do need a Crosstown Connector. We have to figure out how to pay for it in the next 20 years. We need to ease up the congestion on Washington Street and D Street because cars are not going to go away. There's still going to be people that need to drive their grandkids, and I have 4 different car seats in my car because I have to pick them up and drop from off at sports and schools. But there's other families that need to have their cars. Cars aren't going away, but we do need to ease up the traffic, and we need to make a Crosstown Connector a priority in the next 20 years. And we need to think about our businesses. The businesses that came to speak tonight I use those businesses. If you want the best rubber boots in town, you go to Jerry— John's Dairy Supply. And if you want to get your tickets to the Dairy Princess Ball, that's where you're going to go. And if you need your tires on your vehicle, I have used J.N. Bill's. I have an appointment at Brody's for my tires to be rotated on Wednesday. And I hope he's happy with what we make our decision tonight, because I have used those businesses over the years. And I thank you for being here tonight, and thank you all for this late night. And I'm very proud of our general plan, and I look forward to it getting approved tonight.
[283:30] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Councilmember Quint?
[283:33] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[283:39] Speaker 1: First of all, Councilmember, now I want to extend my gratitude for being a city council person that has had to sit through 2 of these. And I also really appreciate your comments. I agreed with everything that you said. And like, like you, I want to acknowledge and Um, you know, just kind of speak to the business owners that came in here tonight. And, uh, you know, for those, for those business owners who haven't been coming to council meetings for the last year and a half, um, this is, I think, the most business-friendly council that Petaluma has had, uh, in a very long time. And as we've deliberated on the general plan, one of the things that we've talked about is the, you know, ad nauseam, is the importance of economic development and making it easier to do business in Petaluma. And we've seen staff make progress on that front. Are we perfect?
[284:58] Speaker 3: No. Are we getting better?
[285:00] Speaker 1: I really believe we are. And any of the businesses that have concerns about zoning changes affecting the long-term viability of their businesses, you know, I— those need— like, those concerns need to be assuaged. We need to make sure that our business community knows that we are, that we recognize the importance of economic development in this, in this community, and, and that we, you know, take care of those issues. You know, I want to address, I want to take a moment and address this idea of the riverfront. So I'm not an expert in many things, but I am an expert in shipping. Like, that's what I do, right? Moving freight around the world, moving freight through the United States, that's my day job. That's what I do. And there's a reason Why freight hasn't moved on the Petaluma River in 40 years? Because it's inefficient, and the kinds of things that might travel on a river are not produced in Sonoma County, and they're not coming back. So we can the idea of blocking out that property and restricting it from building. Homes that we need, I think is a— personally, I think that's a mistake. I want to thank all of the people who have worked on this project. I think it's a milestone for our community, and, you know, there's been a ton of hard work and, and, uh, you know, committed time. And so everyone that, uh, you know, everyone that's put their sort of their blood, sweat, and tears into it, uh, I really appreciate that. And those are my comments. Thank you very much. Councilmember Schribbs. Okay, I started off, uh, before I was on City Council, I was on the, uh, the GPAC, uh, committee for 2 years and then got kicked off because I got on council. But I've been tracking it, going to some of the meetings, and following the process all along. This is near and dear to my heart, and we're at a stage now where it's okay, we, we've got to do it. It's one of my goals in council was to, to get to this point of getting it through. So, um, the benefits I see of The General Plan is what I mentioned a little earlier about adaptive management, adaptive strategy, and basically doing what you need to do now, but also being able to allow yourself to do what you need to do in the future to make things work. So that's all about flexibility and adaptation to make things work. And the General Plan being digital now, that's the plan, and flexible. And adaptive, it's going to— we have the opportunity to shift and change with whatever's coming at us because we've got lots of stuff coming at us. We have all the hazards as well as possible global economy collapse, whatever. We have El Niño coming at us. We have maybe a possible earthquake that takes out 50% of our population. We have all sorts of things that could happen. So we need to be flexible and adaptive as it comes up. But this is overall, it's 99% a really good plan. I think we've really achieved that. There's a few things that we could tweak better. I think the biological studies and resources could have been improved. I would like to get the promise that our staff will reach out to Susan Kirks and get her maps of the 6 corridors and have that as at least an asset As an addendum to our resources, that we have it in hand. And if we need to go back and look at how it was developed, at this time I'm not going to stop anything because we don't have it. I think we need— basically, we need to have that information in-house and really review it well. But I'm not going to stop moving forward without it at this point. But we really need to get it. So I'm asking for a reach out to do that.
[289:43] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[289:45] Speaker 1: As far as the flood zones develops, I think we have some adaptability, flexibility that we can probably work with all the development that needs to happen, the current businesses that are here. And we've reached out a lot, but hey, we just always move on that. So I think, I think we're flexible enough there.
[290:03] Speaker 5: The—
[290:05] Speaker 1: it's us and the businesses. On EV charging stations, it's not— don't be ridiculous. It's absolutely commercial. It's selling— we sell gas, that's commercial. We sell electricity, that's commercial. We're going to be selling— in Japan, they have— they don't sell a station, a plug-in. They sell you the whole battery. Lift up this battery, swap out your battery, and go. So, we're going to have those types of things coming, all sorts of technology, new things going on. So, EV charging station is absolutely a commercial selling of electricity. So that we think of it as, oh, it's just a little thing on the side here for freebie as a service on the side that you can do, that's a ridiculous concept at this point in time. We really don't even— we've talked about having a food truck policy several times now over the last 4 years. It's not in the general plan anywhere. That's not going anywhere. But that's something that we have to really establish, but it's not really part of our general plan. But that's not even one of our categories of businesses we're really talking about. Where does it fit in? What category is that? Is that a mixed-use? Can you have food trucks in your mixed-use area? So having a policy around the food trucks, we need to develop that. Maybe not part of the general plan, but we need that. That's a missing thing here. And we've talked about developing our food truck businesses here in town, but it's not included in any business model. in the general plan. So we need to work on that. But the— when it comes to the 6 versus 8 stories, one of the things I got reminded of when we talked about the hotel downtown, 4 versus 6— hey, our ladder truck, a fire truck ladder truck, can get up to 6 stories, not 8. So that's another little factor, 6 versus 8. Our fire folks can get on ladder with a hose and actually work on a 6-story, not an 8-story. So there's a possible safety feature we need to be thinking about there that hasn't even come up yet. When it comes to one of the first general plan meetings we had several years ago at the fairgrounds, we had all these posters up with all these possible buildings and buildings in all these spots. And I walked around at the end and took a look, and turns out 80% of the dots were saying no to 6 stories. No, no, no, no, no. Like 80% of the dots. We'll take 4 stories, we'll even take 5, but not 6. But we've passed 6. We went and said, okay, we'll go with 6. And we've pushed it up from 4 to 5. And we got— oh, most of the folks have said, okay, we can live with that. And now all of a sudden we're pushing it. Okay, we're going to do 8 now. And then given the state laws and And looking at that, and there's several other stackable, which is different now, 2022 and '23, stackable affordable housing, so it can go up much higher. And that's coming. It's not a matter of, oh, it hasn't been done. It's coming. So do we want to have that or not? And I think our constituents, when you really talk to them, the large volume, look at the volume of condos that are being built.
[293:12] Speaker 5: So we got—
[293:13] Speaker 1: um, we— character of town, a viewshed, um, is, is very, very important to most of our residents. And I think we at this point really need to listen and say, okay, we can change it later, okay, if we get the proposals. And gee, it's 6 stories at market rate, not affordable, at market rate. We'll say 6-story or 8-story. And then with affordability, it can easily go up to 10 or 11, but with a stackable, it can go up to 12+ if you stack it up according to state laws. What my understanding is, what's happening in San Rafael. So these things can happen. So leaving it at 6 still leaves the door open for affordable to 8, even 9 as a possibility, 50% more. So I think we need to put a cap there. and really appease. The folks have asked us to listen, and I think we really do. And I don't think it's worth— on one spot, we're going to raise it up to 8 stories. One spot, it's only a couple homes, housing for folks. Why are we doing this just to make a large part of our population really mad at us? I, I don't think it's right to overstep like that.
[294:28] Speaker 7: Yeah.
[294:29] Speaker 1: Um, it might be— there's all sorts of reasons why we may want to do but I'm not for going up to the 8 stories. I want to actually listen to the folks and say, let's cap it at 6, but it'll be allowed if it's affordable. Yeah, okay, we'll allow it to come in at 8. So let's go do that. So overall, I would like to support what we're doing tonight and get everything passed, but I do want a— it says that straw vote to demonstrate where we're at on that, because that's a critical factor in our character of our town And do we want to turn into a small— I know we are a small city, but do we want to look like a larger city, or do we want to look like and feel like still an agricultural-based town? And that's a critical philosophical thing, and the people have told us we want to maintain a culture of a smaller ag town, even if we're turning into a larger city. So, I think this is a critical factor in that. Um, um, and, and for— we're doing it for population. So that— those are my comments at this time.
[295:32] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[295:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, just a couple thoughts. Um, one, um, thank you, staff. Thank you, GPAC. Um, thank you, Planning Commission. Um, I think what we've, we've done here is have a, you know, very strategic, very localized, um, effort at changing what we're going to see in the future. I mean, it's surprising how little of the town is impacted and surprising how little cause for resolution tonight there actually was. I was glad to hear that the businesses were here and that we had an answer to them. I am disappointed that they were here afraid, but, but I think we have those answers and support the modifications that we're talking about. I think it's a very fixable tonight thing. And I'm glad we've visited with the folks in San Rafael. It's much better to say, yeah, they have troubles and we know why and we're fixing so we don't have those troubles. You know, certainly that lack of density thing that was brought up is significant. And the other thing that's not brought up down there is the vast difference between our affordable housing buckets and theirs, what the AMI is down there versus up here. The AMI down there is essentially market rate for most people, and hence they're quite willing to build those kind of apartments there, but we would never see that at an affordable level here in Sonoma County. We are the high rent of the county and the Median income is lower than, than pet limit rent. So we're the ones that don't see filling the properties here for affordable housing, which trends over into all our housing. And, and again, we, we haven't built many houses in the last 20 years. We haven't grown as a population in 20 years, but we've changed so very much as a demographic sample. You know, we are much older now than we were before. Our school-age population is 25% less than it was 20 years ago. Building or not building has consequence, and acting to lead with it is one choice. Acting to not do anything is a different choice, and both have consequences. So I do like where we've landed on all of the issues. I do think it's important to talk about height is not height alone. Height is coupled with a floor area ratio. A floor area ratio on the smart parcel on the 8-storey parcel is 5. That means the whole of the property could get developed at 5, not 8, 5. That's what a floor area ratio means. And then you have to remember that it's actually not on the whole of the property, it's just on the footprint of the buildings. So you have sidewalks, you have a transect street down the middle of things, you take out 10-20% of the overall property there, and then you say that's what can be 5 stories everywhere. Or you can be 3 stories, 5 stories, 8 stories, you can tier it and make it interesting and things like that. And so what we've done is allowed Creativity and opportunity. And, and what we found to today is that nobody's built on that property for, you know, that was for since it was a rail yard. And so, you know, what if we showed more willingness to accept creativity? What if we looked at it differently? Would we get a different result or would it still not happen? And I'm thinking trying is better than continuing to have vacant lots all over town. And that is again the strategic part. It's just the one lot where we are putting a toe in the water to find out if that's the secret that unlocks some housing in Petaluma. Now we had, I think, 4 different areas that we needed to give staff feedback on, or were there? So the ones I have listed are Petaluma Boulevard North area, Cinnabar area, the Friends, um, the greenway. And maybe that was just— the 330 buffer was just more of a commentary.
[299:54] Speaker 7: So you have an exhibit in your—
[299:58] Speaker 1: Can you pop up the exhibit?
[300:00] Speaker 4: Sure.
[300:02] Speaker 7: The— yeah. Um, so unless there's— I haven't heard any opposition to anything that's in there. I'm going to ask point blank. Okay, so if there's opposition to anything in there, um, we would need that feedback. Um, and then I think the one thing I had noted as a potential addition to that, just based on listening to comments, um, was pulling the Maker Micro, um, to capture the Shotwell property on Cinnabar. Um, and then one thing I just— for SHRIBS Councilmember Schribbs, there is a policy about food trucks in the general plan. It's, um, Land Use Policy 8.5, and it's— and it directs for establishing a regulatory framework for permitting mobile vendors like food trucks. So something you brought up, just wanted to make sure you knew it was in there. Um, so those are the— those are what I have that I'm kind of tracking on.
[301:04] Speaker 1: my end. Let me, um, then start, uh, straw polling questions.
[301:08] Speaker 7: Sure.
[301:08] Speaker 1: And the first one would be the Shotwells Maker Micro. And, um, I'm going to look— straw poll— all those in favor of adding Shotwells into the Maker Micro designation, raise your hand. And that's, um, 6 of 7.
[301:24] Speaker 3: Why are we making that their decision?
[301:28] Speaker 1: Uh, it's a benefit. It enhances the, um, breadth of their opportunity. So it's, um, if we were reducing, we would ask if they wanted to reduce, but I think to add a benefit to them is, um, not necessary. And, um, also, um, stopping this tonight would be also a motion of not approving tonight. So I'm suggesting that— okay, if we find— I've spoken to them. And have you spoken with SNAP? With Shotwells?
[301:59] Speaker 7: No, I do not believe—
[302:02] Speaker 1: That's the one we couldn't connect.
[302:03] Speaker 7: Yeah, but the comment from the representative, Mr. Shotwell, was to make sure that the existing business did not become a nonconformity. And so the change to Maker Micro would address his request to make sure that it doesn't become a nonconformity by changing it to a mixed-use development. Designation.
[302:26] Speaker 4: Okay, you'll write them a letter.
[302:29] Speaker 5: Yeah.
[302:29] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you very much. And then, um, the, the River Park was in the conversation in the airport, and there's no one who has mentioned any, um, comment on that. So I'm, I'm saying that's moving right through. And, uh, about the River Park, um, Please recap on that.
[302:53] Speaker 7: Uh, the— to change the land use to neighborhood center mixed use for the River Park Foundation's property on the east side. Um, so the 500 Hopper Street property, which was their request.
[303:08] Speaker 1: It's in the staff report.
[303:11] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, if we're going to make that decision, you know that I would like to keep that RDI, right?
[303:17] Speaker 1: Okay, let's do that by a straw poll too. All those in favor of the River Park having a neighborhood center mixed-use designation, is that correct?
[303:27] Speaker 7: Correct.
[303:28] Speaker 1: Okay, say aye. Okay, so, um, there we are. And then, um, the other one was, um, I, I promised a way in on the 8 stories. And so that one also, let's say if we're staying with the plan at 8 stories, all those in favor say aye.
[303:52] Speaker 4: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a comment on that, or just make a comment since we're talking about height.
[304:01] Speaker 1: Can I say that was 5 votes?
[304:03] Speaker 3: Yes.
[304:03] Speaker 1: 5 votes. A comment?
[304:05] Speaker 4: Well, my comment is that—
[304:08] Speaker 1: Microphone. Sorry about that.
[304:13] Speaker 4: Um, you know, well, first of all, I feel as though when we're talk— I'm, I'm going to talk about a few things. When we're talking about the businesses that came in today, Mr. DeCarli, you've been on the council for 2 years.
[304:26] Speaker 1: You went to them at the last minute, and you could have gone to them early on if you were so concerned, because you knew what these zoning changes were.
[304:33] Speaker 4: Well, we're homestretch on Okay, finish that, then I want to finish this.
[304:37] Speaker 1: I'm thinking in terms of a vote and calling the next item up here. I'm thinking we're moving through in general. Thank you. So I think that's all the direction staff was looking for in this, correct?
[304:52] Speaker 7: Correct.
[304:53] Speaker 1: Okay.
[304:53] Speaker 3: I have, unrelated to what she just said, I do have a comment about the hate stories, 'cause I would like to demystify something around that Smart property. You know, Smart does own it. Smart did want to develop it. Yes, they want to put their headquarters there. Yes, housing on top.
[305:09] Speaker 2: Yes.
[305:09] Speaker 3: And that was shut down.
[305:10] Speaker 1: So, um, so, um, I'm not sure what your source is. You know, I probably have equal source. Someone told me. Um, so shall we— your source, shall we— I heard it was cost. Shut down on cost.
[305:27] Speaker 3: All right, well, I heard differently about it, but, you know, there's, there's been so much discussion around nothing's ever been built there, but there's things that happen behind the scenes that the public never hears about.
[305:37] Speaker 1: All development opportunities are all behind the veil. That's true. And we're staying on topic.
[305:48] Speaker 4: I know, I'm— okay, smart board of directors, and there has been things The time that have tried to get built there. But part of the problem is we have to deal with our general plan, and there is cost involved, and their tax had to be passed. And so the tax passed this last year.
[306:07] Speaker 1: Good, good input. Thank you.
[306:09] Speaker 4: Information there.
[306:10] Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Barnickle. Yeah, um, so I just— I'm gonna go ahead and make the motion in a second, but I just wanted clarify something, uh, about the, the station area mixed use. The, the General Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission both recommended that to us. That's how it came to us. In March of 2025, we got the original land use packets, and it was included in that. In June, after 3 different workshops in June of 2025, we decided to downzone it. In November of 2025, the Planning Commission heard it and they thought we got it wrong, and they adopted a resolution recommending back to us and said, please reconsider that. That was included in the staff report and agendized, um, in the December 2025 council meeting that people say was this big behind-closed-doors thing. It actually wasn't. It was the Planning Commission recommended that we reconsider it, and we heard it in December, and that's when we adopted it. And then in May of 2025, we upheld that. So the idea that the Planning Commission and the General Plan Advisory Committee had told us to do something different with that is actually not the case. It's actually exactly the opposite. And so with that, I'm gonna be happy to make a motion to adopt I'm gonna— I think we're talking the EIR. Make a motion to— I'm gonna just get the right wording 'cause I know that matters in this case— to certify the environmental impact report for the final environmental impact report for the Petaluma General Plan 2050 and adopting the Petaluma General Plan 2050, rescinding the General Plan 2025, adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation and monitoring reporting program with the, uh, feedback that we've given, uh, to staff on the properties, um, in question. And, um, question for staff, is this— are we taking 2 separate votes on this, 2 separate motions?
[308:22] Speaker 7: I think if the vote's going to be different, you need 2 motions. If the vote is going to be the same, both, I think.
[308:29] Speaker 1: I think we're going to allow for it might be different and, and go with, uh, requests.
[308:34] Speaker 3: First?
[308:35] Speaker 1: Yes.
[308:35] Speaker 3: Okay. I did ask you at the beginning if I could make an alternative motion.
[308:41] Speaker 1: Um, if this motion doesn't fail, you get to make an alternative motion.
[308:47] Speaker 3: I mean, this alternative motion that encompasses both the FEIR and the general plan adoption, is it something we can amend I mean, I, I would like to amend it to, you know, I've got several things here that I would like to see that I feel that we need in, in order to, um, you know, make a responsible and informed decision. That's our, that's our job here, you know. So I feel like, you know, there needs to be a congestion study around that whole area.
[309:19] Speaker 1: So instead of— So the process start here to allow for this to come in is to have the motion made and then ask to amend the motion, and you amend the motion with the details you're suggesting, and we can vote on the amendment, and then we can move into the main motion. I think we need a motion to go past 11 o'clock. I'll make that motion. Second.
[309:42] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[309:42] Speaker 1: Second. And let's do this by acclaim. who want to go past 11 o'clock, raise your hand. Thank you very much. Um, and let the record show, um, understood. And so the motion is on the environmental impact report, is your motion, your amendment. I'm sorry. So who do we do— who do we have for a second on this?
[310:04] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[310:05] Speaker 1: We have a motion by Barnickle, a second by Cater Thompson to certify the EIR. And then are you Are you proposing an amendment to this or the other motion?
[310:12] Speaker 3: I am proposing an amendment that we postpone both the FEIR and the general plan because I would like to support them. I would like to go in that direction unanimously, but I'm looking at different things, and this general plan as it sits to me is incomplete.
[310:30] Speaker 10: My, uh, okay.
[310:36] Speaker 1: Can I— I just want to call a question on the vote for the EIR. Um, let's go to the attorney first. So you have, you have a motion and a second. Um, Mr. DeCarli would like to propose an alternative motion. Um, the maker of the motion, the second, could accept a proposed amendment, but what he's proposing is a— it sounds like a completely different motion. on both the EIR and anticipating the general plan itself. So my suggestion would be, especially since you have a member who wants to stop debate, is that you call for a vote on the motion that's on the floor that has a second, and if it fails, then you can entertain alternative motions. Right.
[311:27] Speaker 3: I think I do have a right, though, under the rules and procedures to make an alternative motion?
[311:32] Speaker 1: You know, my, um, my Robert's Rules isn't strong enough whether— how a motion— Previous question, and it needs a second, right? Any motion to be considered needs, needs a second, right? So if there's someone who wants to call the question, just say second. I'm sorry, well, hold on a second. That's not, that's not what we were saying here. So, um, we have a motion on the floor. It's either an amendment to the action that's being proposed, but it can't really be an amendment to not do the action.
[312:09] Speaker 3: The action is to accept the FEIR tonight.
[312:12] Speaker 1: Yes.
[312:12] Speaker 3: My modification is to postpone it to a date uncertain based on getting a few more things in there as studies and information that I feel we need to make that decision.
[312:23] Speaker 1: So what— so you want to propose an alternative motion, but you need a second for that, right?
[312:33] Speaker 3: But I'm trying to get it out there and say what that motion is.
[312:36] Speaker 1: Okay, or it dies. Um, so he's proposing an, an, um, an amendment, an alternative motion, or an amendment? And I'm really wishing I had our rules handy, which I don't right now. I'll pull them up, but I don't think— I think we owe attention to the motion and the second that are on the floor.
[313:02] Speaker 4: And the call for questions.
[313:03] Speaker 1: And we do, yes. So, that's where we are right now. We have a motion, second, and call for the questions. Call for the question from Quint, and I'd like a roll call vote on the EIR.
[313:18] Speaker 2: Barnickle?
[313:20] Speaker 6: Aye.
[313:21] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson?
[313:22] Speaker 4: Yes. DiCarli?
[313:23] Speaker 5: No.
[313:24] Speaker 3: Now?
[313:25] Speaker 2: Yes.
[313:26] Speaker 4: Quint?
[313:27] Speaker 1: Yes.
[313:28] Speaker 4: Schribbs?
[313:29] Speaker 1: I'll go with yes.
[313:30] Speaker 3: McDonald?
[313:31] Speaker 1: Yes.
[313:32] Speaker 7: Motion carries 6 to 1.
[313:34] Speaker 1: I'm looking for another motion about the general plan. Councilmember DiCarli?
[313:39] Speaker 3: So I would like to make a motion that we postpone adopting the general plan to a date uncertain based on the— based on us getting more information on a congestion study in the area around Washington, D Street, and Lakeville, a water study, a more conclusive water study, and, you know, an alternative if we, in the EIR, If we adopt the general plan and do not increase height and density, if we remove the 8 stories and go back to 4 stories as the public wanted, if we sort out all the properties, all the businesses that came tonight, if we sort all that out in that time until we come back and everybody's happy with their— with the decisions, and if we complete IZO updates for new land use designations that will affect parcels and properties in this town right now. We fully define that and then come back. And then that's, that's my list. Yeah, so I think that's pretty reasonable.
[314:47] Speaker 1: That's the motion. Motion is looking for a second. Not seeing a second, the motion dies for lack of a second. All right, I'll make a motion to adopt, um, uh, to adopt General Plan 2050, rescind General Plan 2025, adopt the findings of fact statement of overriding considerations in the mitigation and monitoring reporting program.
[315:14] Speaker 4: I'll second that motion.
[315:16] Speaker 1: Motion by Barnickle, second by Now, and comment by staff.
[315:21] Speaker 7: What do we Just clarifying that that includes a change to the recommended modifications to, uh, correct, the Shotwell property and the Maker Micro.
[315:31] Speaker 1: Yes, and the River Park property as well.
[315:33] Speaker 4: Yes.
[315:34] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. And we have a roll call vote, please. Barnickle?
[315:40] Speaker 5: Aye.
[315:40] Speaker 3: Cater Thompson?
[315:42] Speaker 2: Yes.
[315:43] Speaker 4: DiCarli?
[315:44] Speaker 10: No.
[315:45] Speaker 5: Now?
[315:45] Speaker 2: Yes.
[315:48] Speaker 4: Yes.
[315:48] Speaker 6: Shribbs?
[315:49] Speaker 1: Yes.
[315:49] Speaker 7: McDonald?
[315:51] Speaker 1: Yes.
[315:51] Speaker 7: Motion carries 6 to 1.
[315:53] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And then, Mr. Mayor and Council, I just— in the background I pulled up our rules, and that was proper procedure to give precedence to the motion with the second, especially when the question was called. So thank you.
[316:08] Speaker 4: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I'd like I'd like to finish my statement. No, I'm going to. I just want to say that 55 business owners supported the 6-story hotel, and we now— we don't even have a 4-story hotel.
[316:24] Speaker 1: Okay, so it's gone. All right, so we're moving on to the next item. Thank you, staff. Great night, staff. Um, and we are moving to the resolution approving agreements with Sonoma County Animal Services Humane Society of Sonoma County for the animal fields, shelter, veterinary, and, and, uh, community services. We're going to take, uh, um, 5 minutes to get, uh, our technical issues together. Please record 5 minutes. All right, let's call the meeting back to order and, um, You're missing somebody.
[317:37] Speaker 4: You're missing—
[317:38] Speaker 1: Yeah, got that. Thanks for the tip. Yeah, I'm stalling, but We couldn't go without you. Um, so, um, here we are with Item 17, Resolution Approving Agreements with Sonoma County Animal Services and the Humane Society of Sonoma County for Animal Field Shelter, Veterinary, and Community Services. And to help us with this, Brian Cochran, Assistant City Manager.
[318:20] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[318:20] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and council members.
[318:23] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[318:23] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council President. Tonight we're pleased to bring forward what we think is an important next step for the City of Petaluma in our animal services work. As the council knows, this has been an area of significant attention over the past several months and, and frankly, the past several years. Since the end of our prior service arrangement, staff have been focused on several things at once. First, making sure that there was no interruption in service for the community and And then also taking the time to develop a stronger and more sustainable long-term model for animal services. So our goals have been pretty straightforward, but this has been complex, and we've had to manage multiple things at the same time. We want Petaluma residents to have reliable animal control and field services when they need them. We want animals in our care to receive high-quality sheltering, veterinary care, adoption, and reunification services. And we want a system that gives the city much stronger visibility into performance, finances, complaints, records, and overall contract compliance. And that last point is especially important. One of the consistent themes in the work that we have been— that's been going on over the past year, and including our responses to 2 civil grand jury reports has been the need for stronger reporting, clearer records, better complaint tracking, and more formal contract oversight. Those improvements are built into the new service model that we're presenting tonight, and that is in the agenda package before you. And one of the biggest changes is that we're recommending going to a 2-provider model. So rather than asking one organization to provide every single aspect of animal Animal Services. The proposal would divide the work between 2 established regional partners who also will be coordinating and collaborating with one another. So Sonoma County Animal Services would provide animal control and field services, things like responding to calls in the community, enforcement of animal-related laws, animal pickup and transport, and related field functions, while the Humane Society of Sonoma County would operate Our Petaluma shelter provide the core sheltering functions like animal care, veterinary services, adoptions, reunification, and related community programs. And additionally, through a subcontract, the Humane Society would also work with Forgotten Felines organization on its community cat services program. And we think the structure has some advantages. It allows each organization. To focus on the work that it's best equipped to perform, creates clear lines of responsibility, and it gives us the benefit of working with these organizations that already have substantial expertise, experience, staffing, systems, and infrastructure in place to provide excellent services in their different areas of expertise. We also think the new agreements improve accountability. So they include more formal expectations around reporting and performance. They include better tracking of licensing activity, complaints and complaint resolution, financial information, service level data, records retention, and access to public records. And those are all areas that we have said publicly and that our community has said We need to expect more from our animal services contracts going forward. So the goal is to not just collect more reports, collect more data, etc. It's really to make sure that staff and the community and the council have information necessary to identify what's going right, identify issues, identify those early, and evaluate whether the contracts are performing as intended. And give the public a much clearer picture of how the overall system here in Petaluma is working. There's also an important community connection. As as we've seen, Petaluma has a long history of community involvement in animal welfare. There are employees, volunteers, advocates, and residents who clearly care deeply about the shelter, having a shelter here in Petaluma, and the animals who. Who come through that system. We want to preserve that local connection, and at the same time, we want to pair with these professional organizations and professional systems staffing depth that they bring to the table and their organizational capacity that we think these more regional partners can provide. There is a financial impact to the decision. I do want to mention that, and I've got some more details detail on a few slides coming up here, but this is a greater general fund investment, and we just need to acknowledge that and ensure that this is the service level that we want for that level of additional investment that the general fund will bear for years to come. But staff's recommendation on these new contracts is based on the level of service that we think the community expects and that the organizations have the professional capacity to provide those services consistently, along with being able to meet the stronger reporting and oversight requirements. So, I wanted to just acknowledge that this has been a long process. It's been a fairly complicated transition as we move from our prior provider to our interim provider in Marin Humane, and then moving on to our longer-term providers. And it's been a significant amount of coordination amongst many city staff and multiple city departments to get us to this point, and it will continue to require that collaboration with our— and it's also included our interim provider, Marin Humane, Sonoma County and Sonoma County Animal Services, Humane Society, Forgotten Felines, etc. So it has been been a very collaborative effort thus far. And we believe that this will move us from the interim model, uh, and from the prior provider into a more stable long-term operating model that will provide high-quality service and the accountability that we've mentioned a few times tonight. So have just a few slides, and I'll go ahead and share screen to talk through, just to give a little bit more detail about some of the services, uh, as well as the budget numbers. So just give me one moment here. Okay, so, uh, I've, I've mentioned some of this, but just to reiterate, the recommendation is to move from the interim, a solution that we've had in place for the last 5 months, to ensure a stable, accountable, long-term service provider, which would include the 2 organizations that we've mentioned, Sonoma County Animal Services and Humane Society of Sonoma County, that would in turn provide the field response side as well as the sheltering and services side. Additionally, we have Forgotten Felines to provide the specialized community cat services. And the, the requested council action tonight is to adopt a resolution. There are Several parts to that resolution, and I'll get to a little bit of the complexity around that at the the end of this presentation. So again, we've kind of split this up with field services. Sonoma County Animal Services will also be doing all of our licensing, our rabies control, enforcement of laws, dealing with dangerous animals—all of those services that you'd expect from animal control. Humane Society will be. Providing the shelter operations, veterinary care, adoptions, reunification. And we think that the agreements do—they do create clear roles and they create accountability for those various services. So again, this is just a longer list of some of the things that Sonoma County will be doing on the contract term. They are a little bit different between the two organizations. So Sonoma County is basically. Just 1-year terms with renewal periods. So each year we would go through and renew the contract with the updated fees. Uh, for the current year, obviously it's not a full year of service because we are in September, uh, but it'd be just over $500,000. And then there are, uh, some potential escalators for inflation, staff salaries, those sorts of things. So this contract does get up closer to $600,000 for a full year as we move forward. Humane Society of Sonoma County, uh, this contract, the initial term, uh, is actually about 1 year and 9 months, so it gets us through all of this fiscal year plus the next fiscal year. That initial term is about $1.6 million. We did also add 2 1-year renewals, but those costs would need to be, uh, reviewed and negotiated and discussed in some sort of amendment between the organizations to ensure that the budget is in line with the expected service levels. And there's a wide variety here associated with Humane Society, including all of the sheltering, uh, but there are also some proposed potential community programs in the future, such as access to veterinary care, uh, youth education programs, food pantry. They'd be coordinating volunteers, etc. Uh, and then the, uh, the services through Forgotten Felines would include the, the trap, neuter, and release services for Petaluma community cats, up to a specified number of those cats per year. And you'll notice in the staff report and in some of the attachments, there are several related documents here associated with this Humane Society contract, including the site license, which actually permits them to operate on city property at the animal shelter site itself. There's a list of inventory insurance requirements and then some, uh, the fee schedule associated with animal care. We do have a variety of accountability provisions. I did want to mention these specifically, uh, in terms of performance reporting. So the workload, service levels, call volumes, response times, shelter activity, and there could be many others. I think one of the things we didn't want to do in the contract is lock into very specific requirements without the ability to kind of customize and craft it as, as we go. So there are example metrics listed in the Humane Society's proposal, but staff will be working with them as they build out their quarterly reporting mechanism to ensure that we're getting those metrics that we would like for City oversight. We do have, uh, access to records. We'll be having regular coordination meetings, the ability to, uh, escalate issues, and then just overall monitor the contract as, as we move forward. We do think the defined scopes help define those duties a little bit better than the one combined scope that we had before. One thing that we specifically asked for in the RFP and that both organizations have responded to is— and actually, I should mention, was detailed in the grand jury report as well— is complaint tracking. So, documenting complaints, having a clear escalation process when somebody isn't satisfied with the response that they got, how does that kind of go up the chain? So, there are more detailed procedures for that. In terms of finance and risk controls, we have implemented stronger financial reporting. I mentioned quarterly reporting. One additional detail there is that we do plan to bring those quarterly reports on future council consent agendas so that those are clearly public. They could be discussed or commented on at these meetings, as well as placing them obviously on our website, Humane Society's website, etc. We require all of the, the typical insurance indemnification the site license, and then we have our renewal and termination provisions as we would with, with any agreement. Records management, another area that we wanted to emphasize because sometimes that was not working well with our prior provider. Both of these agencies, I believe, are very accustomed to responding to public records requests and would continue to be a strong provider in, in the, in that, that area. So I think there's a theme here. We have good contractual obligations, better data moving forward, and we have organizations that are used to providing data, providing reporting, and meeting the expectations of the contracts that they've executed with other public entities. So we'll just highlight a couple of the considerations I mentioned. There were a few complexities in these contracts, so I wanted to just outline them. They are in the staff report and in the resolution, uh, but wanted to highlight that Marin Humane did finish its assignment on August 31st. And so we did— we had a need for animal control services beginning September 1st. We couldn't have a gap where there was no service, uh, at that time. So what happened was we had a placeholder agreement that was kind of the initial draft, uh, with Sonoma County Animal Services, but because of timing and the need to go to the Board of Directors on September 1st— excuse me, uh, the Board of Supervisors on September 1st, uh, we were not able to fully negotiate sort of a robust professional services agreement with them at the time based on their agenda, um, publishing deadlines. So they took forward the— what I'm just calling here informal as the placeholder agreement, um, and that was approved by the Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County. City Manager did sign that agreement, so that's in place now. They're providing services, uh, to FTEs here locally in, in Petaluma. Kind of in that interim period, we, we believe we have fully landed on the negotiated terms of the, of, of the more robust agreement. So again, there's just kind of a time Timing issue there that will go back to the Board of Supervisors to to get that full agreement amended and restated agreement executed looking at late October, but that date may fluctuate a little bit just depending on their agenda management schedule. The resolution before you it does a number of things. It ratifies the the city manager's signature on the placeholder agreement, and it also authorizes the city manager to. Sign the future agreement, the amended and restated agreement, when that is ready to be executed. And then one final thing to mention, the fee schedule, uh, has languished and has not been updated in a number of years. So when North Bay Animal Services originally came into the role, 2018, there was a fee schedule in that packet. It allowed for fee updates based on Consumer Price Index and those were not updated. So what we've done with this packet before you tonight is taken those, call it 8 years' worth of CPI increases, escalated the fees forward, and so now we're re-acknowledging that new fee schedule along with, with this agreement. If there are additional fees or that need to be synced up or changed based on Sonoma Humane's standard fees, we'll have to look at at that and then come back to council at a future date for those changes. So just on the fiscal side and to wrap up, uh, as the council may know, our— and I think the mayor actually mentioned at the beginning of the meeting— the, the prior animal services agreement was under $500,000. The current budget, because we knew some of these changes were happening when the city adopted the budget, uh, for '26-'27, we put just kind of a ballpark placeholder older in of around $900,000. What's come back from the RFP and from the organizations that we've selected to move forward is that in the current year we're estimating at least $1.2 million in annual, uh, or in current fiscal year animal services costs. And then once again we have a full year and both organizations are on board, uh, basically beginning '27-'28 fiscal year We're estimating that the potential ongoing costs may be in the ballpark of $1.5 million. So definitely a significant escalation of the city's overall investment in animal services, and we feel like we've got organizations that we can move forward with that will provide that high level of service that Petaluma expects. So with that, I think I will wrap up and turn it back to the council, and staff's happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. I'm looking to council for any questions on the presentation, and thank you for the presentation. Councilmember Schrebs. Okay, first question just on the, uh, since we're talking about a lot more money, uh, go— let's go around that we're having, uh, what impact is that going to have on our current budget for, for the whole city? Uh, what, what do we, what do we might lose or change or modify or pull money away from? I don't think we can say that specifically now, but what I will add is that we, you know, because we had anticipated some of this, the impact is really closer to $300,000 on an annual basis. So when we, um, as I mentioned, the, the new budget is around $900,000 for the current year. We're looking at about $1.2 million. So again, that's a $300,000 change. And then similarly, in '27-'28, '28, in the last general fund forecast that the council saw, we had anticipated and forecasted $1.2 million, and it's looking like $1.5 million. So both of those— in those examples, it's about a $300,000 annual swing, which we really just need to factor that into the overall general fund deficit that we're looking at. And I would just say overall in that arena, there are a lot of things changing. You know, the council has recently approved new bargaining agreements with all of our labor groups. We've— we're looking at updated revenue numbers all the time, quarterly sales tax performance, etc. So it's kind of, you know, doing this. So this overall $300,000 hit will be factored into that, and we'll be— we usually come back after the mid— middle of the fiscal year with an updated forecast. So We can roll this into that. Okay, so it sounds like it's manageable. Um, then now that we're going to use like Sonoma County services, um, looking at the response time, especially for animal services— we used to have trucks here on our site going out— will the— will there also be staff on our site here for the animal services, or do they have to come from like Sonoma or Santa Rosa? They will be assigned to basically the Petaluma patrol beat. They may not be located physically at the shelter, although they may stop in there if they're coming to or from calls. But generally, the response guideline is on a priority 1 call, like an urgent emergency type situation, it's, it's under 30 minutes is the goal. They may be longer if it's, you know, just a lower priority call, but they do have targets that are built into the, uh, their RFP response for those response times. So we're not losing, uh, things like— no, for fire, response time is really important, um, and we think for this could be. So is that a change from prior? Uh, I'm, I'm not sure we can positively say what the response times were for North Bay Animal Services, but this appears to be the standard that Sonoma County Animal Services applies to Okay, good. I just wanted to check and make sure we qualify all that. And the questions have come up about, besides the city looking at records and the like, is there any, like, a board or citizen oversight group, or is anybody going to be looking over their shoulder at the same time? Well, both entities have their own governing bodies. So, um, Sonoma Humane has its own board of directors that is its governing body. And then in the case of the county, it's the county, so the Board of Supervisors. But additionally, the animal control or animal services division is, is a division underneath the Health Services Department. So it'd be the director of Health Services ultimately. Okay, good.
[339:06] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[339:06] Speaker 1: I just want to make that clear, is that there is plenty of oversight of folks looking at Thank you. Other questions? Council Member Nowell.
[339:16] Speaker 4: Um, thank you. Um, thank you, Brian, for, for your report and all the work that went into it. And I see our future with our animal services much, you know, better. And, um, it is a high priority. We've heard from the community on what they expect for a level of service from the city and from whatever, you know, contractor we use. But they really need to have a city oversight committee, an animal services, um, committee come back, and they would answer those questions to the community when they have future issues with dog bites or manage record keeping and manage complaints quicker to the satisfaction of the public. How can we get there? What can we do to bring back the, the city animal shelter or animal services committee?
[340:19] Speaker 1: So I'll start, and maybe the city attorney can help with this, but one of the things that we saw as an issue with the prior Animal Services Committee, and I think it relates to kind of the formalized contract oversight structure that we have in the city, is that the duties and responsibilities of that committee specifically excluded any oversight of the operations of the animal services provider and the financial performance So both the operational performance and the financial performance of the animal services provider, which may sound like a little bit of a head-scratcher at first because it is the Animal Services Committee. You would think that they would be overseeing the animal services provider. But again, I believe that because of the structure, the way the reporting relationships are, ultimately it's the city council that is responsible for the contract. through the city manager and subordinate staff members. The committees and commissions and boards are typically advisory in nature only to the city council, except for instances like the planning commission, et cetera, that may have some decision-making authority. So that's how it was set up. I think there were some reasons for that, and I'm not sure what a future committee would look like that would be any different than that.
[341:42] Speaker 7: Thanks, Brian.
[341:44] Speaker 1: So, yeah, I mean, what we're describing is a professional service contract model for provision of city services. And the responsibility for those is— for our professional services is something you're familiar with, and that is there's delegated contracting authority to the city manager for those kinds of agreements. Some of the contracting authority the council has retained, like for public service— I'm sorry, public works contracts, other contracts that we do. So there was a bifurcation, a kind of a structural one, where the city staff accountable to council retained the contract management authority, just like we ought to because it's public funds being spent. And if you think about it, um, there are no contracts or contractors that our other subordinate bodies manage. They oversee programs, they advise the council, um, they, they're all precluded in their enabling legislation, for example, from hiring anybody or supervising anybody. So one One, we could go back, and it'll be easy for us to go back and look at what that enabling legislation said, but there wasn't— I'm not sure there was like such a clear or particularly necessarily helpful or meaningful role that was set out for the Animal Services Committee to play. Um, so, um, that is one reason, and, and so that's not unique to this. This form of expanding existing staffing capability by providing for contract services in the city.
[343:40] Speaker 2: That's—
[343:40] Speaker 1: contract services in the city are how we expand the services that we can provide with our existing staff and also how we control and manage risk because we, in our contracts, routinely ensure that the contract service providers have the permits and the licenses that they need, that they have their own insurance, that they're responsible for their own employees, and, you know, and their own equipment, et cetera. So that is also a reason why the oversight and the accountability to staff as program managers of contract services, and ultimately the council and the public, that's embedded in these scopes of work is so important because like any other contracts we do, we don't really— the council doesn't delegate authority to another body. Uh, the city manager— Good answer.
[344:35] Speaker 4: Well, the Animal Services Committee 20 years ago was dealing with more than just dog bites or record beekeeping or feral cats. They heard from the public when there was homeowners that were complaining about their neighbors with potbelly pigs and ordinances needed to be changed. It's going to bring back some memories.
[344:58] Speaker 1: Right, right.
[344:59] Speaker 4: And there was a beekeeping situation. It was like, okay, can you have bees in the city limits? Santa Rosa is dealing with that right now. It's an ordinance issue, but it was brought to the committee like many other things, and even the Parks and Recs, when something needs to be changed in an ordinance, it first goes to that community body, and then the liaison brings it to the council, and then it eventually gets on an agenda, and it eventually goes through your office, and maybe an ordinance gets written. It might take a while because there's legal issues.
[345:37] Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
[345:37] Speaker 4: And then the City Council eventually votes on it.
[345:41] Speaker 1: So they could provide recommendations regarding regulations like the Planning Commission does, for example, and is in the process of doing, for example, concerning the zoning ordinance updates. But the focus of— I think it's fair to say that we've been focused in this change of contract service providers and the agreements, um, that are going to implement those services on, on service delivery controls. And that is not the province of a committee. So, um, so I— what I would respectfully submit to the council is I think it's going to be helpful and important to distinguish what it is that you'd like the committee to do and to recognize that it probably is not appropriate to look to them to manage and oversee the contract performance. That's, that's a staff job and a council job overseeing staff. Um, and if there are other things that you might want another subordinate body to do, then we, we can certainly assist with that. We've had enabling legislation legislation for them before. We can create new enabling legislation. Um, let's explore that. That's my answer offline.
[347:02] Speaker 4: Well, I just wanted to put it out there that I really would like to see us, um, look into it and think about having a community-based Animal Services Committee so that the public has more input to what we are doing. Does that make—
[347:24] Speaker 1: So noted. And, and, and, and what one of the things, you know, you're used to hearing me say is, um, because I think it's helpful for us to focus on what our legislative or regulatory or policy objective is and then implement that. And so what my, my response to you would be, I think it's going to be helpful for us to noodle a little bit more what you'd like them to do. And once we have a pretty clear idea about that and some direction from the council, we'll be happy to implement that. Okay. But for now, our focus is on managing contract service delivery and having adequate controls so that staff hold the providers accountable and you hold staff accountable.
[348:03] Speaker 4: Well, I just wanted to put it out there to the, to the community to hear, and to staff and council members, just something to look at for the future so that the community has more input to a committee that can report back to the council, because we were kind of, um, we weren't really informed on everything that was going down the last year. Thank you.
[348:29] Speaker 1: Um, any questions? I have one question. Um, I had similar thoughts, Councilmember Now, um, but then I looked and I didn't see other cities that had animal services committees. And my question is for our incoming providers: how many of your cities or jurisdictions— um, can you— someone come up and just say, like, do you have— is this a regular thing? Um, that's my, my question, I guess.
[348:58] Speaker 7: Um, I'm Satya, Executive Director at Humane Society. Um, we have 4 city contracts now, and we don't have Um, anything in the works like that currently.
[349:11] Speaker 3: Um, this is the largest city, which could be a consideration, but I think the distinction is the role, right?
[349:18] Speaker 7: Like, we're happy to participate in a group, but if it's oversight—
[349:21] Speaker 3: I know before the city manager and assistant manager had to facilitate the group versus us facilitating the group.
[349:28] Speaker 7: I think that's sort of the distinction, is who's managing it and who's following up.
[349:31] Speaker 1: Appreciate that.
[349:33] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[349:33] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[349:34] Speaker 1: Any other questions? That's all for me. Then we'll go to the public comment and come back to council. At this time— sorry, Councilmember, uh, DiCarli, um, has raised his hand.
[349:47] Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. So my questions are kind of around reporting and transparency, and to make sure I understand it correctly, there will be quarterly reports that come out, and we'll go through the consent calendar so that the public can view them?
[350:04] Speaker 10: Correct.
[350:05] Speaker 3: And what sort of metrics will be included in those reports for them to read?
[350:10] Speaker 1: We can honestly define our own metrics. I mean, there are some, some industry standard ones that we could definitely include. But I think really the only limitation is on the data that's routinely collected by our service providers. There were some lists of example metrics that were included in their RFP responses. I don't have it pulled up this second. I don't know if Cynthia or Carrie, do you want to just chime in on kind of what your other quarterly reports look like for some of your other jurisdictions and what the metrics are?
[350:41] Speaker 3: Yeah, there's standardized data through Shelter Counts, which is a national dataset that we all report to, and so that's the minimum data intake.
[350:50] Speaker 7: Outcomes, adoptions, the status of the animals that come in and go out, and then their length of stay, things like that.
[350:58] Speaker 3: Some things that we are working on that we don't have immediate data on are more of the optional services like behavioral supports and things like that.
[351:05] Speaker 7: So we're working on that internally, but we have very complete and robust data, and we're happy to be meeting and working on enhancing the reports in any way.
[351:14] Speaker 3: that are necessary, but it'll include some qualitative data too, stories, that kind of thing. Thank you. And then given the situation we just went through, are there any additional metrics we should be including besides standard ones and what was just mentioned?
[351:30] Speaker 1: Well, I think, you know, the question on response times is a good one. I think we should be trying to track that as best we can. I know the grand jury was really focused on licensing performance, So, that appears to be one that— and Sonoma County isn't here tonight, but that's one that I think we should look at more closely, because they did the investigation for all Sonoma County jurisdictions in terms of licensing performance, and I think that's something that we can really beef up. Just going to the DocuPet software has online renewals, you know, email notifications, all those sorts of modern conveniences that we've come to expect. I think we're hopeful that that can really be amped up. So that's just one other example area where we can do a much better job of reporting. I think we would want to work with our providers on more performance-type metrics. So incomes, outcomes, et cetera, those are more numeric, you know, data points, but in terms of time to adoption or response times or things where there's a calculated metric, that's where I think we want to head so that we can look at that and how is that metric trending over time. That would be the goal once we can get enough of these quarterly reports under our belt to have a good handle on the data at hand.
[352:54] Speaker 3: Well, I feel like, you know, we've, we've had 8 years to learn from this. Um, so those metrics should be well-defined and established on reports that were or weren't given over that period of time. And, um, you know, I guess my other question about, you know, we're going to get an annual assessment as well, right? Or is it only going to be quarterly?
[353:16] Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's an annual report that, that would be expected as well, and that would include, you know, that would— could look like a lot of things, but at a minimum there would be 4 quarterly reports, you know, clearly that would sort of sum up to an annual report, as well as, uh, Sonoma— or excuse me, Sonoma Humane will, uh, give us their audited financial statements as well as their Form 990, uh, submittals to the IRS. So that whole package is effectively an annual report, and, um, we're obviously— we would welcome, you know, any additional, uh, information or reporting from them as well. So I think we're going to get a lot more often more regularly, and that will be ultimately way more helpful, I think, than an annual report that might be extremely late in coming to you. So the more timely the information, the better decisions can be made. In terms of if you're, if you're kind of getting down to the dollars of it a little bit more, yes, there are check-ins in terms of the budgets for both organizations. As I mentioned, Sonoma County is annual Because they have to look at what are the contracted staff increases with their bargaining units and things like that. So it's a little different on the government side, but Sonoma Humane, we have that initial 1-year, 9-month contract to get us through 2028, and then if we wanted to continue, we would have a conversation and relook at the budget.
[354:38] Speaker 3: You know, what's working, what's not, do we need to go up or down in terms of service, and then Yeah, I guess what I'm wondering is, you know, we've, with the Public Safety Advisory Committee, with the police departments, we get those annual audits and reports that are presented to council and the public. I mean, and that's, I think that's something the public wants to see. So, I mean, what, what sort of presentation is that going to be where there's actual dialogue and communication back and forth? Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great question.
[355:11] Speaker 4: We could do that for the annual report.
[355:12] Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm talking about, is with the annual report. Um, and then I, I might have missed it, but are there going to be administrative hearings? And I, I didn't notice them in the scope of service. Um, again, unless I missed it, but for potentially dangerous dogs or dangerous dogs, uh, I mean, there's been a lot of scrutiny around bite cases, similar things. Um, what are we going to do as far as administrative hearings?
[355:41] Speaker 1: Yes, we absolutely— that would be mostly in the purview of Sonoma County Animal Services. So they are, they're on the enforcement side. So if they do respond to a call, there is a dangerous dog, there's a, you know, a bite investigation that occurs, they would be responsible for kind of taking that through cradle to grave in terms of doing the investing, taking the initial report, doing the investigation, quarantining the animal if needed, and then placing the, the preliminary abatement order, which basically outlines all the different sanctions that that animal owner has to abide by. And then in our code, there is a required hearing. So for each of those, there would be a hearing. Now that we, we have traditionally given folks the Option to waive the hearing, which would mean that those sanctions that were put in place under the provisional abatement order would just continue for the mandatory period that they have to be in place for. So yes, but but the short answer to your question is yes. There will be hearings, and they will be administered by Sonoma County Animal Services. Now, we have done several of these over the summertime. We've had I think three. Over the last, say, 2 months. They do come through the city. We do use our administrative hearing officers that the City Attorney's Office has contracted with. And so that's the neutral third-party hearing officer that hears the case and then makes a decision.
[357:06] Speaker 3: There's a third party involved?
[357:07] Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely.
[357:08] Speaker 7: Okay.
[357:10] Speaker 3: And then I guess my last question is, you know, you— the transition is concluded with MVAS. So, right, or is it? Because I'm curious about, about the truck and the fate of the truck.
[357:22] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what was your initial question?
[357:24] Speaker 3: Well, you, you had mentioned at the beginning that, uh, you know, this transition from NBAS to now Sonoma County Animal Services, is, is it concluded, or are we still dealing with that besides an investigation?
[357:38] Speaker 1: We're still working on that. We are reviewing some of the financial data, as I think I mentioned last time, we're having an outside accounting firm look at some of that, uh, so we are still kind of in a holding pattern until we can get the, the finalized— the final questions answered and data back and responses to questions back from NBAS. So that is still sitting out there, but we have— we, we know what some of the dollars are for the truck, as an, as an example, and some of the other equipment. I think as we, we mentioned in an email to council, uh, or a communication to council that we do have equipment kind of going both directions. There is some equipment that we wanted to retain that was owned by NBAS, and then we agreed to, uh, to sell some equipment to NBAS. So that, that crisscross of equipment, uh, won't be finalized until we sort of officially say the agreement is closed out and, and we're done.
[358:32] Speaker 3: Okay, but they still do have equipment Registered to the city, insured to the city. They do, or—
[358:39] Speaker 1: Uh, they, they do. However, they did sign a release of liability for that equipment, and they have removed the license plates from any of the equipment that had license plates associated with them.
[358:49] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[358:50] Speaker 6: Yeah.
[358:54] Speaker 1: To public comment, please.
[358:55] Speaker 4: At this time, I will start a 30-second clock. Maybe.
[359:02] Speaker 3: And during these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to my desk if they have not already done so. Members of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand, and those attending via phone should press 9 to raise their hand. Speaker requests received after these 30 seconds may not be accommodated. We did receive one comment, uh, ahead of the meeting, and that's posted online, and we have 7 folks still hanging out with us on Zoom.
[359:32] Speaker 1: First speaker tonight is Sierra Morantz, to be followed by Tyler Terrell.
[359:56] Speaker 7: All right, so I'm back again.
[360:03] Speaker 4: I support the city in moving to Sonoma County Animal Services as their new animal control provider, but the city has neglected to include some important items. The lack of requirements about dangerous dogs and abatements is notably missing.
[360:17] Speaker 7: What you're effectively doing is setting the stage to further weaken public safety and deprive citizens of due process, like the grand jury found. When you know how terribly cases like mine have been handled by both your service providers and by city staff, you should be actively working to strengthen abatement protocols.
[360:36] Speaker 4: Doing otherwise is shameful. As you move forward with Sonoma County Animal Services, it's time for the City Council to take a more active role in overseeing both your contractor and staff on animal services-related topics. Investigation into NBAS aside, it's important to make sure that SCAS is doing a full investigation of ongoing cases and that city staff is giving them the attention and timely response that they deserve. You've got plenty to pick from, pick from: repeat offender animals, animals who bit children, animals whose rabies vaccination history is unclear, and more.
[361:14] Speaker 3: The city has all these records.
[361:15] Speaker 4: And many more. Also, many of those animals are still in Petaluma without abatements or in act— or sorry, I'm very tired— without abatements or actions that would mitigate risk of future incidents. Keep in mind that Petaluma has been extremely lucky over the past few years, and it's not worth pushing your luck now. A man in Clearlake died in August after being attacked by a dog. And a woman in San Francisco received life-threatening injuries this month. As you all know and have seen the pictures, if my injuries had been 6 inches higher, I would have been one of those victims. On the rabies front, a domestic cat in Alameda County was euthanized this summer after testing positive for rabies, and the County of Sonoma has recorded 6 cases of rabies so far this year. If you aren't moved by the potential threats to public safety, I'd ask you to consider the potential liability you could incur. Finally, to make sure this stays on top of mind and to start to gain any trust back from the community, it is time to restart the Animal Services Committee.
[362:24] Speaker 7: People need to be able to bring their concerns to the—
[362:27] Speaker 4: about the provider and about the city to a regular forum, as sending emails to staff and your prior providers hasn't been sufficient. And you need to also be informed and be held accountable. It's also important for Sonoma County Animal Services and Sonoma Humane to be able to hear from the community, provide updates in a collaborative way, and find ways to improve if something isn't going well. I appreciate the sentiments about not sweeping things under the rug, but you have a long way to go. Thank you.
[362:59] Speaker 1: Thank you, Tyler Terrell, to be followed by Jeff Charter.
[363:11] Speaker 4: Hello and good morning. The City of Petaluma's responsibility is to administer the animal control contract. Its services were being delivered as agreed upon and protect the city's interest. Unfortunately, that responsibility was not fulfilled. The interests of the city and the welfare of the animals should be aligned, but in the past they appear to have been treated as separate priorities. The City of Petaluma failed to properly collect and retain documentation regarding dog bite incidents. As a result, victims were unable to access critical information needed for further action, and the city was unable to adequately evaluate whether its animal control provider was complying with the Petaluma Municipal Code. The grand jury documented that the city manager's office and city attorney confirmed that no administrative hearings had been conducted to establish abatement conditions, even in cases involving personal injury, even though it is city code. Additionally, the city manager's office failed to create an effective system for documenting and responding to citizens' complaints. This resulted in missed opportunities to hear community concerns and respond appropriately. It also represented a failure to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to review the financial stability and accountability of NBAS. To date, the City Manager's Office and Mayor Kevin McDonnell have not ordered a forensic audit of the previous animal services. Um, Petaluma residents deserve strong oversight, including an animal services independent oversight committee. This worked in the past. It clearly did not work the last 8 years without one. Petaluma resident— residents also deserve a city manager's office that actively listens and responds to residents with respect, elected officials who take citizen concerns seriously, and a thorough forensic audit of NBAS again. These are the issues voters should consider when choosing their representatives this November. And I want to personally thank Vice Mayor DeCarli and Scripps for your time with animal advocates and listening to some of the things that other members of the council, both this council and the council before the 8 years, did not. Thank you.
[365:43] Speaker 1: Thank you. Jeff Charter, to be followed by Amy Taylor. Well, I had a different topic that I wanted to discuss tonight, but your assistant city manager stood up here and told you many, many lies of omission. Told you that we have all these new things, these new things that are going to be more robust in the reporting, that complaint tracking is included now. Well, I got news for you. North Bay included that in the 2018 RFP response. It was available to you, you just didn't ask for it. Okay, the reporting, the quarterly reporting, the yearly reporting was all there all along. You just didn't ask for it, Brian, because you didn't want to know, because you helped cover it up for 8 years. 8 years. The advisory committee was important. I came here for years, 15 years, and talked to that committee, talked to the people, talked to the citizens of this town who had questions about what was happening at the animal shelter. It's all been available to you. You just don't ask. You don't want to know because you shut that committee down.
[367:03] Speaker 2: You did.
[367:03] Speaker 1: That was your decision. You made the decisions not to ask. This council has made a decision to accept those lies.
[367:13] Speaker 4: Let's focus on the future.
[367:15] Speaker 1: Let's act like it wasn't there all along. It has been start to finish. You failed. And when staff fails and creates a situation that costs you a million dollars out of your general fund to fix, someone should be accountable for that, and they're sitting here tonight. Amy Taylor, to be followed by Mark Kimberly.
[367:48] Speaker 4: I came here to talk about accountability. When I came here in February, I was so hopeful. The Clear Lake pictures had me on the next level of rage. I made a sign, I sat here, and I waited to speak. I just figured that's the process that somebody would take because I didn't really know what I was doing. I thought for sure that Mark Scott would be held accountable.
[368:12] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
[368:13] Speaker 4: He was in charge of North Bay Animal Services, so to me it was quite clear. I came back in March, the meeting that North Bay Animal Services was voted out. Great, now they will hold Mark Scott accountable. Nope. The mayor Kevin proclaims, we will get those records even if the police need to be involved. What happened? Nothing. No records, no accountability. And here we are. Have a truck. Now former employees are facing IRS issues.
[368:54] Speaker 7: These are young women that started their career and now have the IRS on their back because of Mark Scott and his Failure to bookkeep anything. The meetings that followed, whistleblowers spoke. The speeches were read.
[369:15] Speaker 4: Bite victims came forward.
[369:18] Speaker 7: Rabies was discussed.
[369:20] Speaker 4: Even Janice Cater Thompson proclaimed after her daughter was bit by a dog, fortunately, the dog didn't have rabies. For sure, somebody now would hold Mark Scott accountable.
[369:34] Speaker 5: Nope.
[369:34] Speaker 4: Brian Barnacle agreed to a forensic audit. There will be an audit, he proclaimed, March of 2026.
[369:42] Speaker 7: Well, what happened, Brian?
[369:43] Speaker 4: No accountability. No release of public records.
[369:50] Speaker 7: We can all see what's happening here.
[369:53] Speaker 1: And yes, we all want to move forward.
[369:55] Speaker 2: I get it.
[369:55] Speaker 1: We all want to move forward.
[369:57] Speaker 4: Trust me. But for the people that this has affected, bite victims, I mean multiple people, the Clear Lake dogs, this has affected people's lives.
[370:09] Speaker 7: But yet there's no accountability.
[370:11] Speaker 4: Let's just move forward. It makes so much sense to somebody who thought they could come here and just say there's a problem and you need to solve it.
[370:23] Speaker 3: That's exactly what I said.
[370:25] Speaker 7: And I was so hopeful.
[370:27] Speaker 4: And then over all these months, I've learned so many things that I really didn't want to learn about.
[370:34] Speaker 3: I didn't want to know that this was so political and that Mark Scott's just laying his head down right now while we're all sitting here at 1 in the morning trying to fight for what we believe is right. And Mark Scott needs to be held accountable, and you need to do a forensic audit.
[370:52] Speaker 1: Mark Kimberly, to be followed by Cynthia King. Now that you fired the old services provider and you're hiring a new one, you might think it's all just water under the bridge.
[371:13] Speaker 5: It isn't.
[371:14] Speaker 1: Justice hasn't been done. Somebody needs to be held accountable for 8 years of the nightmare of North Bay Animal Services abuse, animal abuse, and embezzlement. We can't trust you to provide any better oversight of the new provider than you did with the last. You have a history of dishonesty and covering up. Let's look at a few examples. During Kevin's last campaign, he set up a website where citizens could write in and ask questions. I wrote in, I listed all the allegations being leveled against NBAS, and I asked if he would investigate that were he elected. He wrote back, said he had already investigated that and found all the allegations to be false. But that was a lie, Kevin. I have here an email from him to Peggy with a copy of my message, and he said to her, quote, I was sent the following. I want to say that it's all been checked out and it is fine. Is that correct, Peggy?
[372:13] Speaker 5: Thanks.
[372:13] Speaker 7: End quote.
[372:14] Speaker 1: He never investigated a single thing. He simply asked his handler what to say, and she told him to lie to me, and he did it. This proves not only that he is a liar, but that means there's a conspiracy between him and Peggy, the other liar, to cover up and lie to the citizens. But it's not just them. Brian Cochran, you were in on it too. Here's another email I've got that he sent to many citizens who inquired. He said in part, quote, city staff are supportive of NBAS efforts in Petaluma and feel that they are performing high-quality services. Many of the allegations are factually inaccurate, end quote. But he never investigated a damn thing. But on the order of his boss Peggy Flynn, He denied all the allegations too. Now it's a three-way conspiracy.
[373:03] Speaker 3: It doesn't stop there.
[373:04] Speaker 1: I've got another email from Teresa Barrett to Samantha Pascoe on the subject of a citizen's request for public records about that shelter. She said, "Sam, can I get a confirmation that my emails have been culled from my account on both this PRA request and the one regarding the name redacted?" End quote. So not only does City Hall lie to us, they also destroy incriminating evidence. And check this out. When a private citizen had a lawsuit going against the animal shelter—
[373:35] Speaker 3: not the city, just the shelter—
[373:37] Speaker 1: the city was so worried about the truth coming out that they actually had a city attorney contact the defendant's attorney and asked to consult with them about that private citizen's lawsuit. The email that I have says in part, Quote, do you have a few minutes to discuss the status of name redacted lawsuit against NBAS? He serves us with several PRAs and has threatened to depose our assistant city attorney, um, city manager and city attorney. So it would be good to touch base. Thank you. No city would do that unless they had a lot to hide, and you have a lot to hide. Thank you. Our last speaker is Cynthia King.
[374:23] Speaker 4: Hello again.
[374:24] Speaker 7: I don't usually read things, but I'm glad I have this written because I'm not sure I could be coherent otherwise. As we build this partnership with the city and community at Petaluma, we want to first express our deep appreciation for Marin Humane and the difficult work they've done over the past four months to maintain and improve shelter services and animal control.
[374:42] Speaker 3: We also look forward to expanding our strong relationship with SCAS. That we have in Healdsburg and to collaborate with Forgotten Felines.
[374:48] Speaker 7: This kind of collaboration and alignment addresses some of the grand jury concerns in their report. Earlier today, the council asked for more information about how my agency is held accountable to the Association of Shelter Vets standards, or the ASV standards.
[375:02] Speaker 3: The reality is that California does not currently have a state agency that regulates animal shelters or rescues beyond a limited number of state laws and local codes, most animal care standards are voluntary.
[375:14] Speaker 7: The only external oversight our organization comes from the California Veterinary Medical Board, which oversees our veterinary medicine but not the overall shelter operations.
[375:25] Speaker 3: Honestly, my nonprofit background did not prepare me for the reality that facilities housing, you know, a handful or hundreds of animals operate without routine licensing.
[375:36] Speaker 7: After years of work in other fields, with federal, state, and county oversight, I was shocked to learn that my responsibility for 2 facilities capable of housing up to 300 animals at a time requires neither licensing nor routine inspections.
[375:50] Speaker 3: That should concern all of us because this is not just about animal welfare. It's also a public health issue involving sanitation, disease prevention, and community safety.
[376:00] Speaker 7: The catastrophic failures revealed through Clear Lake and Miranda's illustrate illustrates the urgent need for statewide oversight and that this issue extends far beyond just Petaluma or our region.
[376:11] Speaker 3: Legislation proposed by Cal Animals, our statewide organization, would establish a state bureau responsible for licensing, inspections, and data reporting. We encourage residents, organizations, and all local governments to support this reform. Finally, I appreciate your earlier statement about committing to accountability.
[376:32] Speaker 7: We share that commitment.
[376:34] Speaker 3: I can tell you with confidence that we run one of the highest quality shelters in the state because of our excellent staff, the help—
[376:41] Speaker 7: and the help they receive from the community, including volunteers, adopters, and funders.
[376:46] Speaker 3: My team has done an excellent job preparing for this transition, and we are ready to move forward with the contract, reopen the shelter, and serve the animals and people of Petaluma.
[376:55] Speaker 7: We appreciate city's partnership ensure—
[376:57] Speaker 3: in ensuring that our capacity and the facility meet the standards that both the city and the Humane Society have committed to uphold.
[377:06] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[377:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. And over to the clerk.
[377:09] Speaker 3: Yes, we do have one remote commenter, uh, Sail White. If you could unmute yourself and make your comment.
[377:29] Speaker 7: Saleh, are you able to unmute?
[377:31] Speaker 6: Hello.
[377:36] Speaker 4: Yes, I am unmuted, and actually I was not intending to comment on this issue. I was intending to comment on the previous issue, and I'm really, really actually quite upset that I I wasn't allowed to comment earlier when I initially raised my hand because I had a lot to say about zoning. Um, uh, unfortunately, you failed to understand that, and I, I'll go ahead and make my comment now, which was that I very, very much supported what council members, um, DiCarli and Schribbs had to say about zoning. Okay.
[378:09] Speaker 1: And, um, and also, I'm really hoping that everyone was able to read Thank you very much. Um, the— that item has been closed, and we're on the next item, and the comment doesn't travel from— is there anything you wish to add on this item?
[378:30] Speaker 4: No, there's nothing I wish to add on this item. I wasn't talking about this item.
[378:39] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you very much.
[378:40] Speaker 4: You failed.
[378:40] Speaker 9: Thank you.
[378:41] Speaker 4: Good night.
[378:41] Speaker 1: And with that, uh, that was our last speaker on the public side, and we'll close public comment and bring it back up to council. Any comment from council? Councilmember DiCarli.
[378:57] Speaker 3: So I think the mistakes and things that went very, very wrong We're contract-based. We're not contract-based, but we're human-based. And so we can have an airtight, airtight contract, but that doesn't matter unless the city remains accountable to upholding that contract. And I haven't seen it demonstrated that anything is going to actually change from the city side because the, the story with MBAS has been swept under the rug. So, you know, I appreciate this contract. I think the contract is fine, and I don't think anyone has a problem with, you know, the county. But, um, I think the problem lies on this side of the fence.
[379:39] Speaker 1: Thank you. Any, um, motion? Anyone?
[379:46] Speaker 4: I'll make the motion. Am I reading the, the resolution?
[379:50] Speaker 1: I think, um, it's sufficient to, um, make a motion to accept the resolution listed in the packet.
[380:00] Speaker 4: Of the City Council of the City of Petaluma approving agreements with Sonoma County Animal Services and Humane Society of Sonoma County for animal field sheltering, veterinary, and community services.
[380:14] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. That's the motion by Now, second by Cater Thompson, and roll call vote.
[380:21] Speaker 6: Barnacle?
[380:22] Speaker 3: Aye. Cater Thompson?
[380:24] Speaker 4: Yes. DeCarli?
[380:26] Speaker 3: Yes. Now?
[380:27] Speaker 7: Yes.
[380:28] Speaker 1: Quint?
[380:29] Speaker 4: Yes.
[380:29] Speaker 1: Schribbs? Yes.
[380:31] Speaker 3: McDonald?
[380:32] Speaker 1: Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Looking forward to moving forward. Thank you all for being here till this hour of the evening. This meeting is adjourned.