[0:02] Mayor at 6.45, so if you're ready right now, I'll start the webinar. Okay, thank you. We're ready to begin.

[0:13] Good evening, and welcome to the City of Petaluma regular meeting of the City Council and the Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency. Can we have the roll call, please? Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.

[0:33] here McDonald here Miller here all members are present thank you so now we

[0:45] will do the Pledge of Allegiance so ready begin I pledge

[0:52] of the United States of America and to the Republic for which we have one nation, under God.

[1:06] Indivisible.

[1:07] Indivisible.

[1:08] It's liberty and justice for all.

[1:12] Thank you.

[1:14] And now we'll have a moment of silence.

[1:16] And I'd like this moment of silence to be in memory of Dina Ingris and Leo Geridelli.

[1:22] Thank

[1:34] you. So agenda changes and deletions to the current agenda. We are going to move public hearing items

[1:44] in front of public hearing items 6A. It just seems that it would be a better use of staff time

[1:55] and the flow would be easier for us. And because of the nature of 6B we will be taking

[2:03] us a short recess after six feet but before we make our decisions. So we'll get to that at six feet.

[2:11] So if there's no opposition to that we will move on to proclamations. So this evening we have a

[2:19] number of proclamations three and I'm going to start with the first for Matt Brown and I can't see

[2:29] whether or not Matt Brown is in the audience or not but he

[2:38] is okay fine thank you very much for that

[2:40] and so the city of Petaluma is honoring Matt Brown the former editor of the Argus Courier.

[2:50] Whereas Matt Brown served as the editor for the Petaluma Argus Courier from 2015 to 2020

[2:57] following Emily Sharia's ascension to publisher of our local newspaper. Under his leadership, Matt led the paper to four first place wins for general excellence.

[3:11] The highest honor a newspaper can achieve at the California Journalism Awards. He transcended his role as editor and overseeing all the newspapers coverage, but also personally covered the path to dredging the river.

[3:25] the 101 expansion, the controversy at the animal shelter, and the smart development.

[3:33] And whereas Matt Brown earned a master's degree in communications from San Jose State University,

[3:41] and spent 10 years living and working in various countries in Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer,

[3:47] as a foreign correspondent for Time Magazine, and the Associated Press,

[3:52] covering war zones and as a human rights advocate,

[3:56] blogging for the enough project to end genociding crimes

[4:01] against humanity and covering celebrities for the cause,

[4:05] including working alongside George Clooney.

[4:08] And whereas, prior to joining the Argus career,

[4:12] Matt was a reporter with the press Democrat,

[4:15] covering transportation, the city of Runner Park,

[4:18] and the great resort and casino, and previously worked as a freelance reporter for the

[4:25] Argus career, where he homes his knowledge of cuteloma and strived to provide the community

[4:30] with balanced news. And whereas Matt Brown is a tried and true cuteloma, along with his wife,

[4:37] a county social worker, and two children. And whereas Matt Brown is a licensed skydiver with more

[4:44] than 250 jumps under his belt, who also enjoys rock climbing and hiking, and had he not

[4:51] gone into journalism and communications, he aspired to become an astronaut.

[4:55] and whereas Matt Brown's talents as a reporter

[5:00] Our writer and editor have been noticed by county of Sonoma, where he will be serving as a communications specialist in the county administrator's office, and providing invaluable guidance on how to demystify local government, provide timely, important and helpful information to the community, and engage our residents in the democratic process. As a petalwoman, we are hopeful that Matt will stay connected to our city

[5:28] and continue to provide his perspective and key insights as a resident and now county-wide spokesperson.

[5:36] And now therefore be it resolved that I to be severity mayor of Petaluma,

[5:41] along with the members of the City Council, do hereby command Matt for his tireless work and commitment

[5:47] to ensuring Petaluma stay informed and engage on local issues affecting them

[5:54] and wish him the very best in his career

[5:57] at the county of Sonoma.

[5:59] So now Matt would you like to say a few words?

[6:03] Can you hear me?

[6:04] Yes.

[6:05] That Mayor Varrett, council members, city manager Flynn.

[6:10] Thank you so much for this honor.

[6:11] This was a real treat.

[6:13] It does feel a little weird to be addressing the city council

[6:16] that I've covered for so many years.

[6:18] I feel like if this was talk radio,

[6:21] I'd have to say something like long time listener,

[6:22] first time caller, but it really is truly an honor and not just for me, but for local journalism

[6:29] in Petaluma as well. You know, when I took over as editor of the Argus Courier, I always thought

[6:34] of this as the community newspaper, and I was just a steward of this institution during my tenure.

[6:41] An institution by the way that's older than the city of Petaluma itself. I do hope that the Argus

[6:47] Courier is around for many, many more years to come, and as for myself, I'll continue to

[6:52] to inform the community and my new role as a community,

[6:56] as Sonoma County's communications department.

[6:59] So I hope to work closely with the city

[7:01] and stay engaged in local issues.

[7:04] So again, thank you so much for this honor.

[7:07] It's really means a lot to me.

[7:08] Thanks again.

[7:10] You're more than welcome, Matt.

[7:11] And we're sorry we're missing you,

[7:14] but we are sure we'll hear from you in your new role.

[7:18] So thank you.

[7:19] Okay, so now I'm moving on to two more proclamations that I'm going to read back-to-back.

[7:27] And these are acknowledging our council members, Gabe Kerney and Kathy Miller, who this will

[7:36] be their last meeting.

[7:37] So I'm going to read one and then the other and we'll go with another process.

[7:43] In recognition of Council Member Gabe Kerney, March 7, 2011, to December 2020,

[7:53] whereas let it be known, the Council Member Gabe Kerney has loyally and enthusiastically

[7:59] served the residents of the City of Petaluma for the past 10 years on the Petaluma City

[8:04] Council.

[8:05] And whereas Council Member David Glass was elected mayor of the City of Petaluma in the

[8:11] the November 2010 regular general municipal election and took

[8:15] offices mayor on January 3, 2011, leaving approximately two

[8:21] years remaining on his unexpired term as council member. And

[8:26] whereas council member Kerney was unanimously selected by the

[8:29] city council to fill a vacancy on the city council created by the

[8:34] election of David Glasses mayor to begin on March 7, 2011 to

[8:40] to serve until the successor was appointed following the regular general municipal election of November 6, 2012.

[8:49] And whereas council member Kerney was one of the many applicants for the council vacancy, the appointment deadlocked three three on numerous votes.

[8:57] Through two meetings, finally, at the third meeting, Mr. Kerney, we've seen four of those

[9:02] in the Surprise World call vote, which is why these colleagues have long teased everyone's

[9:08] seventh choice, is the one who gets the point.

[9:12] And whereas, passing it about over the past of Grande High School, also member Kerney brought

[9:22] diversity and youth to the council.

[9:25] This slide has a pleasure to work with a huge asset to the city and his viewpoint and passion for our time will be missed.

[9:37] Remember currently for

[9:41] Petaluma, but for our state is inspiration.

[9:45] His performance is counsel duties looking out for what is best for the entire community.

[9:50] This poise and passion for local government serves as a model for all his seat couples and the hope is.

[10:00] This is a request that he remains active and a voice for positive change. And whereas councilmember

[10:05] Kerney has been our only native son on the council these past 10 years, and his love for

[10:12] his hometown is crystal clear, a knowledgeable and tireless advocate for petaluma's public

[10:18] safety departments, emergency preparedness, for finding meaningful and lasting solutions

[10:24] to homelessness and for clean energy opportunities for Petaluma. He has dedicated nearly a decade to the

[10:32] council and his unique voice, wit, and humor will be missed and gave it a hard job well.

[10:40] And whereas councilmember Curry helped secure the city's first new revenue source measure you,

[10:47] which will benefit our community for generations to come, and we will always be appreciative of his

[10:53] ability to diplomatically call things as he sees it, and now has the time to learn to fly.

[11:01] And now, therefore, be it resolved that I truly sever it, Mayor of Petaluma,

[11:06] along with the members of the Petaluma City Council, do hereby proclaim that

[11:12] 21st of December, we

[11:17] stand our congratulations, gratitude and appreciation for his faithful and

[11:22] Distinguished Service to City Council, thank you,

[11:30] Dave.

[11:32] Now I'm moving on to the proclamation

[11:35] in recognition of Council Member Kathy Miller.

[11:38] January 7, 2013 to December 2020.

[11:45] Whereas let it be known, Council Member Kathy Miller

[11:49] has faithfully and tirelessly served

[11:51] the residents of the city of Petaluma for the past eight years on the Petaluma City Council.

[11:58] And whereas Council Member Miller's efforts on the Sonoma County Transportation Authority

[12:04] were instrumental in getting Highway 101 widened through Petaluma and the region

[12:10] and her leadership in park building infrastructure and housing was invaluable.

[12:16] And whereas Council Member Miller was a key figure behind measure X for the improved

[12:23] recreational facilities in Petaluma in 2012, while it only received 61% of the vote and

[12:31] needed 66% to pass, she used her news seat on the council to help secure many needed recreation

[12:41] improvements and eventually secured the broad support of the community with Sonoma County's

[12:47] measure M. And whereas Councilmember Miller's enduring advocacy for improving parks, facilities

[12:55] and recreational programming has improved the quality of life for generations of petalemists

[13:01] youth and her determination to find the middle ground helped unify community stakeholders to bring

[13:10] park facilities like the Petaluma community sports fields from concept to reality.

[13:17] And whereas councilmember Miller is much appreciated for her participation on the pedestrian

[13:23] and bicycle advisory committee for her constancy, her advocacy and her skill of listening

[13:30] to the ideas and desires of the P back and bringing those ideas to fruition to make Petaluma

[13:39] a multimodal city. And whereas in the many tough decisions made at the

[13:45] day is Councilmember Miller's voice was collegial, pragmatic, educated,

[13:52] calm and clear, a true leader for the city of Pagoluma for eight years.

[13:58] She will be greatly missed and will always be known for staying the course

[14:02] regardless of having to make difficult decisions along the way.

[14:05] And whereas it should be recognized that the driving force, oh, I'm sorry, whereas Councilmember Miller helped secure the city's first new revenue source, measure you, which will benefit our community for generations to come and we will always be appreciative of her Texas tenacity.

[14:30] And now, therefore, be it resolved that I choose to bear it, Mayor Petaluma, along with the members of the Petaluma City Council, do hereby proclaim the 21st day of December 2020 as Caffe Miller Day and extend our congratulations, gratitude and appreciation for her faithful and distinguished service to City Council and the citizens of the City of Petaluma.

[14:54] So we have two long servings.

[15:00] Council members who are leaving us after this meeting. And in addition to our recognition, we have a supervisor, David, rabbit here to also read proclamations honoring both of our council members from the county of Sonoma.

[15:21] Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you all for allowing me to be here with you tonight, even if it is here and not there.

[15:31] as we bid farewell to two public servants

[15:33] and thank them for their service

[15:35] to the citizens of Petaluma.

[15:37] And I just want to say that I'm here,

[15:39] certainly my official capacity,

[15:41] but I'm also here as a Petaluma resident

[15:42] and as someone who served on your body

[15:45] and knows the job well.

[15:47] The hours you all span and the dedication

[15:51] that you all put in.

[15:52] And while you're, you know,

[15:54] you ask for it by throwing your hat in the ring for sure,

[15:56] it shouldn't go unnoticed

[15:58] that the stipend does not do justice to the amount of time and work that you perform on behalf

[16:02] of the citizens of Petaluma. So to that end, thank you each and every one of you.

[16:07] The Board of Supervisors did pass two resolutions commemorating and honoring the service of

[16:12] council members Miller and Kierney. To council member Miller, a profound thank you from myself for

[16:18] your eight years of service, for being a champion of parks and so instrumental in the Petaluma

[16:23] community sports fields project, as the Mayor mentioned, for acquiring perhaps a new passion

[16:29] in transportation and seeing through the Highway 101 widening project in prioritizing the sound

[16:34] walls for those living adjacent to the freeway, as well as serving well in representing the interest

[16:40] of Petaluma on the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. For working on pedestrian safety

[16:45] and for your positive contribution to measure you. Thank you for working to make our hometown,

[16:52] on my hometown a better place to live.

[16:56] And to Council Member Karrini,

[16:58] also a profound thank you for myself

[17:00] for your 10 years of service.

[17:03] I always appreciated your perspective, Gabe,

[17:05] and your dedication as well as your focus

[17:07] on public safety, on housing, on homelessness,

[17:10] on clean energy.

[17:12] And thank you for bringing your background

[17:13] and disaster preparedness and response forward.

[17:16] Who would have known we would need that so much

[17:19] over the last decade or so.

[17:23] It's not just the Petaluma, not just here

[17:25] to the Petaluma city of Petaluma,

[17:26] but really the county and beyond,

[17:28] and Gabe, I enjoy our partners at Cal OES,

[17:31] but we do see each other way too much.

[17:34] Again, thank you for your professionalism

[17:36] and your dedication.

[17:37] You served the public well,

[17:39] and I want to thank you for working

[17:41] to make our hometown a better place to live

[17:44] and to everyone really.

[17:46] Here's to brighter days ahead in 2021.

[17:48] one. Happy holidays, be safe, and I look forward to coming back in January or February or whatever

[17:54] works with your agenda to offer a county update and welcome your two new colleagues as well.

[18:00] So thank you very much, Mayor Baird. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

[18:05] Thank you. We're glad you came and yes, we would like to see you come back again and give us an

[18:09] update for what's happening at the county. We'll schedule that real soon. Perfect. Thank you.

[18:16] So also in addition to the city and the county, our state senator, Bill Dodd has sent over

[18:25] certificates of recognition that have been given to each of the council members.

[18:30] And that's something that, you know, I've never seen that happen before when someone leaves

[18:36] office.

[18:37] So that's actually a very nice thing.

[18:39] And in addition to that, there's a congressional recognition that was given to each of the

[18:43] and departing City Council members by our U.S. representative, Jared Huffman.

[18:49] So with that, I say not so fast because you have a whole evening of a lot of work ahead

[18:57] of you, and we will be giving you an opportunity to have your responses to these after we hear

[19:05] from public comment.

[19:06] So at this time, I'd like to open public comment for general public comment and Aaron, you're taking that task today.

[19:18] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[19:20] If you're interested in making a general public comment, please raise your hand now.

[19:24] I will start a 30-second timer shortly.

[19:26] It will divide 20 minutes equally between those who have raised their hands by the end of the timer.

[19:31] Those who are not raised or hand by the end of the timer and wish to make a general public comment may submit an email to the city clerk at city clerk at city of Paloma dot org during

[19:50] the general public comment.

[19:52] The public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the city council subject matter jurisdiction.

[19:58] There are not list.

[20:00] On the current agenda. Public comments are limited to up to three minutes per person over 20 minutes total. Please raise your hand and zoom to be called on and turn. Attendees will be muted when their time expires, or when their comments have concluded whichever comes first. Speakers are encouraged respectful threats of violence and a city are grounds for removal from the speeding.

[20:26] Not a mayor. At this point, it looks like we have 17 hands raised. So we'll be going with a minute.

[20:44] I'm not sure if my list is the same as yours, but so do you want to call them, Aaron?

[20:51] Yes, I can.

[20:52] Okay, thank you.

[20:53] So the first person that I have speaking is Wendy Denny.

[20:59] I will now allow you to speak if you can begin to do so.

[21:02] Hello.

[21:09] Hired by the city,

[21:10] CTC consultants have now gathered the raw data

[21:13] and completed the dry test.

[21:15] This data will show the actual measurements taken

[21:18] and that there is no significant gap in Verizon phone service

[21:21] within a 3 mile radius of the creamery.

[21:24] Likewise on Verizon's own map,

[21:26] it shows no gap in coverage in the same area.

[21:29] Last week we asked the city to attain the raw data

[21:31] from CTC with no response.

[21:33] We want to know when will the city receive this data

[21:36] and final summary report. It's crucial that the city immediately get possession of

[21:41] the raw data and place it into the public record. These findings are necessary for transparency

[21:46] and will show the true story. Instead of just a summary report, the public needs access

[21:51] to this data without delay. In addition, it would not be recruited for the creamry to take

[21:58] responsibility for a cell tower. The city needs to discern the creamry is a high risk

[22:03] operation, not answerable for it's safety upkeep and unsuitable for the

[22:08] light.

[22:12] Thank you, Wendy. Sorry, your time is up. The next

[22:16] week that we have is John and yet, I will now allow you to speak. You can

[22:22] yourself can get speaking.

[22:27] Well, unfortunately, I don't have enough time for one

[22:29] minute. You seem like you're depriving the public the right to participate

[22:34] under the Brown Act. I would like to say thank you to the young folks that keep asking for

[22:42] tech hoots and I commend you for your effort and don't give up. And about the public comment,

[22:51] you've gotten it too short, and I think one of you said that because you don't get to your

[22:57] business, and that is wrong, because if you look back, the one who said at best,

[23:02] in the meeting when he told you you go home late because you talk too much and I have to agree with him.

[23:11] There was no reason for you to this cares the public from coming forward.

[23:18] You need to bring the public closer and work with the public not against the public.

[23:23] We'll see you next time.

[23:28] Thank you, John.

[23:30] The next speaker that we have is Scott Springhorn, followed by Kate Bolton.

[23:40] So I'll now allow you to speak.

[23:41] You can unmute yourself and begin speaking now.

[23:44] Thank you.

[23:45] During the last city council meeting, a resident was making a public comment about the current

[23:48] fire danger at the cremary.

[23:50] At the exact same time that this neighbor was speaking, the fire actually broke out the

[23:53] the creamery again in the exact same building as in June and again there was no alarm that sounded both fires started in the boiler room which is under the proposed cell tower would be put up in close to the building that houses the toxic family and out of compliance among the cooling system not only does this prop proposed projects I continue to light on fire it is continually acts of bad faith out of compliance with many safety and hazard issues not following multiple city ordinances new citations from fire department I lean trucks wastewater fines unpaid fines to city and other agency and the list goes on and on

[24:23] The city can make one easy decision to deny or just move this proposed major wireless project to another appropriate place where cell services actually needed and that is not near thousands of residential properties.

[24:36] The city needs to do the right thing and take action on this site and project now. Thank you for your time.

[24:43] Thank you Scott.

[24:51] Kate, I will now allow you to speak. You can unmute yourself and begin speaking.

[25:00] So, greetings, three-page letter that was sent by the city on November 10th asked for more than 15 pieces of information. And many other important asks that the city needs in order to make the best decision on the cell tower project at the creamery. The city has asked over and over for Verizon to submit this information. Today it has been more than six weeks and there's still nothing from this applicant. It's another act of bad pay. This continues to happen repeatedly.

[25:26] Continual acts of bad faith out of compliance with many safety issues and out of compliance with multiple city ordinances. The list goes on and on. The city has given this applicant and the creamery over 18 months to get this done, but they cannot come into compliance and new issues keep happening every night the creamery owner and workers sleep for their homes.

[25:47] We live here. Please consider our safety and our property values and do the right thing for the residents. Please stop giving the primary a pass on its multiple violations.

[25:58] Thank you for your time and have a great holiday season.

[26:20] Thank you.

[26:27] I'll be there.

[26:32] Yes. Perfect. I'm commenting on the incident where a white woman posted a video on Instagram

[26:38] accusing a local Latino couple of attempting to kill an effort children. The woman named Katie reported the incident to the police department a week earlier, although

[26:47] I'm glad the police have closed the investigation of the couple and are looking into charging Katie. I'm concerned how the police

[26:53] community with public and the couple. In its first message to the community about the incident,

[26:58] the police said there was conflicting information, yet they included in their message of photo

[27:03] of the couple as people of interest. Why would police so widely share the photo before investigating?

[27:09] In addition, the police reached out to the couple via Facebook Messenger. As I've ever been

[27:14] done, I'm trying to imagine getting a Facebook message from police like this couple did. After

[27:21] We're all in the handling of racial justice issues this year.

[27:25] Does anyone really think of a person of color

[27:26] had basically accused a white couple,

[27:30] the police would have posted the white couple's photo

[27:32] to the committee?

[27:33] Thank you all, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[27:40] Next speaker is Heather Murrow.

[27:42] Murrow, followed by Lily.

[27:44] Heather, I will now allow you to speak.

[27:46] You could unmute yourself and begin.

[27:48] Two

[27:53] weeks ago this evening, during the public comment section

[27:56] of the December 7th City Council meeting,

[27:58] I was speaking to the high fire risk of the Petalima Creamer operations.

[28:02] On that evening, while I was commenting on the fire history of the Creamer operations,

[28:07] and explaining that the area where the boilers operate,

[28:10] which is adjacent to where the ammonia is stored, is a high fire risk.

[28:14] What should happen, but a fire broke out at this very location of the Creamer facility.

[28:20] In October, you signed the fire prevention proclamation,

[28:23] which read if it's predictable, it's preventable.

[28:26] How's this scenario predictable?

[28:29] Given the known fire hazard of the Creamery operations, please deny the

[28:33] Verizon proposal for the Verizon Sell Tower facility at this location.

[28:37] If the fire danger to neighborhood isn't enough, the prospect of our fire

[28:42] fighters having to access the rooftop for future fires, which houses selltowers,

[28:47] transformers, and associated electrical equipment is troubling for sure.

[28:51] Please consider the safety of the residences in this neighborhood.

[28:55] Thank you Heather, I'm sorry, but your time was up.

[29:00] The next speaker that we have is Lily, followed by Laura.

[29:04] Lily, I will now unmute yourself.

[29:06] All right, I'll allow you to speak.

[29:07] You can unmute yourself again.

[29:11] Hi, thank you.

[29:15] Let me get rid of that feedback.

[29:18] I am here representing myself as a Petal No Business owner.

[29:23] I am a holistic health practitioner of 14 years.

[29:26] I am a fifth generation petal in my resident.

[29:28] I am a mom, and I'm a fourth-generation

[29:31] petal in the business owner, and I'm here representing

[29:34] Coalition of Small Businesses in Petaluma,

[29:36] who are suffering right now.

[29:38] Now, our message is very simple,

[29:41] which is the health of a community is so much more

[29:44] than just the spread of one virus,

[29:47] and we can protect the vulnerable

[29:49] without shutting down our local economy.

[29:52] I really appreciate your time on this,

[29:53] and thank you for hearing myself and other people

[29:56] who will be showing tonight.

[30:00] Thank you.

[30:05] The next speaker that we have is Laura, followed by Alan Warstill. Laura, I'll allow you to begin speaking. UK, Don, meet yourself and begin.

[30:19] Hi, can you hear me? Yes.

[30:23] Great. Thank you. My name is Laura. I'm a local business owner and downtown, Petaluma, and I'm calling tonight to urge the mayor and council members to please hear us, the business owners of this town are struggling.

[30:38] and our businesses are disappearing and new ones are disappearing every day.

[30:46] And we need you to help us turn Pateluma into a sanctuary city

[30:50] to support the community and the businesses that are the community of Pateluma.

[30:56] This would allow us to continue operating regardless of Gavin Newsome shutdown orders.

[31:02] We're going to be emailing you some information.

[31:05] We've already emailed you some from Kevin Tyler and we'd really like you to take a look at that and consider our request, please.

[31:14] Thank you.

[31:21] The next speaker that we have is Alan Warsaw, followed by a call number 703-06-4.

[31:29] I'm going to allow Alan to speak.

[31:32] Are you going to do yourself and begin speaking?

[31:42] Hi, Alan, you're there.

[31:47] Alan, I'm going to come back to you.

[31:49] What are you about?

[31:55] Alan, I just got you right when you're starting.

[31:58] Okay. Unmuted. Hi. So I'm calling regarding the incident recently,

[32:03] depending on the craft store where a white woman racially profiled a local

[32:06] couple and accused them of kidnapping her child and then posted it to Instagram.

[32:11] And then the police released a photo of the couple to the media and contacted

[32:16] the couple on Facebook and accused them of a kidnapping that didn't happen,

[32:21] which then the media picked up on and now this innocent couple is known all

[32:26] over the world when they're innocent.

[32:28] And so I would like the aluminum police department

[32:30] to make a public apology on behalf of that couple.

[32:33] And I'd also like the City Council to be aware

[32:36] that this will save our children

[32:38] and mean is a right-wing means spreading around

[32:41] being used to target people of color.

[32:44] And I, yeah, that's it.

[32:46] Thank you.

[32:47] Thank you.

[32:53] The next speaker that we have is the call number,

[32:57] Sorry, I was 703, it's 06.4, followed by Sheila Baker.

[33:03] I will now allow the call number to speak.

[33:05] You can unmute your mic and begin speaking.

[33:13] Hello, you there. You can unmute your mic and begin speaking.

[33:18] Hi, my name is Jim Duffy.

[33:20] I'm sure the Petaluma police believe that publishing the Martinez is a picture

[33:25] in an effort to quickly investigate the allegations of attempted kidnapping

[33:29] was the right thing to do while many in the public clearly disagree.

[33:33] If Petaluma had an effective civilian oversight entity with a robust community engagement component,

[33:40] there would be an appropriate place to have these conversations on this important disagreement.

[33:46] Petaluma voters supported measure P at 64%.

[33:50] It's time for the council to appoint a community working group to determine the appropriate form and structure of civilian oversight for your city.

[33:59] don't make the people in your city go to the ballot.

[34:05] Effective civilian oversight serves to strengthen the trust between the community and the police.

[34:10] In 2015, President Obama's 21st Century Policing Task Force called upon all jurisdictions to create civilian oversight for their police.

[34:20] Thank you. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[34:23] Next speaker that we have is Sheila Baker, followed by Deborah.

[34:27] She will now allow you to speak.

[34:28] You can unmute your mic and begin.

[34:32] Hello.

[34:33] I just want to say thank you.

[34:35] Huge, huge thank you to council members.

[34:38] Bernie and Miller and congratulations for years and years and years of

[34:43] excellent service to the city of Pendled Emma.

[34:47] Gabe, thank you for your wonderful advocacy of homeless people

[34:52] and animals and after school at risk kids and the work that you've done.

[35:00] And emergency management services and support for our police and fire here. Thank you, Kathy Miller. Councilmember Miller, I just think of you every time I'm out riding on these crazy roads. Thank you so much for your work with advocacy advocating for money for our roads and our streets and our parks and our park trails and pass. Thank you very much to both of you and congratulations for wonderful service. Thanks. Thank you.

[35:29] the

[35:33] next speaker that I have is Debra, followed by Ben Peters. Debra, I will allow you to speak on

[35:40] yourself and me and speaking. Hi, my name is Debra. I'm a resident of Petaluma,

[35:46] Vincent's 1999. I'd like to tell you that there's 10 people plus children standing out here at City Hall.

[35:52] We do demand that you start doing in-person meetings for us. We're tired of you hiding behind

[35:58] the zoom. Also, I'm here because I'm supporting businesses that are losing their shirts. There's no

[36:05] difference between going to Costco, going to Safeway, going in a restaurant, wearing a mask. There's

[36:12] no difference between any of these things. The small businesses are losing. Middle class is going

[36:17] by the wayside. Petaluma is going to become an empty store. Everyone's losing. And we would like

[36:23] you to adopt Kevin Kylie's Healthy Communities Resolution and declare

[36:30] Patelima a sanctuary city. And also I would like you to stop taking any money

[36:36] for yourselves. If we can't get paid, you don't get paid. I'm tired of this.

[36:42] Thank you for. Thank you, Deborah. I'm sorry what your time is up.

[36:48] Next

[36:48] speaker that we have is Ben Peters, followed by Kimi Barbosa. Ben, I will allow

[36:54] to speak, you can unmute yourself and me and speak to you.

[36:59] Good evening, everyone.

[37:02] Little bit related to the last speaker.

[37:04] So one of the main differences between different types

[37:08] of commercial facilities is the indoor air quality.

[37:12] So a resource everyone should check out is ashray.org,

[37:17] A-S-H-R-A-E.org.

[37:20] It lists four important steps that we can all take

[37:23] to keep our indoor air safe.

[37:24] This is critical right now during the Christmas time.

[37:28] If you have family members and you're visiting them inside because it's raining,

[37:33] please increase the ventilation in the room.

[37:37] Go to ashray.org.

[37:39] Look at the steps you can do.

[37:42] That includes HEPA filtration, UVC lighting, and advanced microbial techniques.

[37:48] This is something that we should be including in our community development block grant applications

[37:53] questions for fiscal year 21-22. Thank you.

[37:58] Thank you.

[38:02] Next speaker we have is Kimi Barbosa,

[38:05] followed by Allegra Wilson. Kimi, I'll allow you to speak.

[38:09] You can unmute yourself and then begin speaking.

[38:15] Hi, my name is Kimi Barbosa. I'm just calling in to express my concern

[38:21] over a couple of things that I've seen back to back.

[38:24] regarding Pettoloma Police Department, the first, of course, where the community

[38:29] talked down Pettoloma Police and helped de-escalate a situation between them

[38:35] and then a person who was in distress. The other concern I have is regarding

[38:39] the racial profiling incident that other colors have mentioned before or

[38:43] photo of an innocent Latino couple was released despite contracting evidence

[38:48] And they maintained that this couple was, you know, in a suspected of potential kidnapping, which a kidnapping never occurred.

[38:57] These incidents are highly concerning, especially considering they both regarded people of color.

[39:03] I'm not sure if Petaluma police needs some similar and oversight, I think that's a great measure to try to enact.

[39:09] I think there needs to be accountability for law enforcement there.

[39:12] And I hope that the City Council also expresses the same concerns and starts to have some accountability for these actions. Thank you.

[39:20] Thank you.

[39:24] The next speaker that we have is Allegra Wilson, followed by Teran Abade. Allegra, allow you to speak. You can unmute your mic and begin.

[39:33] Hi. Yes. Thank you. I'm calling also about the incident of racial profiling against the Latinx couple.

[39:39] It's unacceptable and it is racist.

[39:42] I also want to say not only do the police need to be accountable, but white moms need to

[39:46] be accountable too.

[39:48] I'm a white mom and I know that I can endanger people of color when I make accusations

[39:52] or start off incidences or even share them on social media without thinking it through.

[40:00] I hope that all other white moms think about what they're doing. It's reminiscent of Emmett Till, and it's unacceptable. And the Petal and the Police Department, you also really need to think about how you treat people, and there needs to be civilian oversight. Thank you.

[40:14] Thank

[40:18] you.

[40:20] Next speaker we have is Taren O'Bade, followed by our last speaker, Taren, I'll allow you

[40:26] to speak.

[40:27] You can unmute your mic and begin.

[40:31] In last week's cream refired, no fire alarm was automatically triggered.

[40:35] Why?

[40:36] Why are no automatic alarms required for this toxic ammonia tanks and large gas boiler

[40:41] operation?

[40:42] In homes, alarms are required in every room, and the fire department did not investigate

[40:47] it into the cause. Why not? Where's the accountability? The

[40:51] creamers history includes lack of ammonia tank leak detection

[40:54] system in this very tower. Yet the inspection this year

[40:59] revealed that there were no ammonia tank detectors and that

[41:04] the workers were untrained for leak protocol. YouTube

[41:08] videos show exactly how badly ammonia tank leaks can end. There

[41:13] are dairy ammonia leak videos that show within one to two

[41:17] minutes of a leak, there's a fire which immediately is followed by a major explosion that will

[41:23] send this surrounding neighborhood running. Do you know that no insurance company will cover

[41:28] wireless facilities? The liability is huge. Thank you, Teran. My apologies as your time has ended.

[41:38] The last speaker that we have tonight is Rhee. I will allow you to speak if you can unmute yourself

[41:44] and again speaking.

[42:11] The fact that without any witnesses or corroborating stories and also the fact that there was conflicting evidence and you still decided to blast this family's picture all over which put them at risk but you also reach out to them via social media which just I don't know I didn't know that

[42:32] this just shows the gross incompetence that you all have 13

[42:42] years old my father has experienced.

[42:46] You don't do anything when it comes to keeping the by-pock safe because we... Thank you, Rudy.

[42:51] We unfortunately time has ended.

[42:53] Not a mayor that is the last of the speakers that were within our original time.

[42:59] Okay, thank you very much.

[43:01] And I do apologize that we have to cut the time, but there are so many people who are raising their hands.

[43:10] And we just don't have the time on the agenda.

[43:13] So please submit anything you did not get to say through our city clerk and it will get to everyone and it will be posted on our city website.

[43:26] So thank you to close general public comment and I should ask the city clerk if she received any general public comments other by email or written.

[43:40] Madam Mayor, we received by general public comment prior to this meeting that have been posted to the website.

[43:47] Okay, thank you very much.

[43:50] And so now I'm going to bring it back to council comment.

[43:55] And as I promised, I'm going to start with council member Dave Kerney.

[44:00] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[44:03] And so let me start by thanking my colleagues who have served with the past two years.

[44:09] and some longer. It's been a complete pleasure to work with my fellow council members.

[44:15] I think we've been working together rather well to move forward to the agenda of the city of

[44:20] Petaluma and put the needs and desires of the community first as we do this job. Starting

[44:28] back in 2011 on the council, working with council members Albertson and Harris and Renee

[44:38] and in Hilly and Barrett at the time in their glass.

[44:44] It was a steep learning curve for me coming on to the council,

[44:49] but I've enjoyed every minute of the time I've been on the council.

[44:53] It's afforded me opportunities to lobby on behalf of the Rainier Flood Project.

[45:00] Not only the U.S. Senate and the House representatives, but at the White House as well, to the Office of the Intergovernmental Affairs. I've been able to serve on this summer clean power board and the Healthy Community Board. And in many other opportunities, the Airport Commission, you get to learn so much about all the different facets of our community and all the intricacies of what goes into running the system.

[45:30] City of Pendulum. It's not just this one meeting every other Monday. Over the years,

[45:38] not only have I had the pleasure of working with the Council members and other electives

[45:41] working with Supervisor Rabbit and the other members of the Board of Supervisors has been a

[45:47] pleasure working with our great Congressman Jared Huffman to, like I said, get the funding for the

[45:54] the Payrun flood project.

[45:56] That project was started when Barbara Boxer

[45:59] was our congresswoman, and she finished up

[46:04] her entire term as a US senator before that project

[46:07] was completed.

[46:09] And so it was a long time coming, a lot of effort,

[46:12] and a lot of heavy lift, but it couldn't have been done

[46:14] without Jared Huffman and his great leadership

[46:16] in Washington, and prior to him,

[46:20] Congresswoman Wolsey's efforts.

[46:26] Being on the City Council, you get to interact with a lot of different members of the community.

[46:30] Sometimes they are very passionate about their opinions of the city and it's great to see people get so involved and so active.

[46:42] When I first started attending the City Council meetings, I was 16 years old, so I was 23 years ago.

[46:48] the first city council meeting I came to was to I think council member Healy was on the council at the time.

[46:55] And we were the issue was regarding domestic partner benefits for our city workers and creating a just domestic partner.

[47:04] Registry and we were the first smaller city outside of San Francisco and Oakland to do that in northern California and in it's something that I've been proud of ever since.

[47:14] that our council unanimously stood up for the rights of our LGBT employees and the members

[47:22] of our community that were LGBT.

[47:24] And so, you know, going back to, that was what, 1998, I believe, or yeah, I think it was

[47:33] 1998, but it's been a pleasure to be involved serving on the tree commission and then it's

[47:39] the Health Board for the County and the Community Development Committee.

[47:43] A commonality, both Teresa Barrett and I, or Mayor Barrett and I have served on the

[47:48] Tree Commission and the Community Development Committee prior to joining the

[47:51] Council and it's been a joy. Our city manager, Peggy Flynn, has done a phenomenal

[48:00] job in the little over what are we at a year, maybe a little bit right around

[48:08] there but payee has done a phenomenal job of leading the city has brought on some great staff and

[48:16] promoted some staff from within and I'm very proud of the vote I took to appoint payee and I think

[48:26] she's leading our city in the right direction and wish her and her team the best of luck.

[48:32] I am overwhelmingly proud of our city staff who aren't the best paid city employees in

[48:41] the county.

[48:42] We don't have all the shaniest, newest things for them to do their job with but every day

[48:48] they come to work and they do a damn good job of it and they serve our community with pride

[48:54] and with integrity and when we need them the most during disasters, when we call on them our public

[49:03] work staff, our city attorney staff, our finance staff. You name the department in our city they've

[49:09] stepped forward and come out to help our community and help our neighbors with running shelters. We had

[49:18] at one point I think Jordan was running the shelter at the KC center and she's a city,

[49:23] you know, a deputy city attorney. That's not something you see in other communities. And it's

[49:27] something I'm very proud of. Our public work staff during the fires. It's just the incredible

[49:32] job, not only pulping the folks that we're needing to be sheltered here in our community, but going

[49:38] out and helping our neighbors in other cities that needed assistance. Our police department

[49:47] has done a great job over the years, our fire department.

[49:52] You know, our firefighters have responded to so many fires out of County and throughout our state to ensure our.

[50:00] Our neighbors are safe all while dealing with COVID. And it's just how they've been able to adapt

[50:08] and give it and overcome the challenges it has been incredible. I will miss the city staff

[50:14] incredibly. It's these 10 years have gone by quick. But to say that I've served this community

[50:23] for a quarter more than a quarter of my life on the city council it's been a unique privilege and

[50:30] honor that I will forever cherish. Thank you Peggy, thank you Eric, thank you Kendall and all

[50:38] the city staff it's been a true honor and a privilege and thank you to the residents of the city of

[50:53] Thank you, Gabe. Council Member Kerning. And now Council Member Miller.

[51:02] Actually, before I start thanking everybody, I have a few reports that I need to give.

[51:10] So we had a future transit ad hoc meeting. That's an ad hoc group of the Sonoma County Transportation

[51:18] We have a discussion regarding transit integration and efficiency study.

[51:26] Basically it's a conversation about how we can integrate the three bus systems in the county

[51:34] to make sort of a seamless experience for our mutual customers.

[51:42] And so there was a discussion about marketing, structuring the fares

[51:47] so that they're similar, making transitions from one bus system to the other seamless.

[51:57] And so, you know, it'll be an ongoing conversation. You know, the biggest thing right now,

[52:02] obviously, is to get through COVID and get more people back on transit. But it's something that

[52:08] I think will be an ongoing effort by SETA to make it easier for people to seamlessly ride transit

[52:15] in the county. And so that was that meeting. We had an SCTA RCPA meeting last week. Of note,

[52:31] there will be a one-hour orientation for new directors or other electeds who are interested in

[52:37] an overview of the work done by the SCTA RCPA. The reason they're doing this is because there are

[52:43] four board members who are transitioning off and so there will be quite the turnover of new folks on the board.

[52:51] So those orientations will take place on January 6th at four, for about an hour, or on January 8th at one, for about an hour.

[52:58] So whoever will be the new director for the SETAR CPA from the City Council should definitely attend and any other council members who are interested in what they do.

[53:09] to what SCTR-CPA does should also attend.

[53:14] We had our annual audit report,

[53:16] and those audits were accepted.

[53:19] We had a presentation on the Slovanova climate

[53:22] mobilization strategy,

[53:24] and if you go to the SCTA CA Gov site,

[53:29] you can pull out that presentation.

[53:32] We also had a conversation about SB1 funding.

[53:35] Marin received SB1 funding for the final phase of the narrows, so that's good news, that's

[53:43] the final phase of whitening the 101. And Windsor also got around about. And then we did an overview

[53:52] and an update on what's going on with the State Route 37 corridor. And if you're interested in that,

[54:01] that can also be accessed on the SCTA Gov site and finally there was a recreation

[54:12] music person recreation meeting last Wednesday night and we had a discussion

[54:21] winter recreation program update an update on the regional stay-at-home order and measure

[54:27] and parks update. So those are my reports I had a busy last couple of couple of weeks.

[54:37] I would like to congratulate my upfront. That's great news and good luck to him in his new

[54:44] position. And I just want to thank my colleagues and the citizens of Petaluma. It's been my pleasure

[54:52] to serve with my colleagues and it's been my pleasure to serve the residents of Petaluma.

[54:57] I've been involved in

[55:00] I will do that in some form or another, either as a planning commissioner, or on the city council, or as an advocate for measure X.

[55:12] For, you know, 13 of the 20 years that I've lived here in town. So I've been very involved in this community. I plan to stay involved in the community. During my time on the council, I've served as a liaison to a planning commission.

[55:29] the Youth Commission, Parks and Rec, the Bi-Can-Pedestrian,

[55:38] and I've been on the SCTA-RCPA board for the last five years serving on their executive board as well.

[55:47] So what has become apparent to me during my time in public service is that I do have a passion for transportation

[55:56] And how people get around, whether they're getting around by bike, whether they're walking or whether they're in their cars or on transit.

[56:06] I've also been on the transit advisory committee. I forgot that one. Sorry.

[56:11] So, you know, what I'm most proud of, obviously the park's piece is a huge piece.

[56:17] And along with that comes the multi-use trails that allow people to bike and walk and get

[56:25] around town without their cars.

[56:28] But another thing, but the other main focus of mine has been on transportation issues and

[56:35] it's transportation in all different ways.

[56:39] buses, bikes, cars, and how we improve our roads and how we improve the way that people

[56:47] get around. And so I'm very proud of the work that I've done in that area. I'm proud of

[56:52] the work that I did on SCTA in terms of securing the funding to do the widening for 101 to get

[57:00] the sound walls in place before they started working in central panel limit to provide sound

[57:06] relief and protection for the folks who live next to the freeway, and to provide this last piece

[57:12] of funding to do the widening through Petaluma, raise the freeway, and allow for the building of

[57:20] Rainier, which is an important project to this community. I would like to thank my council members

[57:27] that I've served with. It's been my pleasure. Both the current council as well as the councils in

[57:32] the past that I've served with. I've served under two city managers, John Brown and Peggy

[57:38] Flynn and I'd like to thank them both for their service to the community and Gabe. Peggy's

[57:43] coming up on two years actually.

[57:47] Time flies when you're having fun are in a constant state

[57:50] of crisis.

[57:53] And I'd like to thank I appreciate Congressman Huffman for recognizing my service.

[58:00] I appreciate Senator Dawg for recognizing my service.

[58:04] I certainly appreciate City of Pelluma for that and thank you very much.

[58:11] Thank you.

[58:13] Okay, so now, Kevin McDonald, council comments.

[58:20] Thank you very much.

[58:22] Just a note to Gabe and Kathy.

[58:25] It's a bittersweet moment said to see a colleague leave,

[58:28] but knowing how much freer you're looking for will be now.

[58:33] So, and Kathy, specific, I want to express gratitude.

[58:37] I mean, everyone should know that the East Washington fields,

[58:40] the Oklahoma community sports fields just wouldn't exist

[58:43] without your advocacy.

[58:44] And so, a huge thanks for that.

[58:47] And I appreciate the last two years working with you too

[58:51] as experienced council bringing different insights,

[58:53] looking at different facets I might have seen.

[58:56] But also, again, to know the human side of you and remembering that, you know, in this

[59:00] whole political fray, the human side is hugely important.

[59:04] So, thanks for all your service.

[59:06] I know how much work you put in and the whole community, and I appreciate that.

[59:12] Back to my committee reports, liaison reports, the planning commission had a workshop last

[59:19] week on Hines there at downtown Smart Station at Copeland.

[59:25] It robust discussion, it'll come back to the Council here and come back and

[59:29] again to planning. 17 people attended from the public, and in our Zoom world,

[59:34] we have to figure out how to let the audience know how big the audience is.

[59:39] So they know whether they're speaking as a voice of one or speaking in a larger voice.

[59:46] So that was the action at the planning commission, and then the continuum of care

[59:50] I have a word to handle homelessness through the county.

[59:53] They've set two meetings in January to try and kick start the effectiveness and cooperation, the business.

[1:00:00] of the continuum of care. And we really have to get that strategy rolled out so the public knows

[1:00:06] that good things are happening regarding addressing homelessness in the county. It also happened to

[1:00:12] attend smart listening session for multi-use paths and getting people around in ways that isn't

[1:00:19] their cars. Frankly, isn't the train either? It was focused on paths. Petaluma was well represented,

[1:00:26] many comments from constituents in Petaluma and I'm hoping that all our

[1:00:33] January activity gets posted to the website soon the climate meeting which is

[1:00:38] very exciting but especially the racism workshop race and racism in in Petaluma

[1:00:45] now that we're set for January we should be stand up and and making sure that

[1:00:50] we get the voices heard at that January workshop.

[1:00:54] Thank you very much.

[1:00:56] Thank you.

[1:00:58] A capture number healing.

[1:01:03] Thank you.

[1:01:04] So I'll echo the comments regarding Gabe and Kathy.

[1:01:10] Many thanks for all your many, many years

[1:01:15] of very, very hard work on behalf of the community.

[1:01:18] It makes a difference.

[1:01:19] It's appreciated in the community.

[1:01:20] I certainly appreciate it and you were both able to really move the ball forward on areas

[1:01:29] where you were passionate and in Gabe's case, that's anything related public safety,

[1:01:36] police, fire, ambulance. I don't think we have a third frontline ambulance right now without

[1:01:42] your advocacy on that for many years and also on homelessness issues which is going to continue

[1:01:49] need to be a challenge for our community.

[1:01:52] And then in Kathy's case, all things park and rack,

[1:01:56] starting initially with you, soccer,

[1:01:58] but expanding way beyond that.

[1:02:00] And I agree with Cal's member McDonald's comments

[1:02:02] about her key role in achieving the sports fields

[1:02:06] by the airport.

[1:02:07] And then also transportation.

[1:02:09] Six years on the Sonoma County Transportation Authority

[1:02:11] is an enormous achievement.

[1:02:14] And you did a lot of good for our community

[1:02:16] and in the whole region in that role.

[1:02:18] So I know you'll both stay involved.

[1:02:21] I hope you both stay in touch.

[1:02:23] And thank you again for your many years of service.

[1:02:29] Just briefly, by way of liaison reports,

[1:02:32] the pedal and the valley groundwater sustainability agency

[1:02:35] did meet last week.

[1:02:37] And we did a deep dive into one of the five mandatory criteria

[1:02:41] for our upcoming groundwater sustainability plan.

[1:02:46] and you'll be hearing more of that in the future.

[1:02:49] And then finally, I had one question for staff,

[1:02:52] possibly the city attorney, but I'll let you decide.

[1:02:54] Several of the public speakers were asking us

[1:02:57] to exempt ourselves from the governor's health mandate

[1:03:02] in the county health officers orders.

[1:03:05] I'm not aware of any legal ability that we have to do that.

[1:03:10] Could staff please, let me know if I'm wrong on that.

[1:03:14] Thank you.

[1:03:16] Madam Mayor Council, if you'd like me to respond,

[1:03:19] I'm with you, Council Member Haley,

[1:03:21] I'm not aware of any sexual legal authority either.

[1:03:23] The, I have done some looking at the basis of authority

[1:03:28] for the health orders as we've seen many of them issued

[1:03:33] from the county health office.

[1:03:35] And it's a clear statutory basis that is, I think unique.

[1:03:40] And obviously, it's still subject to our state

[1:03:43] and federal constitutions.

[1:03:44] but it's a very significant power.

[1:03:49] It is not one that,

[1:03:53] it's not a general police power.

[1:03:55] Those are not general police power actions,

[1:03:57] which are, as I think many of you know,

[1:04:01] the police power is the geographically limited power.

[1:04:05] The counties is just as petalimuses.

[1:04:08] But the health officer's power is statutory,

[1:04:11] and it's not so limited.

[1:04:12] And so I would be happy to look further if that's the Council of Direction, but I see no basis for us as doing what's been requested in terms of not following those orders.

[1:04:27] Thank you for that.

[1:04:28] Thank you.

[1:04:29] Do you have anything else, Council Member Healy?

[1:04:33] Okay, fine. Thank you.

[1:04:35] Vice Mayor Fisher.

[1:04:37] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:04:39] In terms of liaison assignments, since our last meeting we did have a climate action commission meeting and please to say that we.

[1:04:48] We all agreed on a finalized climate framework plan that we're going to be bringing to us in a joint session on January 11.

[1:04:58] and so I hope that the audience...

[1:05:00] And some members will join us. And so the people know at the height we had 94 audience members attendies tonight. And now there are some of the eight of you. So.

[1:05:13] And. Thank you to Councilmember Keely and Miller for these two years of serving with you. And for all of your years of service for our community, really appreciate it. And. Mr. Kerney in particular, I miss being in chamber.

[1:05:29] with you. Your sense of humor and your smile was always a pleasure to be there on the

[1:05:36] dies with you. So, last thing, happy winter solstice, we will know that tomorrow the days will

[1:05:43] start getting longer and brighter and happy holidays to everybody. Thank you. Thank you and council

[1:05:51] member King. Thank you Madam Mayor. I did not have any liaison reports although I did attend

[1:06:00] the the climate center had a webinar about the use of electric vehicle batteries to help

[1:06:08] load more power under the grid during non-peak hours as we move to more solar and wind power.

[1:06:16] or I found that very interesting.

[1:06:19] I believe Patrick Carter from the staff also attended as well.

[1:06:25] I'd like to also thank Matt Brown,

[1:06:27] who was honored tonight.

[1:06:28] I think he did an excellent job as our editor

[1:06:31] of our local newspaper and in light of the very ongoing attacks

[1:06:37] on what's called the mainstream media these days.

[1:06:40] I think it's important to recognize the importance

[1:06:42] of journalism in our democratic society

[1:06:45] because without it we don't have a democratic society plan and simple, you don't have information to make decisions, you don't make decisions and that's how dictatorships get born.

[1:06:57] So I would like to thank Matt for his long time at the artists.

[1:07:03] And my last two comments are directed to my two colleagues, Kathy Miller and Gabe Kerney, who I've served with my entire six years on the council.

[1:07:13] So, you know, everybody has gone through some of the specific details of what you actually

[1:07:19] did and it probably doesn't cover 20% of what went on here.

[1:07:24] The range of political issues and subject matters that the city council has to grapple with

[1:07:31] on a week-to-week basis is incredible and I don't think anybody who runs for council quite

[1:07:40] realizes the depth of all of what you have to deal with.

[1:07:45] And what I appreciate, and this is about both of you specifically,

[1:07:50] we had in these six years, we've had to make a lot of very difficult decisions.

[1:07:55] I'm sure that's the case in the six years prior and it goes back,

[1:07:59] but it seems to me that particularly in the last four years,

[1:08:02] we've had some very tough ones and they run the gamut through all the issues.

[1:08:08] What I appreciated most professionally out of you both was how prepared you were to

[1:08:15] make those decisions, how balanced you were in your thinking and approach to everything

[1:08:22] that came before us, how hard you worked to get to where you are.

[1:08:30] Both of you have had excellent demeanor on the council and that, to me, means an awful

[1:08:36] a lot. I think if we don't have that up here, we can fall apart pretty quickly. I've

[1:08:42] heard of other councils and other parts of this county and other counties where they

[1:08:46] don't talk to each other off of the dies or even on the dies and we never even came close

[1:08:52] to having that here. I wish I wish the public sometimes could see this council and the prior

[1:08:58] Council with Chris Alberts and David Glass talk in difficult sessions and closed session

[1:09:08] to see how the intellect of you two and the difficult decisions that we had to make

[1:09:15] there as well were done.

[1:09:18] I'm going to miss both of you and your senses of humor quite a bit.

[1:09:22] I know we'll see each other again when this ends and it will end.

[1:09:30] I mean, I think the biggest regret the past nine months is that we don't get together, except on Zoom and get together live.

[1:09:39] I hope the community, and I know you got some comments, but I hope the community does appreciate all your good work for this city.

[1:09:47] Both what we do on Monday nights here, all the committees you serve on, all the commissions,

[1:09:53] all the regional boards, all the public events, and all the advocacy, some of my colleagues.

[1:10:00] I just pointed to some very specific large things that you were very much responsible for. I don't need to make a list. I'd be here for quite a while. But I'd like to thank you, and it's been a real honor to work with you.

[1:10:13] And with that, I just wish that everybody in the public as well as the staff and council members, the very happy holiday. I don't know if we're going to get a chance to get into that by the time this meeting ends, but I hope you all have a great holiday and I hope it's very safe. Thanks again, Kathy and Gabe.

[1:10:29] And if I was wearing nicer pants, I'd stand up and give you a standing ovation, but I'm not.

[1:10:36] Too much information.

[1:10:39] I am wearing pants.

[1:10:42] I knew I'd get the truth out of you.

[1:10:46] But so I'm going to start with my liaison reports, which are only two, and that is the Bay Area air quality management district.

[1:10:54] had a joint meeting with our advisory council, which is a rather stellar group of very renowned

[1:11:03] scientists and policymakers. And this group was tasked to look at setting up discussing

[1:11:14] and the development of stricter guidelines for particulate matter in the Bay Area, spotlighting

[1:11:22] the health protection aspects of that.

[1:11:25] We had quite a good meeting with a based on an excellent report that was done by the

[1:11:31] advisory council and the next year or so will be given over to part of staff and that

[1:11:40] advisory council for crafting that thought process into policies that can be put into

[1:11:50] into practice at the district and that in in so doing go out into the areas

[1:12:01] throughout the nine Bay Area counties that the air district is comprised by.

[1:12:08] And this this will reach even to land use decisions.

[1:12:12] And one of the examples they used in particular was the placement of gas stations

[1:12:18] near schools, whether they're public or private because that does seem to be an issue.

[1:12:26] The private schools are not as well covered, but also their affect near child care centers and other vulnerable is in receptors.

[1:12:37] So it was interesting in that regard for us here in Petaluma since we've already had to be looking at that issue.

[1:12:44] But that is coming down in the next, I'd say,

[1:12:50] 18 months probably.

[1:12:52] Also, we had our zone 2A meeting in which we adopted the recommendations for the fiscal year,

[1:12:59] 21, 22 budget.

[1:13:02] And that budget, that budget, as we approved it,

[1:13:07] includes incorporating monitoring of the streams that feed into the Petaluma River and our watershed that will allow us to recalibrate the stream gauges, which we can then use in our upcoming general plan updates.

[1:13:27] So that's very valuable information that will be timely for us to be able to use in that work and it's I really admire our staff who serve our public work staff who work with the

[1:13:42] the Sonoma Water Agency on Zontua and really coordinate those efforts so they were all on

[1:13:52] the same page and benefiting from the work by all the different grips. So that was really wonderful.

[1:13:59] And I'm just going to add my voice of congratulations and thanks to both Kathy Miller and Gabe

[1:14:12] really identified something that

[1:14:17] those of us who've been on the council for a while have seen enough variety

[1:14:21] and the people on the council to really know when you have very good people on the

[1:14:26] council who actually do the work that we need to do in order to come prepared.

[1:14:34] And I would say that the seven people that are currently sitting on the council

[1:14:39] they're not one that I think comes unprepared and I think that that is a really important thing

[1:14:46] for everybody to realize in the public, whether you agree or disagree with people,

[1:14:52] they're not coming only with their opinion. They're coming based on what they have read, what has been

[1:15:00] And they are using their values to look at that and casting their vote in that way. But I have never felt that I have been in the meeting with councilmember Miller or councilmember kerney, where they hadn't prepared themselves. And I also think that councilmember king really pointed out something that is is in another important aspect is that there have been

[1:15:29] That very good decisions that have been made based on good discussions in close session

[1:15:37] that have come from people with very different views.

[1:15:41] And that's something that the public doesn't get to see so much.

[1:15:47] But I do think Council Member Miller and Council Member Kerney.

[1:15:52] And even though you've spent a quarter of your life here, Gabe.

[1:15:56] you know that that can that can be enlarged so so I'm sure we will see both of you

[1:16:02] around town and around here so thank you well I can't say here but at city hall

[1:16:08] but around the community and thank you both for your service so now we'll go

[1:16:15] on to the city manager's comment thank you Mayor Barrett so tonight we're

[1:16:21] going to be hearing from our finance director about our financial forecast. And I thought I would

[1:16:27] just take this moment. It being our last meeting of the calendar year. And I just want to thank

[1:16:35] our community again for their support. I'm beyond thankful and humbled by their support of measure

[1:16:40] you, which will help stem our deficit and begin to fund the priorities that our community told us

[1:16:46] were important to them. We've finally gotten to a place where we can stabilize our city and begin

[1:16:54] planning to be the full service city our community deserves. But we're not quite there yet

[1:17:00] and we're asking for your patience. We're putting the infrastructure in place. We're rebuilding our city.

[1:17:07] Currently our staffing levels are still 16 percent below 2008 levels and we've been accommodating

[1:17:13] I mean, a decade of growing needs from a growing population.

[1:17:18] So in addition to tonight's forecast, we're looking forward to looking forward to bringing

[1:17:23] the budget to Council and the community for discussion as well as prioritizing our goals

[1:17:28] and priorities for the next two years, and we're excited to be on this trajectory together

[1:17:34] and looking forward to those conversations.

[1:17:36] And again, in the meantime, asking for your patience as we build our city together.

[1:17:41] I also want to echo what everyone said tonight.

[1:17:47] It has been a true honor to be working with both Council Member Kerney and Council Member

[1:17:53] Miller.

[1:17:53] I want to thank you for teeing up the city for a brighter future, for taking a chance

[1:18:01] on a first time city manager.

[1:18:04] Thank you for this opportunity to serve this amazing community and work alongside you.

[1:18:10] and I know that you're going to stay involved and if you aren't, you know, you're going to get pinged, so just FYI, we're going to make sure you guys stay in contact and engaged and just thank you so much for everything you've done for us and for putting us in a better place.

[1:18:30] Thank you.

[1:18:32] Okay. Thank you very much and now we'll move on to approval of the minutes and these are the minutes for December 7th. That was our last meeting.

[1:18:42] If there's no corrections or changes or additions, I'm seeing no one raised their hand. The meetings will be accepted as submitted.

[1:18:55] Approval of the proposed agenda for January 4th 2021.

[1:19:00] one. Is there a motion for that?

[1:19:05] I still move out of there.

[1:19:07] Second motion by King, second by Healy,

[1:19:11] and we will have a roll call vote.

[1:19:16] Is there it? Yes.

[1:19:18] Is there? Yes.

[1:19:22] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[1:19:26] Yes. Yes.

[1:19:27] McDonald. Yes.

[1:19:28] Yes.

[1:19:29] Yes.

[1:19:30] Yes.

[1:19:31] We'll move on to the unanimously.

[1:19:33] Thank you.

[1:19:34] And so one of the consent calendar.

[1:19:37] I have a request to pull item B 3B.

[1:19:40] Is there any other request to pull anything?

[1:19:44] Yeah, 3F please.

[1:19:46] B and 3F.

[1:19:49] So, um, okay.

[1:19:51] So is

[1:19:55] that has the clerk received any public comments on any of the consent calendar?

[1:20:03] Okay, so let's open public comment, and then we'll bring it back for comment regarding questions. And is there any, I want to ask Aaron to see if there's any public comment on the consent items.

[1:20:24] Yes, Madam Mayor, there is one speaker with the hand raised, but I'm going to read this little feeling a little quick.

[1:20:31] During public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within city council subject manager's diction, and for the item specifically on consent copper.

[1:20:44] Those which to participate in public comment must raise their virtual hand in a way to be called on by the moderator.

[1:20:49] Speakers are reminded to be respectful in the comments.

[1:20:52] Threats of violence and obscene are grounds for removal from the scene.

[1:20:56] Accountant will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers.

[1:20:59] Your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown.

[1:21:02] The first people will be acknowledged and invited to speak when the count up begins.

[1:21:06] Please make sure to unmute yourselves when you're invited to do so.

[1:21:08] So the

[1:21:16] first speaker that we have is Ben Peters.

[1:21:18] I will now allow you to speak, you can unmute yourself and get speaking.

[1:21:26] Real quickly, I'd like to call your attention to item 3a.

[1:21:29] This is the LED Retrofit project.

[1:21:32] So if you review the staff report, you'll see this project results in a 50% cost savings,

[1:21:38] which is amazing.

[1:21:39] The trouble is that we're using the Water Enterprise Fund to fund these important projects.

[1:21:43] what we should be doing is using PG&E 0% on bill financing.

[1:21:49] That way we can reallocate additional water enterprise funds

[1:21:54] to much needed projects and stimulate our local economy.

[1:22:00] Any programs are 0% interest.

[1:22:03] Please use additional resources to leverage important projects,

[1:22:08] such as LED retrofits.

[1:22:10] Thank you.

[1:22:13] Thank you, Ben.

[1:22:14] and my mayor that is the only hand I see risk.

[1:22:20] Thank you very much with that.

[1:22:22] We'll close public comment on the consent calendar

[1:22:27] and I don't know if the two people

[1:22:30] who wanted to pull vice mayor Fisher for item B

[1:22:36] and council member Kerney for item F.

[1:22:40] Did you just have questions or did you want to have

[1:22:44] those fold because you oppose them. I'll start with the

[1:22:47] best mayor. I didn't pull up these questions but I pulled it

[1:22:51] because I'd like to offer an alternative. I want to take

[1:22:55] that opportunity now. I would like to. So this is the award

[1:23:01] of the contract to upgrade our tennis pickleball courts, which

[1:23:04] are really have been in need for years. And it's using

[1:23:10] measure M funds. And as the liaison to parks and rec last

[1:23:13] year when we were having this discussion about measure and funds and looking at the survey results and

[1:23:19] looking at our community meeting about the priorities of our community for what they want to see

[1:23:24] measure and funds used for. The biggest need was really for trails and pathways and we've seen

[1:23:30] during the pandemic the incredible need for more of those and upgrading what we have and things like

[1:23:37] Adobe Creek and so rather than encumber our measure and funds over the next 10 years at an amount

[1:23:43] of, you know, almost $50,000 a year, I would offer that we award a contract for the construction

[1:23:49] of just the LeCasey courts for the moment and hold off on McNair and Deloro until we can

[1:23:56] sort of look at our measure and funds and prioritize over these next two years where we want

[1:24:02] that funding to go. So that would be my offer of a motion on 3B is to award the contract

[1:24:08] at this time just for Lake Haysie.

[1:24:13] Okay, so that's a counter motion.

[1:24:16] Is there a second on that?

[1:24:18] Well, I see hands up.

[1:24:20] So, let me ask that hands up first.

[1:24:23] And then we'll go councilmember Kerney and councilmember team.

[1:24:29] I was going to ask to move items three a CDE.

[1:24:35] Okay, all right. That's it. That is a motion.

[1:24:38] Okay, so we'll do that.

[1:24:40] No comment on what the vice mayor just brought up.

[1:24:44] Oh, I think council member King might have some missing on B so I'll wait.

[1:24:50] I'll hold off on adding next to the motion.

[1:24:52] Thank you. So council member King.

[1:24:55] Yeah, I would oppose council vice mayor Fisher's amendment.

[1:25:00] The tennis courts at McNeer Park, I don't believe have been resurfaced in the entirety of the time I've lived here, which is 30 years. It's been in our budget. It's been budgeted as an item to be done for at least two to three years. And I, I support the staff recommendation on item six, excuse me, three being to go forward with both locations, both in terms of the lighting and the resurfacing. It is dangerous. I was on it recently with my mentee from mentor me.

[1:25:29] it is not safe, and the work needs to be done.

[1:25:35] And council member McDonald.

[1:25:39] First, I would second councilman Kerney's motion

[1:25:44] on the balance, if needing the second on that.

[1:25:47] And then regarding the tennis courts,

[1:25:50] you know, it is an important item to fulfill,

[1:25:52] but I really agreed that measure M was brought

[1:25:55] for non-standard maintenance and opportunity

[1:25:59] that we're looking for. So I turn to staff and suggest is there some way we can dig into any of our other

[1:26:05] capital funding to find this or is it even impact eligible under the recreation fund where we

[1:26:12] currently do have some money? Well luckily we have staff. Ken Eisenstadt is on so do I respond to

[1:26:20] that and perhaps other things.

[1:26:23] Thank you, Mayor Barrett.

[1:26:26] Yes, the measure and funding is roughly 10% of the full amount.

[1:26:32] It's 44,000 in the approved budget for this project.

[1:26:38] The staff has done considerable outreach

[1:26:41] to improve the courts and get feedback

[1:26:45] and has gone through multiple options

[1:26:48] for pickleball and tennis court scenarios.

[1:26:53] And we've come to what I think is very much

[1:26:56] of a sweet spot.

[1:26:59] I had spoken with Cindy and Drew,

[1:27:03] Cindy Chong and Drew Halter last week

[1:27:06] and they were getting ready to shut down the near

[1:27:09] because of the trip hazards.

[1:27:11] So we have a safety and a liability issue,

[1:27:15] particularly with McNair,

[1:27:17] but I'll definitely, Lucacey also.

[1:27:22] So I, you know, if there's any questions I can answer

[1:27:26] to help move this forward, I strongly recommend

[1:27:30] that Lucacey and McNair proceed.

[1:27:34] There is contingency in there

[1:27:38] that we could possibly reconfigure the budget

[1:27:42] so that we did not have to take funds

[1:27:44] from any of the trail maintenance, but it's this is a good, you know, getting this project through

[1:27:54] the public process and ready to go, particularly at the time when we are, you know, looking at

[1:28:01] having to possibly shut down McNair. I'd be concerned. My question I think went to funding

[1:28:09] and maybe I'm getting ahead of myself and in our first quarter update, I'll note that it says that Measure U has a $2.5 million revenue this year, and while I'm excited about the revenue, I'm more concerned that we are able to

[1:28:26] We're actively expend the 2.5 this year, and this is perhaps an opening of Council season that way to keep measure M money where it belongs and start that recovery that we sold the public on as part of measure you.

[1:28:43] Okay, so I see the manager also has her hand up, so what do I do?

[1:28:52] So when we did do our outreach to the community, in addition to pathways being, you know, rising

[1:29:00] to the top, recreational facilities was, you know, shortly thereafter as important

[1:29:07] to our community.

[1:29:08] So, staff has found a way and can has done a brilliant job of being able to leverage the

[1:29:17] work that's being done so we could save money and do multiple courts at the same time.

[1:29:22] And as far as the $2.5 million to be expended this year, Councilmember MacDonald, I think our

[1:29:30] finance director will show you that we have more than enough on our plate and as I mentioned

[1:29:35] And tonight it's, we're trying to rebuild our infrastructure, starting with the people behind

[1:29:41] the services, just to get the work done. So, we don't have a shortage of things to invest

[1:29:49] that $2.5 million on, and I think we've done a great job of leveraging Measure M, and we will continue

[1:29:54] you now that we have a dedicated revenue source to leverage our measure you find.

[1:30:02] Okay,

[1:30:05] thank you for that from the city manager and staff, but I do think the question that was posed, then asked again by councilmember McDonald, was the money that is in this funding that comes from measure M does not seem to be what measure M was intended for measure M.

[1:30:29] was not intended for ongoing maintenance or upgrading, but for newer projects or

[1:30:37] additional projects. And I think that that seems to be the sticking point that I've heard.

[1:30:45] And I did hear Ken say something about looking for that money somewhere else or did I make that up.

[1:30:53] We have, we have the budget to be able to do Lucaisy and McNier without touching measure

[1:31:05] M. So we could possibly do those two courts, you know, without the 44,000 for measure M.

[1:31:16] I will say measure M is 10% of the overall budget, and I hadn't seen this issue, I wasn't

[1:31:26] aware of it, so this is news to me, but I feel like we've got the documents to move

[1:31:32] a contractor forward, which for me, as an engine report, and the trail system, I get it.

[1:31:41] That's one of the things I'm most passionate about and you will be hearing more about the trail improvements and the work moving forward on that we've got some really good funding sources with TDA TFCA that will be going towards that.

[1:31:58] As well as other as well as other projects along the trail system into the 21 22 CIP so.

[1:32:07] So it, I was just, you know, looking at the budget book and the measure M, you know, was

[1:32:21] showing as $44,000, but it's, so we can figure out a way to make this work, but I'd hope

[1:32:34] that we wouldn't stop. Like I say, we have to put a lock on the gate at McNair. I just feel like that,

[1:32:40] particularly having met with the folks who are out there playing pickleball,

[1:32:45] or panic, and it's I think it would be problematic to do that.

[1:32:52] So thank you. Thank you. And my CR City Attorney has to stand up followed by our Vice Mayor.

[1:33:08] Thank you Madam Mayor. I just wanted to know a structural feature. It sounds like according to

[1:33:15] Ken there's some there is some ways of be looking at the budget allocation but the way this was bid. This work was bid.

[1:33:22] It was as as a combined project.

[1:33:24] And that means we're to be no longer a combined project.

[1:33:30] All the bids would have to be rejected and it would have to be rebid.

[1:33:35] So there's a time factor involved.

[1:33:36] I don't say that as if that should decide that drive the council's decision making.

[1:33:44] And as I said, it sounds like Ken has indicated some potential flexibility,

[1:33:48] but I just wanted the council to be aware of that sort of structural feature

[1:33:52] of how staff has set this up to move forward in terms of awarding the work. Thank you.

[1:34:01] Thank you for that information and vice mayor.

[1:34:05] So I just want to clarify so the 44,000 that's coming out of measure M for this project,

[1:34:12] it doesn't encumber measure M over the next 10 years at $41,000 a year in order to pay back that

[1:34:18] that that loan that we're taking out for the total amount is that correct?

[1:34:24] So the $40,000 a year to pay back the loan wouldn't come out of measure.

[1:34:29] And I'm

[1:34:37] not sure who you're asking that.

[1:34:42] I guess I'm happy to respond.

[1:34:46] So yes, that $44,000 would be budgeted every year for the next 10 years in order to pay back that

[1:34:52] That inner fun loan. Right, but is it budgeted through as measure M funds or it's not.

[1:35:00] Designated where that funding is coming from. We are, we have established it in the staff report as coming from measure M going forward that that payback funding source could change if the council decides. They want to change it, but it is established as it's written in the staff report as coming from measure M. That was my understanding. So I guess back to the question of hand, then is there another source that we can identify to pay back that loan?

[1:35:29] over the next ten years so we don't come

[1:35:31] or measure in funds for this purpose for that

[1:35:34] length of time. Our options are limited.

[1:35:37] What we're looking for is discretionary funds

[1:35:40] for payback and so the only other option that

[1:35:44] really comes to mind that's available for that

[1:35:45] is the general fund and we could you know

[1:35:48] do something down the road where half of the

[1:35:51] payback comes from the general fund so we

[1:35:53] could split the payback half of it measure

[1:35:56] in half of it general fund. There's a series of options but they really are our fund options are

[1:36:03] limited because it does need to come from a discretionary fund. I heard some a comment made

[1:36:09] about the impact fees and unfortunately impact fees are not available for this type of maintenance

[1:36:14] project. So that's another reason why we're just really restricted into our options for the payback

[1:36:20] of this interfun loan.

[1:36:28] Council and Madam Air, if I may,

[1:36:30] Cory, wouldn't there also,

[1:36:31] wouldn't we also have some issues

[1:36:32] regarding committing future general fund

[1:36:35] without voter approval?

[1:36:40] We would, well, we would probably,

[1:36:42] we would likely need to take the,

[1:36:44] the interfun loan back to council to amend the payback source.

[1:36:47] So again, that's just, you know,

[1:36:49] it is the council's decision on whether or not

[1:36:52] the payback comes from measure M or from the general fund

[1:36:55] for example, but we would likely need to amend that Interfen loan down the road if that's

[1:37:00] what is decided. Just like Peggy said, you know, the need is so great on the workforce

[1:37:07] stabilization piece of what measure you, you know, is going for. So we just need to keep that in mind

[1:37:13] if we use the funding for a project of this nature it reduces funding in other areas.

[1:37:22] All

[1:37:25] right, so thank you for that clarification, and so there is a motion still on the table from the vice mayor regard.

[1:37:37] Well, there's two.

[1:37:39] One is the motion by Bernie and the second by Donald, but the vice mayor also has a motion about measure B, which does not yet have a second.

[1:37:55] So I'm going to let that sit there and see if anyone's going to come up a second.

[1:38:02] Madam Mayor.

[1:38:03] Well, Councillor McCree.

[1:38:08] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to add B to my motion.

[1:38:14] Okay. All right. Is that work with the second, the seconder?

[1:38:20] I had one friendly suggestion to craft on this, while I believe the staff's interest

[1:38:29] in spending all of you prior to end of this fiscal year, just 2.5, and knowing that

[1:38:37] measure you funds above substance were split half, knee infrastructure and half in labor

[1:38:43] efforts, still seems to me that there's going to be some cash available and I'd like to

[1:38:49] see if the vice mayor is interested in calling a sporting proposition where it's measure M unless

[1:38:55] there's unexpended general funds at the end of fiscal year in which case it is all covered

[1:39:02] by this year's general fund under expense rather than M for the future.

[1:39:11] Well, first of all, I want to renegade Kernie's idea of adding M to his previous motion because then

[1:39:18] I can't vote against it, but it would be problematic, but I don't have an issue with the $44,000 for this year to get this project going.

[1:39:28] I do think that the project needs to be done.

[1:39:31] What I'm really uncomfortable with again is deciding for the next 10 years how measure M money is spent without the council weighing in on measure M and what sort of priority we want to give projects moving forward.

[1:39:46] And I understand that bifurcating look hazy off of this contract now is going to be problematic. So my motion has another complexity to it.

[1:39:56] But

[1:40:00] So I'm not sure what to do about that. And the ORO is also in a contingency on this bid as well, right? So it's another $100,000. So I guess if we can just reduce that down, so we're not being encumbered so much. And then we can re-look at it and use general fund monies instead of measure M. But I'm wondering if we would still move forward with this project.

[1:40:27] But if we were deciding to do it with general fund instead of measure M,

[1:40:33] those are questions

[1:40:34] and comments I'll put together.

[1:40:38] Okay, so I have hands up by Kernie and King, and so David, did you want to say something

[1:40:47] because Gabe may just still have a stand up on my chair?

[1:40:53] Yeah, Del Auro is not an issue tonight.

[1:40:57] We have two locations, McNeer and McKasey, both for lighting and court reconstruction, you know, I plan on voting for the staff proposal.

[1:41:14] I clearly don't have any objection to examining in the future how the fund is paid back.

[1:41:21] My concern is that this gets delayed. I'd like to see the contract wet.

[1:41:27] As indicated in the council packet, and then perhaps staff can come back with some creative alternatives about paying it back if that's feasible.

[1:41:43] I don't know that I agree that measure and money is inappropriate for this quite frankly, I think.

[1:41:48] If it was, we wouldn't see it in the staff report, but in ours, my recollection that we're so limited with respect to the use of it, but I would like to see this kind of both of those contracts A and B.

[1:42:01] I think the only one that's been pulled is B, but the lighting is on A. So those are those are my thoughts.

[1:42:09] how we get there. I mean we can have separate votes if we need to. I would move if we need to to move item B as as

[1:42:19] as prepared by the staff would be my motion on on three bit.

[1:42:25] Okay, so I believe you're offering a kind of compromise that councilmember MacDonald also offered that we go forward with B

[1:42:38] as it is drawn and direct staff that, looking toward the future, look to see whether there is money, other than money, going after this initial expenditure.

[1:42:53] That's fine with me. I just don't want this to be a good way.

[1:42:57] Councilmember Donald had suggested as well.

[1:43:00] And as is that I would I would agree to the second decade courteous motion okay

[1:43:05] Well, I just want to see how how the vice mayor are you okay with that

[1:43:09] No, I'm not

[1:43:11] Because if there are no one the funds available then we are committing measure and funds

[1:43:19] And I would vote against that

[1:43:21] Okay, so councilmember

[1:43:22] We continue it to January's meeting

[1:43:26] Where we can come up with other funding for it

[1:43:29] then I am kind of vote against free being. Okay so council member King also just offered

[1:43:36] a motion to have be on its own. Correct. Okay so which I would I would second that just if you

[1:43:47] don't mind removing that from your motions and second council member Cerny and MacDonald

[1:43:59] Okay.

[1:44:02] So before we take either of those votes, let's get Mr. Healy in here to talk about

[1:44:07] F and see whether or not we can add that in voting. So, Council Member Healy.

[1:44:15] Oh, if you're sure you want to do it that way, that's fine. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:44:19] So you all got the email from the Assistant City Manager this afternoon responding to questions

[1:44:25] And my question was the bank for the buck question on on on three F, where we have, you know, 1.9 million dollars and fund balance left in our new account.

[1:44:38] And we're kind of aggressively trying to not get more funds there because we don't want people to pay the in lieu fee.

[1:44:45] And so the question is in my mind is, is this the best use of those funds or should we be trying to commit some funds to the two or three larger?

[1:45:00] Projects that are in the pipeline and help them to get the remaining grant funding that they need because the more money they have, the easier it is for them to compete for their remaining funds.

[1:45:14] Mid-Pen, I think, is 28 units.

[1:45:18] Burbank would be 50 and then there might be another one out there coming up soon.

[1:45:24] So that was my heartburn on this one in the last paragraph of Mr. Cochran's memo or email he did suggest to compromise.

[1:45:36] I know everyone is seeing basically it would take a three veteran low income unit and Brody Ranch and move that into the moderate category, which would reduce the cost of this total project total item from 235,000.

[1:45:53] $67,000 I think that's a reasonable compromise and so I would be willing to support that as opposed to what was originally in the staff report. So I would make that a motion for for three.

[1:46:07] Thank you.

[1:46:08] Okay, so let's.

[1:46:13] Is there a second for Mr.

[1:46:20] Okay, so that's a second. Yes. Okay. All right. So, Mr. Curry, do you want to add F to your A, B, A, C, D, E, and F?

[1:46:38] I would rather come with a separate.

[1:46:43] Remotions. Let's have the courty motion is ACME.

[1:46:48] Is that correct? Mr. Gurney?

[1:46:52] Okay, and the second is by councilmember McDonald.

[1:46:56] Okay, so let's take that first.

[1:47:00] Roll call please. Is there, yeah, we already did public comment.

[1:47:03] Okay, so roll call.

[1:47:20] Okay fine thank you and now we have Mr. King's motion was there a second on that you didn't you did not

[1:47:30] I thought I did it but I wasn't certain so okay so this is a measure B as submitted by

[1:47:40] We'll do roll call vote.

[1:47:43] Barrett?

[1:47:44] Yes.

[1:47:45] Fisher?

[1:47:46] No.

[1:47:47] Healy?

[1:47:49] Yes.

[1:47:51] Bernie?

[1:47:52] Yes.

[1:47:53] King?

[1:47:54] Yes.

[1:47:55] McDonald?

[1:47:56] Yes.

[1:47:58] Yes.

[1:48:00] Motion call for 6 to 1.

[1:48:02] Thank you.

[1:48:03] And now we have Mr.

[1:48:08] to change the funding as described in Assistant City Manager, Brian Cochran's email, which, of course, is not part of the record.

[1:48:23] So, do someone want to read that?

[1:48:26] Did you want me to just briefly explain the proposal Madam Mayor?

[1:48:31] Yes.

[1:48:31] So the original staff recommendation would have allocated $235,000 from the city's in-loop housing fund to basically buy down the affordability of the last two units within the Brody Ranch subdivision from the moderate affordability level to the low affordability level.

[1:48:52] the option that was proposed in the email would take a current unit that is up for resale.

[1:49:00] It's a three bedroom low income unit.

[1:49:04] We would allow that to float up from low income to moderate income.

[1:49:10] And there would be some savings to the city in doing that and then we would then repurpose

[1:49:15] those dollars to buy down these two remaining units from moderate to low.

[1:49:20] So, because we're using some of that subsidy, the cost, the overall cost to the city is less, and as Councilmember Healy mentioned, it would go down from approximately $235,000 from the Inloo Fund to about $67,000 estimate from the end of the fund.

[1:49:40] Thank you, and I see two hands up. I don't know if those are still left up from before, or whether Councilmember King and Councilmember McDonald have something to say.

[1:49:50] I don't. Sorry. There was left out from before. Sorry. Okay. McDonald and and I do and and yeah, this one. Give me

[1:50:01] So, there were 23 units of affordable housing in the development and housing land trust came up with a $600,000 grant to try and get more. So, these would be two more units, which was on the table. Two more units, they brought 600,000. And we were going to propose to chip in some money for two additional more than their requirement.

[1:50:24] And I want to make sure that so the 600,000 would get transferred into this alternate deal, that how this works.

[1:50:34] Yeah, the 600,000 I understand and our housing manager, Karen Shumizu may want to weigh into, but the 600,000 has already been put into the deal.

[1:50:43] Those units have been bought down. Those I think actually have already been sold to moderate income buyers.

[1:50:49] So those are done and we're really talking about the last remaining one bedroom and the last remaining two bedroom left at the development.

[1:50:57] That's where the confusion comes in. They were committed to 23 units.

[1:51:01] Correct. Why are we saying last remaining if they've already delivered on the 23 required and this would push them above and beyond.

[1:51:11] Yeah, so the grant from the housing land trust would move us from 23 total affordable in this development to 25 total affordable in this.

[1:51:20] If we were to go with the sort of option or the compromise proposal, we would then be down one. So we would be in between the two.

[1:51:28] we would be at 24 total affordable units in in Brody Ranch. So we would still be one up

[1:51:35] from our original, but we would there will be a slightly different mix of low versus moderate.

[1:51:42] That's that's really the difference here. It's how many low versus how many moderate are in this

[1:51:47] development. And the amendment that Mr. Healy is putting in reduces the number of low and increases

[1:51:56] is the number of moderate? Is that right?

[1:51:59] Yeah, so the original proposal was to buy down two

[1:52:02] moderate units to low, so we would have two additional low.

[1:52:08] The compromised proposal effectively splits the difference, I guess you could say,

[1:52:13] because we have one that has already come up for resale, so somebody had bought the unit.

[1:52:18] They're now selling it. It rolls back into the program, but working with the housing

[1:52:24] land trust we've been presented an option where we could take it from low up to moderate. So it's

[1:52:31] still affordable, still affordable, but it would be affordable at the moderate instead of the low

[1:52:36] level. So there is really just an adjustment of the number of low units versus the number of moderate

[1:52:42] units. And it's the number of low units that we are particularly behind on, isn't it? Yes. That's

[1:52:50] So I will not be supporting this amendment, but we will, we can go ahead and take the vote on it. And then if it doesn't pass, we can just, I will make a motion to accept the staff's what the staff has put forward.

[1:53:09] So do you want to do, unless there's more discussion on this?

[1:53:15] Okay, so let's vote.

[1:53:16] Madam Mayor, I apologize to interrupt.

[1:53:19] If I could just add one more bit of detail.

[1:53:22] And I think it's important as well.

[1:53:24] We have been working with housing land trust trust to try to get families qualified in these last two birdie ranch units.

[1:53:30] And it really appears that the market has been a lot better for the low income units.

[1:53:35] so we do have two families that are ready, they're pre-qualified, they're ready, they could go

[1:53:41] under contract pretty immediately for these two additional low units. So that was part of the

[1:53:44] reason for the original staff recommendations because we know that they're kind of ready to go

[1:53:49] and we can serve those low-income families. Okay, immediately. Immediately, correct.

[1:53:56] And can I follow up on that briefly?

[1:54:02] So Brian, with the compromise, those two families could still

[1:54:06] I'll move forward with those contracts, is that right?

[1:54:11] With the compromise, the two families could move ahead

[1:54:15] with those two units that are in question.

[1:54:19] The only difference would be that yes,

[1:54:21] when we go to remarket that three bedroom

[1:54:23] that I mentioned earlier,

[1:54:24] that would need to be marketed at the moderate level

[1:54:27] instead of the low level.

[1:54:28] Yes, that's good.

[1:54:32] No, the roll call, though, please.

[1:54:35] There?

[1:54:36] No.

[1:54:37] Fisher?

[1:54:38] No.

[1:54:39] Uly?

[1:54:40] Yes.

[1:54:42] Kerni?

[1:54:43] Yes.

[1:54:44] King?

[1:54:45] Yes.

[1:54:46] McDonald?

[1:54:48] Yes.

[1:54:49] Miller?

[1:54:51] Yes.

[1:54:52] Motion passes, order two.

[1:54:55] Fine.

[1:54:56] Okay.

[1:54:57] Say that very much.

[1:54:59] Thank you.

[1:55:00] Thank you. Now

[1:55:06] we're moving on to unfinished business and this is item 4a and this is the adoption, the second reading of the ordinance, approving a zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment for the revised Casa Grande residential project, located at 240 and 250 Casa Grande and Mr. Hollister. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, good evening, council members. As you may recall,

[1:55:32] on your December 7th agenda, the first readings of the Casa Grande zoning amendments for both

[1:55:40] the zoning map amendments and zoning text amendment. We're now at unanimous vote. There's about

[1:55:44] a five to two. So the second readings are on your regular agenda. A staff analysis has not

[1:55:50] changed and we continue to recommend approval of the ordinances. I'm just going to wrap up my brief

[1:55:55] presentation now and know what I'll be available for questions and comments. Thank you.

[1:55:59] Thank you very much. And City Clerk is there any public comment that you have received on this item?

[1:56:08] Madam Mayor, no comment on this item.

[1:56:11] Okay, thank you. And so the moderator, would you please open public comment on this item?

[1:56:17] Thank you, Madam Mayor. During public comment, the public is required to make comments on items of public interest that are within the City Council such manner of jurisdiction and for this specific agenda item.

[1:56:28] Public comment, I eliminated three minutes for person.

[1:56:32] At this point, we do have one member of the public with their hand raised.

[1:56:37] I will now share my screen.

[1:56:42] Taren Obey, I will now allow you to speak.

[1:56:46] You can unmute yourself and get speaking.

[1:56:50] Hi, City Council.

[1:56:51] My understanding is the Casa Grande development.

[1:56:55] I understand this by LeFranque, and he's a huge campaign contributor for a lot of you guys, and I get how important that is, but I'd really like to encourage the City Council to list their thinking to consideration that we're in a valley that's basically like a big training system, and the water comes down off of the hills, and it comes down off of the hill near where General Vale Jose

[1:57:25] adobias, and it winds right there, and this development isn't 60% in the floodplain, right?

[1:57:34] Not good.

[1:57:35] Not good in anyone's book.

[1:57:39] Proper planning is anticipating what problems might happen.

[1:57:45] When flooding happens, is Le Franche going to be paying for the liability, for the damage,

[1:57:51] knowledge for the risk, for the maintenance of that Greek, because I know he's going

[1:57:58] to be taking home all the profits, right? That's what developers do. But where's the

[1:58:02] balance here? This project is all about cronyism, crony capitalism, and this developer getting

[1:58:15] all the benefits but leaving citizens taxpayers holding the bag, holding the bag of fear,

[1:58:25] increased premiums for flood insurance,

[1:58:30] cost to rebuild when parts of their property flood,

[1:58:35] toxins and pesticides flooding their yards when floods happen?

[1:58:40] Again, this is not good planning.

[1:58:45] I really struggle to understand how in the year 2020 we are stuck 50 years in the past

[1:58:55] and looking at a project like this and even considering it.

[1:59:00] So you voted on the project last meeting.

[1:59:04] I would urge you to reconsider that and think towards the future.

[1:59:10] Have any of you seen the movie Idiocracy?

[1:59:13] It's a comedy about dystopian society.

[1:59:16] Some point in the future where we so ignore our environment

[1:59:21] and the way Mother Nature needs to function

[1:59:24] and makes so many bad decisions that our future is an absolute joke.

[1:59:30] This kind of a decision keeps us right on the path of antiquated thinking. It is bad business,

[1:59:39] certainly bad planning, a bad decision. Please reconsider. Thank you.

[1:59:46] Thank you.

[1:59:48] And Madam Mayor, at this point, I do not see any other hands raised.

[1:59:53] Thank you very much. And with that, we will close public comment and bring it back to the council.

[2:00:00] And I have Council Member Miller has your hand up.

[2:00:06] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will move the item and point out that it is a seasonal creek.

[2:00:17] I don't know who's that. Council Member Healey. Yeah. Okay. All right. So there's a motion by Miller and a second by Healey and we will take the vote by roll call.

[2:00:34] No.

[2:00:35] No.

[2:00:36] Is there?

[2:00:37] No.

[2:00:38] Healing.

[2:00:40] Yes.

[2:00:41] 30.

[2:00:42] Yes.

[2:00:43] King.

[2:00:44] Yes.

[2:00:45] McDonald.

[2:00:46] Yes.

[2:00:47] Miller.

[2:00:48] Yes.

[2:00:50] Motion passes.

[2:00:51] Five to two.

[2:00:52] Okay.

[2:00:53] Thank you.

[2:00:53] And I would just like to reiterate that I oppose this

[2:01:00] development because over 60% of it is in the floodplain, and even as a seasonal creek,

[2:01:09] it does flood in that area, and that necessary, that absolutely needs to be the kind of standard

[2:01:16] that we have on the west side where we say we don't want flooding, we don't want building

[2:01:22] in the floodplain.

[2:01:23] Well, we don't want building in the floodplain on the east side, either.

[2:01:26] So I think we need to have the same standard for both sides of the wall.

[2:01:31] Thank you.

[2:01:31] With that, we will move on to new business and resolution of 5A of intention to approve

[2:01:39] an amendment in the contract between the Board of Administration of the California Public

[2:01:44] Employees Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Petaluma in introduction

[2:01:50] First reading of Norton has authorized the amendment to contract between the City Council of Pelluma and the Board of Administration of the California employment and tirements.

[2:02:02] Mr. Cassie,

[2:02:10] you are on mute.

[2:02:11] I am. I'm sorry.

[2:02:14] You think I'd be after nine months of doing this. I'd still get better at that. I apologize.

[2:02:19] Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members.

[2:02:22] We're recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between Board of Administration of California Public Employees Retirement System and the City Council of this Petaluma.

[2:02:38] And we introduce the ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between City of Petaluma and CalPERS.

[2:02:44] This is the third of three parts, when back in November of 18 of 2019, we adopted a successor

[2:02:55] memorandum of understanding between the International Association of Firefighters and the City of

[2:03:01] Petaluma, and that MOU included a negotiated employee cost share for members to find this classic.

[2:03:09] January 1 of 2020, the cost share was increased of 9% to 10%, on July of 2020, the increase

[2:03:17] went from 10% to 11%, and lastly on January 1 of 2021, it will go from 11% to 12%.

[2:03:27] This would conclude the three parts of that agreement, and if you have any questions about

[2:03:35] it, I'm here to answer them.

[2:03:37] Thank you very much.

[2:03:39] Thank you.

[2:03:41] I do not see any hands raised.

[2:03:44] So we'll go to public comments.

[2:03:46] City clerk, have you received any public comment on this item?

[2:03:49] No public comment on this item.

[2:03:52] Okay.

[2:03:53] And so moderator.

[2:03:56] Do you want to.

[2:03:57] We will open public comment and see if there's anyone in the public who would like to.

[2:04:05] Thank you Madam Mayor. During public comment the public is invited to make comments on items

[2:04:09] of public interest that are within the City Council subject matter and jurisdiction.

[2:04:14] If this specific agenda item public comments are limited to three minutes for person. At this

[2:04:19] point if anyone in the public would like to speak on this item please raise your hand.

[2:04:26] In Madam Mayor at this point I did not see any hands raised.

[2:04:30] Thank you. We will close public comment on this item and bring it back to the council

[2:04:35] I see vice mayor fishers random. I was just going to move the item.

[2:04:42] Councilmember Miller.

[2:04:45] I'll second. Okay we have a motion by vice mayor

[2:04:50] fisher second by councilmember Miller. If there's no further comment we will take a little call

[2:04:56] that?

[2:04:59] That?

[2:05:00] Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Yes, yes.

[2:05:13] Thank you very much. So item five, b, thank you. Extension of suspension of specified fiscal year

[2:05:24] 2021 annual consumer price index fee increases originally scheduled for July 1st 2020.

[2:05:35] Thank you Madam Mayor and good evening Council members. Bringing a really an update item to you.

[2:05:42] A back in June of this year the Council did approve a six month suspension of some cost of

[2:05:47] living adjustments to the utility rates. So there normally would be some escalators from CPI

[2:05:52] increases that could go into effect July 1 for both our wastewater charges as well as our water charges.

[2:05:59] Due to the pandemic and due to the impacts that a lot of our residents and businesses have

[2:06:03] been seeing, the council did opt to go ahead and delay those increases by six months.

[2:06:10] So that delay would discontinue as of December 31st. The item before you is really to extend that

[2:06:17] the way, if you will, from December 31st to February 28th. So those increases would not go into effect

[2:06:25] until that time on March 1st. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions on this item. Thank you.

[2:06:33] Okay. Thank you very much. I have a hand up by Council Member. He leaves all the vice mayor

[2:06:40] Thank you. So I think an extension on this till the

[2:06:45] end of February is a good start, but nobody expects the

[2:06:49] pandemic or the economic shutdown to be done by then. You

[2:06:53] know, President-elect Biden is talking about 100 million

[2:06:55] shots and a 100-person days in office would, which would

[2:06:59] get us to about the end of April. And I would like to ask

[2:07:02] staff if we could modify, if you would have any objection to

[2:07:06] the council, extending the suspension from what's proposed as the end of February to

[2:07:11] instead the end of April at this time.

[2:07:18] Are you asking staff of that question?

[2:07:22] Yeah, I just want to know if there would be any reason not to.

[2:07:25] Well, while they're thinking about the answer to that, I was wondering whether we couldn't

[2:07:31] go to the end of the fiscal year myself.

[2:07:34] I'd be happy with that too.

[2:07:36] Yeah, so I just think realistically speaking, but I would like to hear staff's response to that question.

[2:07:45] Yeah, and I think the only concern on that would be the effect on the fund balances for both the water and wastewater fund.

[2:07:54] I will say that now that we have officially closed the books on fiscal 20 or fund balances are very slightly higher than what we have originally projected.

[2:08:05] and so that's a little bit of good news.

[2:08:07] So we have a little bit more cushion on water and wastewater.

[2:08:10] You can see just for that two month period,

[2:08:13] both funds combined.

[2:08:14] We are talking about a $450,000 impact.

[2:08:17] So if you have another two months,

[2:08:19] that's likely another $450,000 impact.

[2:08:22] So that is a little bit of a concern,

[2:08:24] but I will also defer to Corey Garrelio.

[2:08:27] She has any additional comments on that front.

[2:08:36] Thank you.

[2:08:36] 30, 2020. And they have come in slightly higher than what was anticipated. So I don't, I don't

[2:08:43] foresee a problem with us extending this out till April. And what about going to the end of the

[2:08:51] fiscal year? Even to the end of the fiscal year would be fine. The majority of the reason why the

[2:08:56] fund balancers are likely higher than what was estimated is because some of the capital projects

[2:09:02] move a little slower than anticipated because of the fires because of COVID. It's the disasters

[2:09:11] and the staff time necessary to move the projects forward had just been slower than what was

[2:09:16] anticipated. So our fund balances are at a point where they could absorb the additional loss

[2:09:22] through the end of the fiscal year. Thank you very much. So Mr. Haley, if you take that as a

[2:09:27] friendly amendment. I would second your motion. Thank you. Okay so vice mayor Fisher followed by

[2:09:39] council member king and council member Miller. Well that was going to be my very question as

[2:09:43] could we go to the end of the fiscal year. So I'll be supporting the motion thank you. Thank you

[2:09:48] council member king. I have the same idea. So I've lowered my hand. I'll be voting for the motion.

[2:09:57] Councilmember Miller followed by Councilmember.

[2:10:01] So that was the need to. Okay, so I'll support the motion.

[2:10:07] And I mean, support also, but can I get

[2:10:09] to read into the record or for the public benefit? What the, we expect the impact of the average,

[2:10:16] to be to the average consumer?

[2:10:21] Sorry, I'm happy to do that. So the savings per month on average is

[2:10:27] approximately seven dollars. Just noting that's more than the garbage increase, you know,

[2:10:33] that we're going through so many things going on right now. Thank you very much.

[2:10:39] And thank you for that very timely comparison council member. So we have a motion by Haley

[2:10:45] and a second by Barrett, and we will have a, oh, do we have a lot of water that was council questions

[2:10:53] and now we can open the public part of the issue version.

[2:10:56] Thank you, I was getting ahead of myself.

[2:10:58] So did you get any public comment on this item?

[2:11:02] Not on the item.

[2:11:03] Okay, and so I will ask our moderator

[2:11:06] to open public comment on this item.

[2:11:09] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:11:11] During public comment,

[2:11:12] public is advised to take comments on items

[2:11:14] of public interest that are within the City Council

[2:11:16] subject matter jurisdiction.

[2:11:18] And for this specific agenda item,

[2:11:20] public comments are limited to three minutes per person. At this time, if anyone in the public would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand.

[2:11:31] And Madam there, at this point, there are no one with regards to raise.

[2:11:36] Okay. Thank you very much. Now we'll bring it back for a roll call vote.

[2:11:40] Close public comment.

[2:11:49] Yes. Fisher? Yes.

[2:11:52] Yes.

[2:12:03] Thank you.

[2:12:06] Now we are on item 5C which is the adoption of urgency organises to change certain appropriations for operations of the City of petalima from July

[2:12:17] by one 2020 to June 30, 2021,

[2:12:21] and declaring the urgency very old

[2:12:23] to take effect immediately.

[2:12:26] Adoption of resolution committee reserve funds

[2:12:29] for specific uses and adoption

[2:12:32] of resolution updating the authorized

[2:12:36] and funded permanent position schedule.

[2:12:40] Corey Garberolio.

[2:12:42] Thank you, Mayor Barrett and members of the City Council.

[2:12:45] The city reviews its budget on a continual basis, three budget adjustment reports are typically presented annually one at first quarter one at mid year and the final year end.

[2:12:55] The proposed first quarter budget adjustments before you this evening are to the adopted budget for fiscal year 2020 2021.

[2:13:03] The majority of the budget adjustments presented are resulting from approved council action since July 1, 2020, along with prior year unused budget appropriations or carryovers.

[2:13:14] A detailed list of all budget adjustments is included in the staff report.

[2:13:19] Adjustments to non-general funds are mainly due to capital project changes and updates.

[2:13:23] Gas B-54 does require that fund balances committed and released for specific purposes

[2:13:29] be authorized by resolution of the city council.

[2:13:32] We are recommending this evening the commitment of $258,558 of general fund reserves and that

[2:13:39] is for 180,000 is for the general plan update as well as 77,000 for artificial turf replacement.

[2:13:47] In addition, 400,000 for employee compensation is being released.

[2:13:52] It is recommended in this evening that the City Council adopt the attached ordinances as urgency

[2:13:58] ordinances to amend appropriations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. Due to the ongoing

[2:14:06] The ongoing challenges resulting from COVID, the urgency ordinances allow the budget to immediately reflect the updated amounts and ongoing analysis to continue without additional council action.

[2:14:16] It is also recommended that the council adopt the resolution committed and releasing general fund reserves for specific uses along with the resolution updating the authorized and funded position schedule and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[2:14:29] I

[2:14:32] do not see any hands up by the council members wait, I do now council member McDonald.

[2:14:40] I'm sorry, I know we're moving really fast, but I do have a couple questions, the easy one.

[2:14:45] I see the marina dredging and the docks are one of the items that are moving and they're

[2:14:53] actually moving out the FY22 and so we're committing that this budget element.

[2:15:01] I really would like to make sure that that happens. Is that a thing we can do is commit FY22 monies today with this motion. We wouldn't be doing that. What we're doing is we're moving or adjusting the budget this fiscal year. So our plan is to include it in in the 22 budget. Versus this fiscal year. So we're not so we're not committing fiscal year, we're not committing fiscal year 22 budget at this moment.

[2:15:29] All we're doing is adjusting the fiscal year 21 budget.

[2:15:35] Thank you very much.

[2:15:41] Okay, so we will now go to public comment.

[2:15:44] And city clerk, have you received any public comment on this item?

[2:15:49] Mayor, there are no comments on this item.

[2:15:52] Thank you and our moderator. Could you open public comment through those attendants?

[2:15:57] Thank you, Madam Mayor. During public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest.

[2:16:03] that are within the city council subject matter jurisdiction and for this specific agenda item public comments are limited to three minutes per person.

[2:16:12] At this point, Madam Mayor, I do see one hand raised. So I'm going to share my screen real quick.

[2:16:20] Bad pictures. I'm going to allow you to speak. You can unmute how your mic can begin speaking.

[2:16:24] Thank

[2:16:28] you. So, as part of this resolution, there are five trucks and one hybrid vehicle

[2:16:36] that were the subject of much comment regarding the potential for those vehicles to be electric.

[2:16:44] Because they weren't purchased but only encumbered in this fiscal year, this presents an opportunity

[2:16:51] to reevaluate the purchase of those vehicles.

[2:16:55] Ideally, we choose the most cost-effective approach,

[2:16:59] which is to not waste city dollars

[2:17:02] on fossil fuel vehicles.

[2:17:05] These five trucks and one hybrid can be fully electric,

[2:17:10] and I look forward to that conversation

[2:17:12] as part of the upcoming budget process.

[2:17:15] Thank you.

[2:17:20] Thank you.

[2:17:22] That's the only comment.

[2:17:24] Yes, Madam Mayor.

[2:17:25] Okay, thank you. With that, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council.

[2:17:35] So I'll move the item out of mayor. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. I will second.

[2:17:42] Okay, and that was the second by council member McDowell.

[2:17:46] Okay, fine. Thank you. And any further discussion. Seeing none, we will have a roll call vote.

[2:17:56] Yes, yes. Yes. Yes, yes. You. Yes. Yes. Aye. Yes, yes. Any masouls, yes.

[2:18:09] Yes, Yes. Yes.

[2:18:10] motion passes. An anivest. Okay. Thank you, and now we're on to item 5D the first quarter general fun financial forecast update.

[2:18:26] Thank

[2:18:35] you, Mayor Barrett, City Council members. We typically update the forecast twice a year at mid-year update, as well as in conjunction with the annual budget process.

[2:18:46] This year given the ongoing pandemic, we are updating the forecasts more frequently, therefore we will be providing more frequent updates to council.

[2:18:53] The

[2:18:59] forecasting model use is in a constant state of improvement or always improving it to be more accurate and to forecast as accurately as possible. We've incorporated the fiscal year 20 financial results from the comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended June 30 2020.

[2:19:15] We performed an analysis at first quarter of both revenues and expenditures and reviewed trends thus far compared to budget to determine if any adjustments are needed.

[2:19:25] We've also updated all the long-term assumptions with the most recent factors affecting the

[2:19:30] financials.

[2:19:32] And we also go through and identify any long-term issues.

[2:19:39] So this is a third forecast update since the onset of the pandemic and the first since

[2:19:43] the November election.

[2:19:45] From an economic standpoint, things have improved for Petaluma due to the one-cent sales tax

[2:19:50] measure that was passed by Petaluma voters on November 3rd, but also remain challenged

[2:19:55] due to continued revenue losses resulting from the ongoing pandemic.

[2:20:00] We continue to realize revenue losses in the general fund. Cells tax revenue was estimated to be down by about 1.4 million through June 30, 2020. In actual, actual losses actually came in within about 3% of that estimate at about 1.3 million. So it's slightly better than estimated but still a reduction of about 10%. General fund revenue losses are expected to continue into 21 and into the current year estimated at approximately 2 million, which has

[2:20:29] been incorporated into the revenue budget. The general fund revenue categories impacted

[2:20:34] include sales tax, which is the largest source of revenue for the city, representing roughly

[2:20:39] about 25% of the general fund revenues, as well as property transfer tax permits and fees

[2:20:46] and business license. As of today, we don't anticipate this to change. These estimates again

[2:20:53] were calculated by information provided by the sales tax consultant and analyzing sales tax

[2:20:59] sectors and revenue transfer petalema. Of that 2 million and losses in the general fund,

[2:21:04] cell text is expected to be down by about 1.3 million or about 10%, which is the result of

[2:21:11] less revenues anticipated coming in from mainly auto cells in the transportation sectors,

[2:21:18] restaurants and retail as well. Losses are expected to continue into the near future and are included

[2:21:24] in the forecast, much like a recession.

[2:21:28] As everyone knows, this situation is fluid,

[2:21:31] continues to change and evolve daily.

[2:21:33] This continues to be challenging in terms of forecasting

[2:21:35] because it is such a unique situation.

[2:21:38] The impacts will largely depend on the duration of the event,

[2:21:42] the longer the duration, the more difficult it will be

[2:21:44] for everyone to recover.

[2:21:46] While we've estimated these impacts, they could change.

[2:21:50] There could be a different outcome.

[2:21:52] We will continue to monitor them closely and address any changes or concerning trends we see and we'll bring forward any new information with forecast update

[2:22:02] Business confidence remains challenged especially for small business unemployment rates have been have improved since March, but remained elevated

[2:22:10] Sonoma County has remained in the purple tier for months the most restricted tier and is currently

[2:22:16] Initial term place, which puts further strain on small businesses

[2:22:21] the city continues to assist businesses and the community whenever possible with a variety of programs designated to provide financial assistance.

[2:22:33] The TOT fund or transient occupancy tax fund has also experienced revenue losses of about 700,000 in last fiscal year and that is expected to continue into 21.

[2:22:45] we've built in a $500,000 revenue reduction in the 21 budget. This is driven by less tourism expected

[2:22:54] in the coming year. Given TOT desk provide resources to the general fund, this is another funding

[2:23:00] area that will be closely monitored. The housing market continues to be challenged with supply

[2:23:06] constraints driving the median home price up year over year. Recovery heavily depends, again,

[2:23:12] on the duration of the event. So we will continue to monitor the financial results and quarterly bring

[2:23:19] updates to council as we see necessary.

[2:23:26] So we have updated the results for fiscal year 1920.

[2:23:30] The general fund unassigned fund balance is slightly higher than originally forecasted at about

[2:23:34] 2.7 million. This is about a $380,000 increase over what was forecasted. As a reminder, this is the

[2:23:44] balance that is programmed into the 21 budget and will be used to cover the

[2:23:49] current fiscal year budget deficit of 2.4 million. Designated reserves are at

[2:23:54] about 7.2 million. These reserves were generated from a series of one-time

[2:23:59] revenues over the past several years as well as some expenditure savings

[2:24:04] recognized from vacant positions. And then committed reserves are currently at

[2:24:09] about 3.5 million. These are reserves that are committed by City Council of

[2:24:14] for specific uses such as the general plan

[2:24:16] and artificial turf replacement.

[2:24:22] So first quarter revenues,

[2:24:23] we did do an extensive review of revenues.

[2:24:25] We have one adjustment on the revenue side,

[2:24:27] which was just shown in the first quarter

[2:24:29] budget adjustment document.

[2:24:31] And they are funds that are coming in from assigned reserves

[2:24:33] that to fund the community outreach efforts

[2:24:36] for fairgrounds planning.

[2:24:38] This is directly offset by increased expenditures.

[2:24:41] Also the new measure use sales tax is expected

[2:24:45] of about 2.5 million during fiscal year 21, this represents revenues from when the tax becomes

[2:24:51] effective on April 1st through June of 2021. Again, it's just an estimate. As time goes by and we are-

[2:25:00] Get more into the budget planning stages. We will be looking at this closer. So additional information will be available mid-year and again at budget workshops. And then just as a reminder, all expected losses resulting from the ongoing pandemic are incorporated into the 21 adopted budget. And we are expecting the revenue losses of about 2 million. And those are have been factored in. And at this point in time, the trends are in alignment with our expectations.

[2:25:29] So we're not we're not recommended any further adjustments, but we'll continue to monitor it closely.

[2:25:35] So overall revenues are up 2.6 million.

[2:25:40] So this is just a table showing revenue changes by category that we just discussed.

[2:25:44] Up overall about 5% compared to the original budgeted revenues.

[2:25:51] Expenditures are adjusted as well.

[2:25:54] With the first quarter budget adjustment salaries and benefits are up about 17,000.

[2:25:59] This is due to negotiated contracts.

[2:26:00] And it's an ongoing cost and services and supplies are increasing by about a hundred thousand associated with the community outreach and fairgrounds planning efforts transfers are up for a 10% grant match for a fire grant as well as an approved funding for the Kavanaugh roof replacement.

[2:26:19] And then again, also added in are the new estimated expenditures for measure you.

[2:26:25] So for purposes of illustrating the impact on the overall fund balance,

[2:26:29] we have included it included measure you both revenue and expenditures.

[2:26:34] But as additional discussions occur, a plan will be brought forward for consideration again at mid year.

[2:26:40] And then discussions will continue into the 22 budget workshop.

[2:26:44] So total expenditures are up 2.7 million.

[2:26:48] So, again, this is just a table for the expenditure side.

[2:26:51] Expenditure is up about 4.9 percent compared to the original budget.

[2:26:59] So, this is a table showing where we were in June and where we are today.

[2:27:03] We've added and measured you, again, revenues and expenditures are estimated into the full

[2:27:09] five-year forecast, which we'll talk about in a minute, but as far as fiscal year 21,

[2:27:14] we originally projected 52 million in revenues, and this is actually up 2.6 million to 54.6

[2:27:21] million expenditures are also projected to be up about 2.7 million to 57 million in total.

[2:27:29] The NSI and beginning fund balance is up about 380,000 higher than what we had forecasted

[2:27:35] due to higher year end results. All of this results in a slightly higher ending fund balance of

[2:27:41] about 300,000 up from $477 ending balance projected in June.

[2:27:50] So the next part of the forecast focuses

[2:27:52] on the long-term modeling. The model includes incorporating economic impacts

[2:27:57] expected from COVID and we've also added in measure U revenues and expenditures.

[2:28:02] We've integrated a salary and benefit model that is very accurate. It uses each

[2:28:07] employee's cost to forecast longer term expenditures. We've reviewed positions, payroll rates,

[2:28:14] and included estimates for future retirement costs. We also verify and reconcile with the payroll

[2:28:19] as well as reconciling the full-time equivalent positions with the budgeted authorized positions.

[2:28:29] As I've mentioned, revenue losses resulting from the ongoing pandemic are built into the forecast.

[2:28:34] We are expecting a slow recovery from the onset.

[2:28:37] Given the rarity of this situation, the actual results could differ.

[2:28:42] And as we monitor the ongoing and ever-evolving situation, we will bring forward any necessary adjustments.

[2:28:49] Revenue assumptions include property tax. Property taxes are expected to increase about two and a half percent next year and two percent in the following years.

[2:28:58] We will be doing additional analysis on property tax as we work our way through the 22 budget so that could change.

[2:29:05] Sales tax losses are expected in every year the forecast period.

[2:29:09] they do improve as we are slowly moving towards recovery and out of the

[2:29:15] pandemic. Sales tax analysis does take into consideration business changes and

[2:29:20] strong growth in food products construction as well as the county pool sector are

[2:29:26] expected into the immediate future. Annual growth is estimated at about 3.5% which

[2:29:33] could be somewhat conservative and could possibly be higher. So as we work closer

[2:29:38] with our sales tax consultant and preparing the 22 budget that those numbers could change.

[2:29:44] We are seeing moderate growth and transportation and business to business categories

[2:29:48] into the out years of forecast. And again, measure use, sales tax estimates have been incorporated

[2:29:52] and will be adjusted based on additional discussions. The transfer from the transient occupancy

[2:30:00] The impact remains flat when compared to the prior year. Tourism has taken a big hit which is evident in the city's TOT revenues. TOT revenues are expected to be down again by $500,000 in this current fiscal year. Slow recovery is expected in the out years. This could impact the funds available to transfer to the general fund. There is one additional hotel currently under construction that is expected to generate approximately 400,000 annually

[2:30:28] when fully operational. And other revenue categories are growing between two and three percent annually.

[2:30:39] The expenditure side includes estimates for the new measure you expenditures. It includes all

[2:30:44] negotiated adjustments as well as future salary adjustments and employee step increases.

[2:30:51] No additional employees other than those currently funded and authorized are included. At this point in

[2:30:56] time, we continue to include potential type payouts as well as separation costs.

[2:31:03] Purr's rights have been updated based on the most recent actuarial study that was released

[2:31:09] just within the past six months.

[2:31:14] And we've included workers comp at an increase of about

[2:31:17] 10 percent. This could be higher depending on the on the results of our most recent actuarial

[2:31:23] study that's pending as we speak.

[2:31:29] So these are other expenditure assumptions

[2:31:31] recommendations that are recommended and have been included for forecasting purposes.

[2:31:35] There is no changes in these categories included as the store-moder transfer at $592,300,000

[2:31:41] for vehicle replacement and it transfers included to fund OCAD liability of $200,000.

[2:31:51] So the modeling results show us ending the current fiscal year with the unassigned fund balance

[2:31:55] as I've said about 300,000.

[2:31:59] This is a slight improvement over the estimated ending fund balance of $477 that was

[2:32:04] presented in June which is the result of a higher ending prior year ending fund balance.

[2:32:11] At this time as are you revenues and expenditures have been estimated and are incorporated as

[2:32:16] can be seen not only is the new revenue source sufficient to cover the projected structural deficit

[2:32:21] every year it results in additional funds available for the many needs citywide a drastic improvement

[2:32:27] over prior forecasts. It is estimated that revenues will be equal to expenditures annually and at the

[2:32:33] end of the forecast period fiscal year 2526. The unassigned fund balance is estimated to be a

[2:32:39] positive 700,000. Budget planning is beginning and priorities and critical needs will be identified

[2:32:48] and we will bring a recommended budgeted balance plan forward for council to consider. We will also

[2:32:56] will have additional discussions at mid-year and again at the 22-budget workshop.

[2:33:02] The forecast model over the years has been very accurate, has assisted us greatly and

[2:33:08] we will plan to continue to use it to help us plan for the future.

[2:33:16] So in summary, the model results show the annual budget deficit is expected to be covered

[2:33:20] by the new revenue source and additional resources will be available to address the many needs

[2:33:25] citywide. It is expected at the end of that forecasting period that the overall fund balance

[2:33:31] will be positive. As I mentioned, we are beginning budget planning and discussions and priorities

[2:33:36] will be identified and brought forward.

[2:33:41] There are some risks in the forecast to keep in mind.

[2:33:44] COVID-19 impacts could be greater than estimated. It's been challenging to know just how long

[2:33:50] we will be in this and so therefore we will just continue to monitor it and watch what our quarterly

[2:33:56] financial trends look like.

[2:33:59] PERS rates have been updated to reflect the most up-to-date

[2:34:02] actual-ereal report, but rates could increase more than

[2:34:06] forecasted from factors such as

[2:34:09] underperforming investments and assumption changes.

[2:34:12] We will be reviewing the rates again with the budget process

[2:34:15] that's currently underway and will incorporate any increases

[2:34:19] into the 22 budget.

[2:34:22] Worker's compensation increases are likely due to the increase

[2:34:26] and claims and we will we will be looking at that closely as well and storm

[2:34:31] water maintenance costs could be higher than forecasted.

[2:34:36] There's opportunities

[2:34:38] as well recovery could occur sooner than rather than later the duration will

[2:34:42] determine the outcome. Tourism could bounce back sooner in Petaluma there are

[2:34:47] additional hotel projects that are expected to generate additional revenues

[2:34:50] when fully operational. All revenues will continue to be analyzed and we will

[2:34:57] We'll continue to look for any new results.

[2:35:00] So

[2:35:04] the bottom line, the pandemic challenges continue to threaten city revenue sources. The good news is that measure you sales tax will provide resources of the city hasn't historically had and they will be sufficient to cover the annual budget deficit and provide additional funding for needs citywide. But just as a reminder, the overall need far surpasses the available revenue. So it is crucial that we critical that we identify the critical needs and address them in the upcoming budget cycle.

[2:35:32] We must also continue to maintain those emergency reserves for future disasters.

[2:35:38] We have experienced ongoing disasters since 2017, and based on recent history,

[2:35:43] the expectation is that this pattern unfortunately could continue.

[2:35:49] The next immediate steps will be planning for the measure you spending.

[2:35:53] And I think I'm going to pass it on over to the Assistant City Manager, Brian Cochran,

[2:35:58] to go over this last slide of the presentation.

[2:36:02] Thank you, Corey. Yeah, I just wanted to chime in on some of the next steps. And as I think you heard both Corey and Peggy alluded to earlier, you know, we're really excited. We're honored and we're thankful that the voters entrusted the city with the additional measure you revenues.

[2:36:19] But there are a lot of decisions to be made and a lot of discussions to be had moving into the winter and into the spring.

[2:36:28] And so I just wanted to update the council on that.

[2:36:32] So we've already actually begun meeting department directors and the city manager have begun putting together some of the proposals that we think meet all of that great feedback that we got from the community, the priorities that were outlined in the measure you ordinance.

[2:36:47] And those those top tier things that we really heard a lot of feedback from during our outreach session. So our intent is to really integrate this into the budget process, but we also want to do some really rollouts.

[2:37:02] So our intent is kind of that late February early March time period before we're really into the heart of the public workshop portion of the budget process.

[2:37:13] to bring some initial things forward to the City Council and some of those priorities which I know you've heard about today, we've heard about before and we'll continue to be speaking to the community and to the council about really a deficit elimination.

[2:37:28] As Corrie alluded to, you know, we do have the deficit that we really need to measure revenues for workforce stabilization, making sure that we're providing those quality services that we've got a stable workforce to do so.

[2:37:40] So, investing in infrastructure and making sure our roads are better than they are now and

[2:37:45] then our facilities, our parks, our storm drains are taken care of, looking to the future

[2:37:50] with climate action and reacting to the climate action framework that was recently examined

[2:37:56] by the Climate Commission as well as the Council coming up here in January, diversity, equity

[2:38:01] and inclusion, making sure that we're an equitable, equitable city for all petalumans and

[2:38:08] then caring for our unsheltered and making sure that we have quality services for our most vulnerable

[2:38:15] residents. So we will be bringing forward some of those immediate proposals that speak to some of

[2:38:20] these categories early in the spring. And then also you'll see a big batch as well as we move into

[2:38:27] the budget and starting to roll out the overall measure you program that I think really, you know,

[2:38:33] So one of the key drivers for the staff and for the proposals that you'll see is really a balanced plan.

[2:38:40] You know, we have a lot of different priorities here.

[2:38:42] Many different things that our community is super interested in.

[2:38:46] And we really want to balance the different needs, the different priorities with the available revenues.

[2:38:51] And so I think you'll see that as we start to bring these proposals forward that we're trying to achieve the balance so that we can really move pedal in the forward.

[2:39:00] Thank you, Corey.

[2:39:01] Thanks Brian, so just to wrap up, this takes a significant amount of effort from many within the finance department as well as other outside departments. So I'd just like to say thank you to Isabel Kraft, who happens to be sitting right next to me right now for all of her work on this as well as an entire finance team and others who assisted in the process. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[2:39:26] Okay. Thank you, Corey. Yeah, I know that that was a very good presentation and it actually I felt really fleshed out the discussion that you started with and I think it's pretty helpful for us to see exactly what the expectations are.

[2:39:44] And putting those expectations in terms of budget priorities is really good for the council to get to see this, you know, no now as we look toward the beginning of the

[2:40:07] So,

[2:40:10] thank you for all the work you've done. It seems like this is year round. I'm sure it is, but it's really seen me even more like that now. Okay, so are there questions from the council?

[2:40:37] So we have one hand up in the attendees. So I don't know city clerk, did you receive any information on this item?

[2:40:48] Not a layer, no public comments are received.

[2:40:51] Okay, and so moderator, can we open public comment and see what the public would like to say.

[2:41:01] Thank you, Madam Mayor. During public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items

[2:41:07] of public interest that are within the City Council subject matter jurisdiction and for

[2:41:11] this specific agenda item. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person.

[2:41:17] Madam Mayor, at this point I do see two hands raised.

[2:41:21] Let me share my screen real quick.

[2:41:28] First speaker we have is Ben Peters, followed by Lawrence. Ben, I will allow you to speak.

[2:41:32] you can unmute yourself and begin speaking.

[2:41:38] Thank you. At the next joint session with the Climate Action

[2:41:42] Commission, one of the recommendations will be to include in the city's budget the amount of

[2:41:53] financial resources we spend on utilities and gasoline. So I look forward to that component of our

[2:42:03] cities budget being clear for the public to understand. So again, just to repeat, the Climate

[2:42:12] Action Commission will be recommending that the city's consumption of fossil fuels be clearly

[2:42:21] identified in the budget moving forward. Thank you.

[2:42:36] Thank you, Ben. Lauren, now I speak. You can

[2:42:38] and unmute yourself, and we can speak in.

[2:42:41] Thank you.

[2:42:43] I'm not sure if this is more appropriate to Corey or Brian, but the illusion towards

[2:42:48] the budgetary increase for workers' compensation, and I'm not sure if we're allowed to get

[2:42:54] a rebuttal or further information, where is that information coming from?

[2:43:00] Why do we anticipate workers' claims to be increasing to a significant increase in our

[2:43:08] city budget. Thank you.

[2:43:14] Thank you. I'm out of merit at this point. I do not see any other hands raised.

[2:43:18] Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public comment and we'll bring that question back to staff.

[2:43:25] Sure. So over the past couple of years, the claims and workers comp have increased and are

[2:43:35] Our actuarial consultant that pulls together the actuarial study compiles all of that data.

[2:43:44] And the expectation is that the claims will not decrease, that they will continue to increase.

[2:43:50] And that is largely thought to have been the result of mandatory overtime staffing that's

[2:44:00] not sufficient to handle the increased demand.

[2:44:03] There's a series of reasons.

[2:44:05] and so that is the reason why we're anticipating

[2:44:07] the cost increase to continue.

[2:44:14] Thank you.

[2:44:15] Okay, so public comment is closed,

[2:44:18] and now we will bring it back to council,

[2:44:22] and council member McDonald,

[2:44:25] followed by council member Miller.

[2:44:28] Thank you.

[2:44:29] I just wanted to one thanks staff

[2:44:31] for an incredible clarity and confidence in this.

[2:44:35] It covers all matters here and really well done.

[2:44:38] Thank you.

[2:44:38] And then also to thank the public for measure you and know that helps us run the city we need to run so it's really great that we see that again.

[2:44:49] Two points of concern were one that the measure you funding is additional. It's not to replace the deficit funding.

[2:44:57] I mean we already had this year in balance and so

[2:45:00] On the whole of measure you should be for the new things we need to do both on the labor front, on the capital front. And so I'm looking knowing how long it takes to ramp up any of those things. I'm looking forward to what creative things staff will bring forward to show we can actually spend that this year. This is no point in carrying it over to the next year and asking the same staff to do two years work in the second year. And then the other point that there's a note in the report saying that Petlam has a strong food and beverage cluster.

[2:45:30] and employment and that gives me to think a lot of that is below average median wage or income

[2:45:38] and yet our housing is driving up. You know we need to think about this kind of connectivity

[2:45:44] between housing and wage because when they're out of sync they burden a transportation system

[2:45:51] for one which everybody notices but it also burdens the climate and so we need to have our housing

[2:45:57] and our employment linked up and perhaps that's more a topic for general plan than a budget but

[2:46:03] it's important to note the related. Thanks.

[2:46:08] Thank you. Councilmember Miller.

[2:46:11] So I'd like to thank Corey again for really easy to understand presentation. You make financial

[2:46:20] issues understandable for people who aren't involved in finance and that's a real art and I

[2:46:26] truly appreciated. My only comment was you know we the city has now been given additional funding

[2:46:36] by our residents and it's very important that the funding is used for the priorities that our

[2:46:44] residents have identified and quite frankly that's the reason that they voted to give us this

[2:46:50] additional funding and so I just want to make sure that the the future council is mindful of that and that we follow through on what we promised and what our community requested that we use this additional funding for and those are my comments thank you.

[2:47:09] Thank you very much and I don't see any other hands up so with that we will thank staff for a great presentation and look forward to

[2:47:19] the next steps. So thank you, thank you both. Okay. And now we are on to the public hearings. And this is where we've changed the agenda. And so we are moving directly into item six C.

[2:47:43] So is that Mr. Carney who will be speaking to us on item six C.

[2:47:49] Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Mayor. We're here to actually allocate some funds that were unspent in the last two block grant years and we have to do that through an amendment of our action plan.

[2:48:04] We have $34,661 total of those funds came from $11,472,1819

[2:48:16] program year and $23,169 from the 1920 program year.

[2:48:24] I do want to point out that this is the fourth proposed amendment or actually the Council has approved other amendments.

[2:48:30] This year mainly just from the new COVID money, so every time we change our allocation or our plan for the block grant funds, we have to do an amendment.

[2:48:42] So that's what we're proposing to do tonight for your consideration.

[2:48:46] We're proposing that we allocate the funds to the two nonprofits where we have existing contracts to.

[2:48:54] So one of them would go to the rebuilding together nonprofit that increased their funding by 26,000, $61.

[2:49:04] That would allow us to allow rebuilding together to rehab six more homes and there would be the homes they're looking at funding to rebuild and rebuild rehab.

[2:49:16] The seven seniors that live in those units.

[2:49:21] So that would bring their total funding to over 246,000

[2:49:26] for this last year or so.

[2:49:29] The other project we'd propose funding

[2:49:31] is for the PEP property on Clawfield Lane.

[2:49:37] It would add $8,600 to do two more units

[2:49:41] with HFAC systems.

[2:49:44] And this last go round we had some,

[2:49:47] again, COVID money to improve 10 of the units, so 17 units in the property, so we're kind

[2:49:56] of moving towards getting the whole property done, hopefully.

[2:50:00] So, with that, we're recommending that the council consider conducting a public hearing to consider the fourth amendment of the block grant funds for this year.

[2:50:15] And then adopt the resolution for rebuilding together for the $26,061 and for the Petal Luma project for $8,600 and authorize the city manager to execute the subreddit.

[2:50:31] So we're just adding to those with that.

[2:50:34] I'll answer any questions and turn it back to the mayor.

[2:50:39] Thank you very much and.

[2:50:41] Is there any questions from staff of staff from the council?

[2:50:46] Seeing no hands raised.

[2:50:48] We'll open the public hearing and I would like to ask the city clerk

[2:50:53] if there's been any public comment on these items.

[2:50:56] Not a mayor.

[2:50:57] We received one public comment,

[2:50:59] which is posted to the website. Thank you very much. So moderator, can we open the public comment

[2:51:06] for the public hearing on this item? Thank you Madam Mayor. During public comment,

[2:51:12] the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the city council

[2:51:16] of subject management jurisdiction and for this specific agenda item. Public comments are limited

[2:51:21] to three minutes per person. At this point, if anyone in the public would like to speak on this item,

[2:51:26] please finish your hand.

[2:51:28] In Madam Mayor, it does look like I have two attendees

[2:51:32] with the hands raised.

[2:51:34] The first one I have is Lawrence.

[2:51:39] Lawrence is this for this item or still from the last item.

[2:51:49] Lawrence, you're unmuted.

[2:51:50] It's your hand raised for this particular item or for the last item still.

[2:52:01] Let's come back to Lawrence and go to the next speaker and see.

[2:52:05] Perhaps he just left his handbook.

[2:52:07] That's great. Ben Peters, I'll now allow you to speak. I'm yourself and against speaking.

[2:52:14] Thanks. So when you read through our community development block grant funding formulas,

[2:52:22] one of the unfortunate realities is a significant portion of our funds go to support

[2:52:32] non-minority communities. In other words, if you read the reports, a lot of the funding

[2:52:38] goes towards older Caucasian individuals, which while are certainly indeed, we should

[2:52:46] really refocus our efforts so that less than 90% of these funds go towards a more equitable

[2:52:55] portion of our population. So an easy way to do that would be to redistribute the $8,000

[2:53:04] that's going to to HVAC replacement units and to just give all the money to rebuilding together.

[2:53:13] They wrote a very nice letter. They obviously have a lot of families in need and so that $8,000

[2:53:21] would stretch much further and touch many more families than two low-income seniors.

[2:53:29] Again, it's not that they're not in need of heating, but $8,000 to replace an HVAC unit in

[2:53:38] this day and age really should be reconsidered. Number one, are we funding fossil fuel infrastructure?

[2:53:45] Number two are those HVAC systems participating in

[2:53:51] Sonoma Clean Power and the Grid-Savvy program.

[2:53:54] There should be more thought into how we use city funds

[2:54:00] to spend on our heating and cooling systems.

[2:54:05] With $8,000, you could buy 50 to 100 HEPA air filters

[2:54:12] and distribute them to low-income families across our community so that they

[2:54:19] have better indoor air quality and less exposure to COVID-19. Again, we're

[2:54:27] talking about a hundred families, not two families, and that's just with

[2:54:35] the $8,000 and so I really encourage you guys to think more about how we spend our funds

[2:54:46] wisely in this community and it has to do with a diverse population that is in need.

[2:54:55] And thanks.

[2:55:01] Thank you. Madam Mayor, at this point, I do not see any other hands raised. Okay, thank you. We will close the public comment and bring it back to the council.

[2:55:13] For action.

[2:55:19] We would like to make a move. I see Mr. Healy, Zanda.

[2:55:25] Thank you. So I would move staff recommendation. Okay, and councilmember Miller.

[2:55:34] I'll second. So we have a motion by you.

[2:55:37] and the second by Miller and we will go ahead and have a roll call vote.

[2:55:45] Yes, is there? Yes.

[2:55:49] Healy? Yes.

[2:55:51] Are we? Yes.

[2:55:53] Yes. Yes.

[2:55:55] McDonald? Yes. Miller. Yes.

[2:55:59] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[2:56:02] Thank you very much. And now we're going to item 6B, which is the public hearing to consider adoption, the second reading of an ordinance approving the second amendment to the franchise agreement between the city and recology cinema Marin and approval of the resolution setting maximum refuse.

[2:56:25] And recycling rates and that will be Patrick Carter will be doing the presentation and explain the little process that we need to go to.

[2:56:35] Thank you.

[2:56:35] Thank you, Madam Mayor. At this point, I'd like to introduce this item. I'm going to share my screen with the brief PowerPoint on this that will look pretty familiar with the last time we talked on this issue two weeks ago.

[2:56:52] So I believe that's, is that showing up correctly on everybody else's screen here

[2:57:03] in no objection.

[2:57:04] So this is an item to discuss the ordinance, the second reading of the ordinance,

[2:57:11] amending the franchise agreement between the city of Paloma and Recall,

[2:57:17] in and a resolution setting the maximum rates for garbage for refuse and recycling in

[2:57:25] at Luma.

[2:57:30] I'm getting a note that this isn't in presentation mode so let me change that

[2:57:35] real quick and

[2:57:41] try to reshare this.

[2:57:49] All right so a little easier to see this time. So briefly

[2:57:54] going to go into why this is necessary. The key negotiation details comparison of rates with

[2:58:00] the city of Pelluma and other cities in the county within Sonoma County and then the next steps

[2:58:07] because this is the public hearing we'll be asking to take a brief recess at the conclusion of

[2:58:13] the public hearing so we can tally any votes that may have come any protest notes that may have come

[2:58:18] two city hall just before the end of this item.

[2:58:24] So with that, why is this needed and why now?

[2:58:28] So one Recology Assume,

[2:58:30] this franchise agreement from the city of Petaluma in 2018,

[2:58:34] it had a structural deficit on day one,

[2:58:37] multi-million dollars, four million dollars plus.

[2:58:42] So while some companies can bear this for a period of time,

[2:58:46] it's clear that this is not a sustainable long-term operation with those severe deficits.

[2:58:55] And those deficits will continue until revenue collected matches the expenses.

[2:59:00] So the services that Recology provides are essential. The refuse pickup, the street sweeping,

[2:59:08] all the other services that they do, if they're not doing it, somebody else has to.

[2:59:13] and so we took that into account in our analysis.

[2:59:17] We had a third party come in and look at their audited

[2:59:20] financial statements and determine that loss was there.

[2:59:25] And so if it doesn't come from ecology,

[2:59:26] then it's coming from somebody.

[2:59:29] So we need to make sure that we have a sustainable partner

[2:59:34] with us providing those essential services.

[2:59:37] On top of that, on top of inheriting that structural deficit,

[2:59:41] that there are new state mandates coming down,

[2:59:43] so new state requirements that are making us reduce

[2:59:47] what we're putting into the landfill, specifically,

[2:59:50] things that are organic, things that used to be food,

[2:59:54] you know, things that used to be living.

[2:59:56] So food waste is a huge part of that.

[2:59:59] We were...

[3:00:08] So, these are large reductions and that's compared to 2014. So, these are large reductions in

[3:00:14] food waste. These are, they're fines involved if states and counties don't meet these goals. So, we, we need our partner to help us achieve those goals. So, there's no enforceable

[3:00:29] by the state until 2022. So this really in the next year, year and a half is when all the cities

[3:00:37] throughout the state are gearing up to meet these requirements and get programs in place.

[3:00:44] So it requires participation by all members to reduce their food waste. There's going to be

[3:00:50] ordinances that the city is going to need to consider that the state's requiring to implement

[3:00:55] for mandatory participation in certain diversion programs,

[3:01:01] of waste reduction programs,

[3:01:02] and reducing contamination to the landfill,

[3:01:06] to the different, you know,

[3:01:08] reducing recycling contamination,

[3:01:10] reducing organics composting contamination,

[3:01:13] all sectors there, residential and commercial.

[3:01:16] It's going to require that cities and counties

[3:01:19] buy recycled products in a procurement procurement,

[3:01:22] So this could include purchasing more mulch for projects

[3:01:28] throughout the city.

[3:01:30] It also requires edible food recovery.

[3:01:32] So there's a number of organizations out there that will show

[3:01:37] off during non-COVID times and take food that is fit for human

[3:01:43] consumption and get that to people in need, people that are hungry.

[3:01:49] And so those programs out there will need to be in place through this state law, this SB 1383 state law.

[3:01:58] And there's organizations out there, the City of Pedaluma is a member of Zero Waste Sonoma, which is a regional agency focused on waste issues and they've recently applied for a grant to help promote food, edible food recovery programs.

[3:02:14] So stay tuned in the future for more information on that.

[3:02:19] And then as I mentioned, there's local enforcement of state requirements.

[3:02:24] So that ties into the ordinances that the state is asking cities to enact in their jurisdictions.

[3:02:34] And there's also a link on the slide for more information for those interested in the states requirements with SB 1383.

[3:02:42] So the key negotiation details, what staff looked at is, is how could we reduce the rate increase needed to the minimum amount?

[3:02:53] How could we make ecology whole, but at the same time reduce that rate increase to our residents and our businesses as much as possible?

[3:03:04] So the first bullet on here is reduced city franchise fees so the cities for going about 1.18 million dollars of franchise fees that otherwise would be due had we increased the rates by the amount which we called you required to make ends meet.

[3:03:22] So essentially the city is proposing to buy down the rate increase needed by for going those franchise fees.

[3:03:29] We staggered the rate increases through July 1, 2022.

[3:03:34] So rather than having a fall impact right after the rates go into effect,

[3:03:38] which has happened in most of the other cities that have gone forward with this,

[3:03:43] we're spreading those increases out over the next 18 months to try and lessen the initial shock on that.

[3:03:51] And you'll see tables in just a second that show how that impact changes over time.

[3:03:58] Free participation in food waste programs, so right now residents can put all their food waste in their green can right now. So if you don't have a green can for those you out there, talk to ecology, get that green can and put whatever food waste you have in there into it and potentially look at downsizing your garbage can if you're throwing a lot of food into your garbage currently.

[3:04:22] it's a free program won't cost you any more and if you reduce your garbage can you can actually

[3:04:26] save some money on that. Other aspects of this negotiated outcome are standardized collection

[3:04:36] container colors. So, you know, this franchise has been passed down through a number of different

[3:04:42] companies over the years. There's some containers that don't quite fit them all to, you know, there's

[3:04:47] burgundy chance in some places instead of gray chance in most of places SB 1383 that state law

[3:04:54] I've been talking about requires

[3:04:57] containers to be standardized so reducing

[3:05:00] The confusion of people putting their materials where it should go. So that's going to be part of this program. There's a contamination reduction program, which benefits both businesses and residences, additional outreach throughout the city to promote composting and purchasing of additional equipment and hiring additional personnel to increase that composting. So that's what that's what the city and its residents and businesses get out of this.

[3:05:29] this deal.

[3:05:34] Looking at the proposed maximum rates for residential,

[3:05:39] our current rates are really competitive

[3:05:42] throughout the county.

[3:05:44] We're on the lower end of the spectrum.

[3:05:45] We'll get into that shortly.

[3:05:47] But this is what I wanted to point out

[3:05:49] that if the ordinance is passed

[3:05:51] and the resolution is adopted, these are the current rates

[3:05:56] through January 31st in this first row here.

[3:06:00] The first rate increase would be February 1st of 2021.

[3:06:05] The next rate increase would be July 1st of 2021.

[3:06:10] And then the final rate increase would be July 1st of 2022.

[3:06:14] So a year later, we have a stipulation in the agreement

[3:06:19] that Recology has to do those services provide those services that we discussed related to 1383, the increased organics diversion.

[3:06:31] And once they have proven that they've implemented all those programs, then the city would issue a notice to them, which would essentially increase the rate by 3.8%.

[3:06:43] So instead of 28.9% rate increase, it would be 32.7, which is this bottom row here.

[3:06:53] This is a comparison of residential rates through the rest of the county. Currently we're in row three.

[3:07:01] So we're near the lower end of the spectrum in terms of cost for garbage and recycling and compost service.

[3:07:09] with the rate increases at the end at July 1st, 2022.

[3:07:15] We're we're solidly in the middle of the pack there.

[3:07:19] And it's just because there's no really good way to compare the rates.

[3:07:24] Because we're talking about future rates, we're talking about 2022.

[3:07:29] And we don't know what the rates are going to be throughout the county at that point.

[3:07:32] We're comparing future rates to current rates.

[3:07:36] So even with that caveat be that as it may, we're still pretty solidly in the middle of the pack in terms of residential rates compared to our neighbors throughout Sonoma County onto commercial rates.

[3:07:53] It's the exact same process that we just talked about.

[3:07:56] rate increases would happen February 1st of 2021 July 1st 2021 and July 1st of 2022 with that same

[3:08:06] notice to the Recology if they've implemented all those programs. And so these are the rates

[3:08:12] for both garbage and organic waste. So organic waste does not include food waste. So the food waste

[3:08:20] program would be free for commercial programs for commercial customers. This is just the other

[3:08:25] organic waste like green waste and tree trending things like that.

[3:08:30] So the food waste program would be free, but the organic waste program is about 75%

[3:08:36] of what the garbage rates would be.

[3:08:40] And then comparing the commercial rates for Petluma and the rest of the county, Petluma

[3:08:47] is currently in the middle of the pack and in a row, I believe, six here.

[3:08:52] With these rate increases, again, comparing future rates for Petaluma to current rates for the rest of the county.

[3:09:00] Petaluma is on the higher end of the spectrum for commercial rates.

[3:09:09] So in terms of the next steps, we recommend staff recommends opening up public hearing at this meeting.

[3:09:15] this allows for a prop to a team majority protest opportunity.

[3:09:21] So if after the public hearing is done and the number of notices are counted,

[3:09:28] if there's not a majority protest 50% plus one,

[3:09:33] that are opposed to these rating increases,

[3:09:36] the council can go forth with the adoption,

[3:09:41] consideration of adoption of the second amendment and the approval of the

[3:09:45] the resolution setting maximum rates.

[3:09:48] And if that happens, then the rates would increase.

[3:09:50] As I've already discussed, February 1, 2021, July 1, 2021,

[3:09:54] and July 1, 2022.

[3:09:58] So with that, that concludes.

[3:10:00] It includes my presentation. And I'd be happy to answer any question the council has on this issue. Thank you. Sorry for interrupting you. Okay. So, is there anyone on the council who has any questions? This is a recap of what we have already heard. So I don't see any hands going up. So this is a public hearing.

[3:10:28] and we will now ask the city clerk if she has received any comments on the

[3:10:36] side of Madam Mayor 13 comments were received prior to this meeting those

[3:10:41] comments have been posted online. Thank you very much and can I ask our moderator

[3:10:47] to see if there's anybody in attendance who would like to speak to the

[3:10:51] in this item.

[3:10:54] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:10:56] During public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the city council of subject matter jurisdiction.

[3:11:04] And for this specific agenda item, public comments are limited to three minutes per person.

[3:11:10] At this point, I do have a couple of hands raised, so I'll share my screen real quick.

[3:11:21] So the first speaker we have is Lawrence followed by M Bennett.

[3:11:28] Lawrence, I will allow you to speak on your self against speaking.

[3:11:39] I guess is the Lawrence has left his hand up but is no longer interested in speaking.

[3:11:45] I think he's the same person who spoke to items ago.

[3:11:49] Yes, he had put his hand down and rose at the end.

[3:11:53] So at this point, I'd like to ask and then to unmute your mic and begin speaking.

[3:12:05] Good evening. Good evening. This is Marty Bennett, former executive director of North Bay

[3:12:11] Jobs at Justice and instructor emeritus at history at SRJC. I am speaking to you tonight.

[3:12:20] In my capacity as a consultant for Teamsters 665, there represents the workers at Recology.

[3:12:26] I want to urge you to adopt the proposed new rates.

[3:12:31] The proposed rates reflect in part a sea change concerning employee compensation and

[3:12:38] working conditions for the city's waste hauler.

[3:12:41] Workers employed by Rado approached Teamsters 665 in 2016 and informed us about the low wages,

[3:12:50] inadequate benefits, and hazardous conditions.

[3:12:52] In response, Teamsters initiated an organizing campaign, and

[3:12:58] Johnson Justice built a community support network for the workers.

[3:13:03] In May of 2017, Rado workers voted overwhelmingly by a 271 to 31 margin in an LRB election to join Teamsters 665.

[3:13:17] After Recology purchased Rato, the union and the company agreed to a five-year contract.

[3:13:24] By 2023, wages for drivers will roughly double.

[3:13:30] The typical driver now earns $27 an hour plus another $11 to $12 an hour in benefits

[3:13:38] that include comprehensive family health insurance and retirement benefits.

[3:13:43] This dramatic improvement of employee compensation has occurred during a period of skyrocketing inequality in the North Bay and across the Bay Area.

[3:13:56] Because of their excellent wages and benefits, 85% of the Recology workforce can live locally in Sonoma or Marin counties.

[3:14:06] Many more private sector companies must replicate the compensation

[3:14:11] for ecology employees and George to promote equitable development

[3:14:16] along the 101 corridor that includes good jobs and

[3:14:20] infill affordable housing nearby transit hubs.

[3:14:24] Also, health and safety conditions for drivers have greatly improved.

[3:14:29] Recology has already replaced 100 non-compliant trucks

[3:14:34] and the entire fleet of rattled trucks and heavy equipment will be replaced over the next three years.

[3:14:41] Workers are no longer exposed to unhealthy levels of toxic exhaust fumes,

[3:14:47] and drivers do not operate unsafe trucks that frequently break down.

[3:14:53] Moreover, worker safety is greatly enhanced as the company strictly adheres to weight limits for each vehicle.

[3:15:00] Council, set by the state. In short, bad jobs with poverty wages at Rado have been transformed into good jobs with family support. I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett, at this time, the three minutes is ended. Madam mayor, that was the last public speaker. Okay, thank you very much. We'll close public comment and bring the public hearing back to the council. And at this time, okay, Patrick, did you want to

[3:15:29] say something? Yeah, Madam Mayor. I'd like to ask for a five-minute recess so I can go check the

[3:15:36] box in front of City Hall to make sure or just see if there are any votes in there.

[3:15:41] I've been checking it periodically through the evening but I'd like to do one last one before.

[3:15:46] Thank you. So would that take a five-minute recess and then we will come back and find out

[3:15:51] the results of what Mr. Carter finds and then we will take action on this item. So five minutes

[3:15:59] 10.05 10.06 will be back in session we're currently recessed. Thank you. I

[3:16:48] think we'll wait for Peggy and Kathy and Eric before we go back on. Are we live right now?

[3:16:56] Yes, we are.

[3:16:57] Okay. We're giving our city manager city attorney counsel member Miller's back. Good. Okay. So we're just waiting on two people before we start the meeting.

[3:17:43] Okay. Our city attorney's not here, but I think he was going to be away for some section of this meeting.

[3:17:50] So there he is. Okay. I apologize, Madam Mayor. That's all right. We was just going to get ready to get started. We're back from recess and we will reconvene the meeting and I will turn it over to Mr. Carter.

[3:18:03] Thank you Madam Mayor. So just to summarize the results. If you'd like me to share my screen, I can show you the actual actual results.

[3:18:11] But we had 10 votes prior to me checking and with the zero votes that we added to that total, we still have 10 votes in opposition.

[3:18:22] As the city clerk mentioned, there were some other letters that were included and there were letters of support, which I did not include in this tally.

[3:18:30] So that's why you don't have the, it doesn't add up to 13.

[3:18:35] but we had two letters of opposition prior to this meeting

[3:18:38] that were included in this.

[3:18:41] So I have a total of 10 votes in opposition.

[3:18:45] The majority protest threshold would be 9,459.

[3:18:50] So we do not have a majority protest metamayer.

[3:18:53] Okay, thank you very much.

[3:18:55] And we will then come back to the council.

[3:18:59] And I see council member Kerney, your hand is up.

[3:19:02] Yes, Madam Mayor, I'd like to move the item.

[3:19:05] Okay.

[3:19:08] Thank you, Madam Mayor. There was some placeholder language in the resolution itself that referred to three protest votes.

[3:19:20] I would like to recommend that if the council wishes to approve this item that the that be changed from three protest votes to 10 votes in protest.

[3:19:31] and with that amendment, the resolution would be correct.

[3:19:36] And is that the amendment is friendly? Thank you.

[3:19:39] Okay, so there is a motion with that amendment

[3:19:42] and council member MacDonald.

[3:19:44] You'd like to second? Thank you.

[3:19:46] Well, to second.

[3:19:47] So we have a motion, my current is second by MacDonald

[3:19:50] and we will take, it will call vote.

[3:19:54] All right. Yes, Bishop?

[3:19:57] Yes.

[3:19:58] You know what I mean?

[3:20:00] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. McDonald. Yes. Miller. Yes. Motion, pathos unanimously. Okay. Thank you. And thank you very much. And as we will be moving on now to item 6a, which is a resolution denying three appeals filed by Margie and Todd Terrell.

[3:20:30] Jason and Elsa Beatty and Bonnie Spindler and upholding the historic and cultural preservation

[3:20:37] committees approval of historic site plan and architectural review with modifications

[3:20:45] for the Haas residents at 266 Street and we will hear from Brittany Bendix to start this

[3:20:54] off.

[3:20:57] Good evening, Councilmembers, W.D. Pliny, Minister for an Eventics here presenting tonight

[3:21:02] for the Haas Residential Rear Model at 266 Street Appeal.

[3:21:10] I'm going to go over a brief overview of the staff report, touching on the background,

[3:21:16] the project description, HCPC consideration in the appeals, project modifications since

[3:21:22] the HCPC hearing, the standards of review, conditions of approval, CEQA, public comment, and the

[3:21:29] staff recommendation. To start, I want you to know that for the background and initial project

[3:21:36] description, I've used the same slides that I prepared for the HCPC presentation to give

[3:21:43] you a sense of the information that was put in front of them, as that's one concern raised in

[3:21:48] the appeals. The only additional language that I've added have shown here in italics. So we're

[3:21:54] looking at a 15,000 square foot lot in an R3 zoning district within the A street, A street historic district.

[3:22:01] It contains a single family 4,240 square foot home with a recently constructed ADU at the rear at the rear.

[3:22:09] It's in the West sub area of the general plan, which contains a mix of commercial and residential uses.

[3:22:15] And has a designation of diverse load and city residential, which is 6.1 to 12 units per acre.

[3:22:21] for this particular property that translates to about two to four units.

[3:22:27] This property is also within a 15-minute walk to downtown Smart Station.

[3:22:33] The project description, the initial project description,

[3:22:37] and again in the A3 historic district, which is characterized by popular styles between 1816 and 1925.

[3:22:45] The building was constructed in 1905 by a local master architect, architect Breiner Jones.

[3:22:52] It features a transitional bungalow style, which is characteristic of Breiner Jones architecture

[3:22:58] with characteristics such as a hip roof, hip roofed armors, box eaves, regular and symmetrical building footprint.

[3:23:06] a decorative half-width porch, front bay window, a belly band belt course to

[3:23:12] lenienting the levels of the building, fish scales, shingles, detailed window trim

[3:23:17] and laws and sheep pains in the front window. There are also rare dishes that

[3:23:21] occurred in 1910, 1923, and sometime after 1937, with a date unknown for enclosure

[3:23:29] of the side porch. Related to the scope of work, as initially proposed, it included

[3:23:35] excavation of the existing basement and crawl space by approximately 6 foot 3 inches to accommodate

[3:23:42] a full partially below grade story of approximately 4,210 square feet. I wanted to add in here that

[3:23:50] based on structural engineering review, the greatest excavation depth may increase to

[3:23:55] accommodating footings in engineered fill. Additionally, demolition of the existing rear building

[3:24:01] features to accommodate a rear horizontal addition projecting, sorry, at most 40 feet in 4.25 inches

[3:24:09] from the primary rear building wall. Additionally, removal of roof features to enable the rear addition

[3:24:15] and provide additional light to the rear programmed interior. Construction of an approximately 590

[3:24:20] square foot one story addition off the rear of the house with an additional 247 square foot sunroom.

[3:24:27] And then restoration of the front porch stairs to the original materials, which I've added

[3:24:32] in note that it's original based on 22 other rendered Jones homes constructed in the

[3:24:38] same period, which was clarified in a letter that you received from Diana Pinter this morning.

[3:24:45] It also includes an interior remodel.

[3:24:49] These are the floor plans that were shown to the HCPC showing the difference between the

[3:24:53] the speed and proposed extents at the basement level and then highlighting

[3:25:00] In the rear addition, showing the shading of all material to be removed on the existing rear elevation, apparently upper left, the proposed plans proposed elevation in the bottom left, and then rendering showing the rear from different angles.

[3:25:20] We also provided longitudinal sections for the HCPC showing the extent of excavation and the depth of the rear addition.

[3:25:30] So the HCPC hearing was on July 14th, 20th of this year.

[3:25:38] I do want to note that committee member Bill Reinhardt did

[3:25:42] recuse himself in the staff report for this City Council hearing.

[3:25:48] I attributed that to living within the radius of the project,

[3:25:53] but it's actually because he had prior involvement with the project team.

[3:25:57] Prior to the HCPC hearing,

[3:25:59] we've received three letters in support and one in opposition that was from one of the appellants

[3:26:03] also, Betty. We also heard an opposition at the public hearing from the Torels and one other

[3:26:09] neighbor expressing general concerns relative to rear massing and proposed excavation. The

[3:26:14] Torels are another appellant tonight's hearing. The HCPC discussed the excavation with the

[3:26:20] applicant team at the public hearing, conditioned the tree protection for the coastal live oak on the

[3:26:27] baby property and suggested tree planning to really privacy concerns.

[3:26:32] Reject was then unanimously approved.

[3:26:35] After the HCPC hearing, we received three timely appeals from adjacent neighbors.

[3:26:44] The red property here indicates the subject property 2663.

[3:26:50] The green property is the baby property.

[3:26:54] The yellow is the spinler property, and the blue here is the trail property, so all three

[3:26:59] appellans are immediately adjacent to the project site.

[3:27:02] In generalizing the appeal subject matter, I came up with eight categories.

[3:27:09] I'll run through them here quickly.

[3:27:11] First compliance with standards review, two excavation for the subterranean parking, three

[3:27:17] privacy for availability of light and air, five preservation of an existing

[3:27:22] peppertree, six sequer review on the need for an EIR, seven construction

[3:27:28] practices, and eight adequacy of the overall HCPC review.

[3:27:34] After the appeals were

[3:27:35] filed, the applicant returned with a modified project description of

[3:27:40] voluntarily, as modified the proposal eliminated the 247 square foot due

[3:27:46] catch sunroom, and it's placed the applicant as proposed pergola, which will have a height

[3:27:52] level equal with the eve of the roof over the lower deck. They also eliminated the

[3:27:58] bow deck that was oriented towards the trail property, increasing the side setback from the shared

[3:28:04] property line by two and a half feet to approximately 13 feet where three foot side setback is otherwise

[3:28:10] required. There's an addition of a vertical trellis at the upper deck to restrict views into the

[3:28:16] yards of the adjacent neighbors, the east and west and provide additional privacy.

[3:28:21] And then there was also reconfiguration of the rear stairs from the first floor deck

[3:28:26] to the rear yard to decrease the additions expansion into the rear yard area.

[3:28:31] There's a few renderings of the applicant is provided to really illustrate these changes.

[3:28:37] Up here you have the HCPC approved plans rendered showing the sunroom, the stairs extending

[3:28:44] out into the property and then over here on the right you can see the configuration of that

[3:28:50] extended the deck and then below you can see the modifications. They removed the unenclosed area

[3:28:56] instead going with the pergola. They reoriented the stairs so that it didn't project further out

[3:29:02] into the yard and then they eliminated the angled featured here near the trail property.

[3:29:08] I've also summarized this with the floor plans highlighting the area in blue here that

[3:29:16] was removed from the HCPC approved plans.

[3:29:20] This is at the basement level.

[3:29:24] This is at the main floor level.

[3:29:27] Although you can see the stairs are still there, they're just tucked in against the deck.

[3:29:33] And then this is the east elevation showing the volume of the massing that's been removed

[3:29:40] here and then the modified plans you can see the elevated height of the screening. These images

[3:29:47] are also included in the staff packet as an exhibit. So the appeal points that I really want to

[3:29:54] focus on tonight before you hear from the appellans and the applicant team.

[3:30:15] So, with the compliance of standards of review, there are three critical pieces that the HCPC is charged in reviewing the project. I've highlighted the three that I'm focused on tonight. One is the

[3:30:29] the A Street Historic District Standards.

[3:30:32] Another is the Secretary of Inherior Standards

[3:30:35] for Treatment of Historic Properties,

[3:30:38] and then 15 is the ICO Chapter 15,

[3:30:43] the Historic and Cultural Preservation Requirements

[3:30:47] that set forward the process that which we went through.

[3:30:51] So, touching on the Secretary of Inherior Standards first,

[3:30:55] these are the standards for rehabilitation.

[3:30:57] There are a number of different types of preservation standards.

[3:31:02] The one that we're focused on for this project is rehabilitation.

[3:31:06] There are 10 of them.

[3:31:08] And they read as such.

[3:31:09] I'm not going to read through everyone because you do have this in your staff report.

[3:31:14] Although we can definitely revisit them as I know that they're a subject of the appeals.

[3:31:20] But going through each 10.

[3:31:23] They are difficult to respond to.

[3:31:27] So the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Secretary of Interior Standards does provide

[3:31:33] guidelines for rehabilitation.

[3:31:35] This was about a 250-page document in your staff report, but I not necessarily expect

[3:31:41] you to read in its entirety.

[3:31:43] But I did want to convey how extensive the direction is that's provided to staff when we're

[3:31:51] looking at these and the strategies that they provide to us for each type of work that

[3:31:56] would be considered. There are guidelines specific to how you work with brick. There

[3:32:01] are guidelines for how you work with wood, storefronts, commercial storefronts, and the

[3:32:07] ones that I want to highlight while we're discussing this tonight are the guidelines specific

[3:32:12] for new exterior additions to historic buildings and related new construction. So you go through

[3:32:18] through and you see that there are recommended strategies and not recommended strategies, and

[3:32:23] the two don't always necessarily combine, and I want to focus and bring your attention

[3:32:28] on the second row where recommended is constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character

[3:32:35] defining element or sorry elevation and limiting its size and scale and relationship to the

[3:32:41] historic building. And this is a particular importance because this is where the proposed

[3:32:47] addition is at the rear and below the actual building itself. But then here you have the next

[3:32:54] one in the third row, constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic

[3:32:59] materials so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged or destroyed. Part of the

[3:33:05] discussion between the Brunzel peer review of the painter HRE is whether or not you can really

[3:33:13] eliminate any character, defining future whatsoever. And when you read this and it's strictest

[3:33:19] interpretation, you can see that that's not obviously encouraged. But when you move forward

[3:33:24] in these guidelines,

[3:33:28] they offer an example, a photographic example of what a proper addition does.

[3:33:33] This is a historic building with clearly a lot of integrity,

[3:33:39] architectural integrity left in the building itself.

[3:33:43] Not much has changed as viewed from the primary frontage.

[3:33:48] What is shown here is a two-story addition at the rear.

[3:33:53] That's partially visible, visible.

[3:33:55] It's not completely hidden.

[3:33:57] The windows aren't identical.

[3:33:59] The rear addition is clearly contemporary.

[3:34:02] It's not trying to be perceived as architecture consistent with or contemporaneous with the original structure, it reads this modern, it reads as an addition that was added at a later date.

[3:34:17] And this is the kind of visual example that the guidelines give you to work through and navigate the text.

[3:34:27] So moving on, then we have also the district guidelines and here I'm not necessarily laid

[3:34:34] out each district. The district guidelines are more broad, they're not very specific. And so

[3:34:43] you're given general direction and you have to review the project to make sure that it's consistent

[3:34:48] with that. So this is a slide that was before the HCPC where we go through every single category

[3:34:56] or finding, and we respond to that.

[3:34:59] So.

[3:35:00] For example, architectural style. The changes are largely consistent with the existing style. There's no new character defining elements to convey a different style. The addition is fairly simple. It's not trying to read as extremely contemporary. It's trying to be diminutive to the original structure. But yet it depicts modern elements that distinguish it from the original style.

[3:35:27] For design, the project avoids an eclectic assembly of architectural motifs or architectural

[3:35:32] details that conveys a false sense of history.

[3:35:35] Here we're getting at the signs that it doesn't look like it was built at the same time.

[3:35:40] The transitional style elements mostly are retained with an exception of the rear roof line.

[3:35:45] And then the arrangement, although the addition is large, the scale of the addition is proportional

[3:35:50] to this size a lot and the project also complies with all the ICO requirements. I would also note here

[3:35:58] that the addition is pinched in on both the sides so that you can see when you're looking at it

[3:36:04] that it isn't just a straight extension of the original building. Texture and materials, the materials

[3:36:11] are appropriate and consistent with existing materials. The front-and-side porch will be restored to wood.

[3:36:17] colors, the color palette is appropriate and includes white, black, teal, dark, teal and gold.

[3:36:23] There are no accessory fixtures proposed and then landscaping the retaining walls for the

[3:36:27] slope driveway will include an appropriate parched treatment. That means there's some design

[3:36:33] thoughtfulness applied to the retaining walls and they're not just black concrete.

[3:36:41] So relative to the conditions of approval that were included in the draft resolution,

[3:36:45] I would say that the applicant is generally accepting of staff's recommended conditions,

[3:36:50] although we do want to call out a couple.

[3:36:53] The first one is relative to condition of approval number two in regards to providing

[3:37:00] neighbors' copies of future plan sets.

[3:37:04] The applicant would like to admit floor plans from submittals to neighbors for privacy.

[3:37:08] That's generally pretty standard that once you get to the building permit phase plans are not shared and the floor plans for example are kind of more protected for just general privacy.

[3:37:24] Also applicant also requests clarification that sharing of plans is informational only they don't want the expectation that by sharing a grading plan means that it can't be approved and tell neighbors.

[3:37:37] is kind of give the grant their approval and then also recommend recommended condition

[3:37:45] of approval numbers 28 and 29. The applicant has requested that the screening

[3:37:50] trees be planted on the BD property, not the applicant property as intended by staff.

[3:37:56] This relates to concerns about diminished open space on the subject property as well as utility

[3:38:01] lines that are running along the extent of the shared property line interfering with the tree

[3:38:06] planning itself.

[3:38:09] Then I also heard from the babies requesting some clarification. They wanted to

[3:38:15] note more specific language relative to the liability for damage that was on the bottom of

[3:38:22] page 10 of the staff report. This language came in and their most recent appeal letter and stated

[3:38:29] It stated that the homeowner must offer a legally binding protection agreement to use

[3:38:34] as the sole owners of 226 street. That's the baby property. This agreement should include

[3:38:40] provisions for establishment of a bond insurance or trust with funds sufficient to handle all claims

[3:38:46] for damages caused by construction activity at a minimum of $1.5 million. That is also something

[3:38:54] that I saw on the trial letter that came in the day the staff report was published. And I think

[3:38:59] mentioned that I would follow up on that. So I want to call attention to that. There's also,

[3:39:04] there was a request noted by the BADEs and the staff report on top of page 11 that they were

[3:39:11] asking for a third-party arborist. They've already hired an arborist. They had Becky Duckels

[3:39:17] preparing a report, which I also included in condition of approval number 21. So there's no need

[3:39:26] for a third party arborist at this point that's already happened. And then finally, the

[3:39:32] Tarell's have requested conditions. This also this came in and their appeal letter when I was

[3:39:38] issuing or publishing the staff report. They've asked that noise that the council consider limiting

[3:39:45] noise generating activities Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm. And then they also ask that

[3:39:54] because of concerns that the excavation will prohibit them.

[3:40:00] I'm planning a planting trees on their property that the applicant can provide a new sense along

[3:40:07] the shared property line to match the existing 8th or 12th fence on the twirl's north property

[3:40:11] line in material style and workmanship.

[3:40:17] Finally, for CEQA staff is maintaining their position

[3:40:21] that the product is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under as a class one

[3:40:27] in class 31 exemption, there's been a lot of back and forth between the appellans and the applicant

[3:40:33] on this point and we can get in that if you have other questions. But at this point, staff

[3:40:39] finds that the project continues to find that the project meets the sector here and interior standards

[3:40:44] is comfortable with this exemption.

[3:40:48] Public comment, we received 57 comment letters submitted in

[3:40:53] response to the project since the initial city council public notice was sent in September.

[3:40:58] I would characterize it as mixed response with very strong opinions on both sides of the issue.

[3:41:05] There are opponents with concern about a lack of the initial public outreach and the extent of

[3:41:11] changes to the existing residents. And then supporters are concerned at the heightened attention for

[3:41:15] what they perceive as reasonable changes and worried a little bit about the conservative nature of the

[3:41:22] And then the additional 20, there are additional 20 comment letters that have been received since publication of the staff report.

[3:41:31] These really echo the positions of the comments made in the packet and reflect a broad mix of backgrounds from just general neighbors, artists in the community, architects, historians and then even commissioning committee members.

[3:41:45] So with that, I will conclude with staff's recommendation, which is consistent with the

[3:41:53] HCPC's approval of Resolution 2020-01.

[3:41:57] It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution to 9-3 separate appeals filed

[3:42:03] by Margie and Tatarelle, Jason and Elsa Beatty and Bonnie Spunler, and upholding the Historic

[3:42:08] and Cultural Preservation Committee's approval of the Historic Spar Review with modifications

[3:42:18] I know that we have the full applicant team as well as the full appellant team is here if you have any questions for them. Thank you.

[3:42:30] Thank you very much for the that was a very good presentation as was the staff report.

[3:42:35] Right now I believe the process is for the three appellants to each have 10 minutes to make their presentations and that will be followed by a 10 minute presentation by the applicant or the applicant's team.

[3:42:59] And then we will bring questions back to the council and then we will open up public comment.

[3:43:07] Bring it back and we will have five minutes summary.

[3:43:12] So who would which group is going to start of the three app appellants?

[3:43:22] Good evening Madam Mayor and City Council members.

[3:43:24] We have a joint presentation that I will lead off.

[3:43:30] Hopefully you can see our shared screen at the moment.

[3:43:33] The title flag record for those who may not be able to see you do or read your name.

[3:43:38] Maybe you could just give your name for the record.

[3:43:41] Yes. Yeah.

[3:43:42] Well, my name is Elsa Vady.

[3:43:44] And I, along with my husband Jason and three young children reside a 22 6th street next door to the residential remodel approved for 26 6th street.

[3:43:53] We've been petaluma residents for 13 years, first owning a home on nearby Bassett Street,

[3:43:58] and then having the good fortune to purchase our current house located in the venerable

[3:44:02] A Street historic district in 2015.

[3:44:05] We feel privileged to be the current stewards of our 1890s Queen Anne Heritage Home.

[3:44:10] We look forward to continuing to raise a generation of petaluma's here, and like the houses,

[3:44:15] have every intention of making this our forever home as we continue to contribute to the community

[3:44:20] in ways that we are able.

[3:44:21] We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight regarding our appeal of the HCPC's July 14th decision to approve the historic SPAR for 26th Street as presented to you by city staff.

[3:44:33] We are joined by our co-appellants in this matter, Margie and Todd Terrell and Bonnie Spindler, as well as two consultants we have retained Cara Brunzel and Les Perry, all of whom you will hear from later tonight.

[3:44:45] As you know, the home of 266th Street was built in 1905 and designed by Petalamo's

[3:44:50] premier architect and native son, Rainer Jones. It's considered to be an excellent example of the

[3:44:55] transitional style of architecture and individually qualified for the California

[3:45:00] And a registered of historic resources. It's one of only 77 homes located within the narrow boundaries of the A Street Historic District, a designated area protected by special city council ordinance of 1986. Homes located within these specific confines have the preexisting condition of being held to stricter construction standards than any other residential area of Petaluma. The guidelines call specific attention to the following description of homes located within the district.

[3:45:28] All have fairly down to earth human scale and are straightforward on ostentatious design rehabilitation of any building within the historic district must be accomplished within the parameters of scale of 1938 pre 1930 structures.

[3:45:44] These homes are resources for the community which we all have a responsibility to safeguard as a result of this action by the former city council.

[3:45:51] The intent of the guidelines was made clear as it pertains to proposed work within the district, which you see outlined here.

[3:45:59] The discussion today comes down to the city's desire and willingness to continue to protect these few homes among the some 20,000 properties within city limits.

[3:46:09] Similar projects have and can take place in other putt aluminum neighborhoods, such as on D street, or a 606 street.

[3:46:16] But these have the clear distinction of not being located within a protected designated historic district.

[3:46:23] A look back at previous remodels approved by the HCPC will show that no project of this scale and scope has ever been allowed within either of the only two residential historic districts.

[3:46:35] Given the significant scope of unprecedented changes proposed to one of its important historic homes located within one of its protected districts.

[3:46:43] The decision regarding this project has become greater than simply the approval of the standard residential remodel, allowing this project to proceed as approved will forever alter the aesthetics and integrity of Petaluma's historic districts as a result of the precedence that sets.

[3:47:00] It's the first step in the steady erosion of our town's identity as one of historic preservation.

[3:47:05] As we look to the future, let's be reminded of guideline 3 in the city of Petaluma's general plan.

[3:47:12] Preservation and enhancement of the city's historic assets,

[3:47:15] lends Petaluma a distinct identity and helps sustain its small town character.

[3:47:20] As future growth turns increasingly toward infill, efforts to guard the city's heritage need to be

[3:47:25] redoubled and are reflected in the plan's policies.

[3:47:28] This matter is not a neighbor to neighbor issue.

[3:47:31] This is a Petaluma issue.

[3:47:32] Will we as a community stand behind the very guidelines and standards established to preserve the character of our treasured historic districts?

[3:47:41] I will now turn it over to my co-appellant, Margie Turell, who will outline her collective appeal points.

[3:47:47] Thank you, Elsa. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members. My name is Margie Turell and I reside at 608 B Street.

[3:47:56] My husband and I moved to Petaluma 22 years ago for its sense of community,

[3:48:02] excellent schools, and its charming historic districts. We saved every penny

[3:48:08] for two years to purchase our home also designed by Granter Jones built in 1906.

[3:48:15] It is our sole and primary residence we've been proud to fall home for 18 years

[3:48:19] and are happily settled here raising our son. I would like to outline for you

[3:48:24] tonight, appeal points brought individually and collectively by the three appellant families.

[3:48:30] These points are as follows. Number one, the developer did not comply with city resolution

[3:48:37] 2018-107 NCS, which required public outreach prior to even the scheduling of the project's review

[3:48:45] before the HCPC in July. We maintain the HCPC did not have critical information in which to make

[3:48:53] an informed decision. We maintain that the project complies with neither the A3 historic

[3:49:00] district guidelines nor the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation of

[3:49:05] historic resource. We appeal the planning department's consideration that the project

[3:49:11] is exempt from provisions of CEQA. We maintain that our concerns of physical damage and environmental

[3:49:19] mental impacts related to the enormous ground excavation

[3:49:24] near steps away from the property lines

[3:49:27] have been continually dismissed.

[3:49:30] Prior to members of the appellant group,

[3:49:32] further expanding on these points,

[3:49:34] we would like council members to know

[3:49:36] that the appellants have had individual

[3:49:38] and group communications with the developer

[3:49:40] and the planning department to discuss concerns

[3:49:44] and try to reach amicable solutions.

[3:49:47] a balance ask multiple times about the non adherence to the public outreach requirement and when that would be rectified.

[3:49:55] However, we never reached or never received an exclamation.

[3:50:00] And explanation or response whatsoever until the subject was broached at the December 7th City Council meeting. Appellants attended a meeting in September in which the developer discussed a modification of the original projects scope. However, we noted during that very same meeting that none of the modifications change the multiple issues of noncompliance to the historic guidelines. There are also ongoing discussions with the developer about protections for the appellants.

[3:50:29] in the form of monitoring the homes for damages during the excavation and liability and property

[3:50:35] insurance coverage. Steps that we heard from the deputy planner are routinely offered in cities

[3:50:41] such as San Francisco when there's an excavation at the property lines. And then while these issues

[3:50:47] were under consideration and being explored, the developer took the egregious action of moving forward

[3:50:54] with the excavation anyway, commencing its perimeter trenching work on September 18,

[3:51:00] until stopped by the city despite being told by the city previously to not start the project

[3:51:06] until the fields were heard. Then later, we received news that developer ultimately determined

[3:51:12] surveying and monitoring the neighboring homes for damages, and any and all insurance protections

[3:51:19] were deemed too burdensome and unnecessary.

[3:51:23] I will now turn over the presentation to my husband Todd,

[3:51:28] who will speak to the first two appeal points.

[3:51:31] Thank you for listening.

[3:51:32] Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

[3:51:35] My name is Todd Terrell, and I live at 608 B Street

[3:51:38] with my wife Margie and our son.

[3:51:41] We first came to Pedaluma in 1999 for a weekend getaway

[3:51:45] to see the historic downtown and the Victorian homes.

[3:51:48] We were so taken with Petal Luma after this visit that we relocated here three months later from San Francisco.

[3:51:55] In 2003, we purchased our 1906 Branner Jones design home. It was considered a fixer upper, but we love it and are enjoying returning it to its former beauty.

[3:52:07] I would like to elaborate on the appeal points related to the lack of public outreach and that the HCPC did not have critical information in which to make an informed decision.

[3:52:19] The developer did not comply with the city resolution 2018-107.

[3:52:26] NCS, the resolution requires Project applicants

[3:52:29] perform outreach to neighbors within 1,000 feet.

[3:52:33] Radius, 1,000 foot radius,

[3:52:35] if the project is major enough to require a public hearing.

[3:52:39] Developers must provide these neighbors an opportunity

[3:52:41] to learn about project plans,

[3:52:43] such as timelines, impacts,

[3:52:45] and have their consultants available to answer questions.

[3:52:48] All of this ahead of even the scheduling of a public meeting.

[3:52:52] The lack of this outreach eliminated the opportunity for constructive feedback that would have been brought forth to the HCPC to make an informed decision.

[3:53:03] Every qualified project since the resolution passed has been required to comply even during the challenges of COVID, including another project that was presented at the very same HCPC meeting on July 14th every single one.

[3:53:19] planning department representatives at the department at the

[3:53:23] representatives at the December 7th City Council meeting indicated that the

[3:53:27] developer had met with the appellans in September and the city

[3:53:32] complied at standard notice of HCPC hearing on July 14th.

[3:53:37] Neither of these actions substitute for the failure of the developer to perform

[3:53:41] its critical outreach. We maintain that the project was misrepresented

[3:53:46] stated misrepresented to the HCPC as minor in nature despite the home ballooning to over 9 to 9,464 total square feet upon completion per the last drawings.

[3:54:01] Committee members did not have access to full-sized hard copy drawings prior to or during the hearing numbers were provided a staff report that misrepresented compliance with the district guidelines and qualifications for the sequel exemption.

[3:54:15] and none question any of these findings.

[3:54:18] The developer's lack of compliance

[3:54:20] with the neighborhood outreach requirement

[3:54:22] was entirely omitted from the report.

[3:54:27] And now we have learned at the last minute

[3:54:29] that the historic resource evaluation by Diane Painter

[3:54:34] presented to the HCPC in July was outdated,

[3:54:39] related to a different version of the project

[3:54:41] and that it was discussed at the July hearing.

[3:54:45] I would like to now introduce Jason Vady,

[3:54:47] who will speak about our outreach efforts.

[3:54:51] Thank you, Todd.

[3:54:53] Could you meet Madam Mayor and council members?

[3:54:54] I'm Jason Vady, Elsa's husband,

[3:54:56] and one of the co-op elements residing at 226th Street.

[3:55:00] In absence of the required outreach, we as concerned citizens made an effort to bring awareness of the project in the neighborhood. We began by screening flyers and it became apparent there was a significant and similar level of concern in the community regarding the negative long-term impact of this project on the historic districts. As a result, we found a preserved petaluma in response to the strong interest in preserving this part of the town's identity and the fundamental values of historic preservation. The art signs were designed to grab attention

[3:55:29] pass revised with the same resonating message to help save the A Street Historic District.

[3:55:35] The sign served to accomplish what the developers lack of outreach did not.

[3:55:39] Bring a heightened level of community awareness to the project.

[3:55:43] As a group, we felt it was critical that this project was allowed to go forward,

[3:55:47] at least the community should know about it. Community members responded, especially those

[3:55:52] having a greater understanding of the mean of the A Street Historic District.

[3:55:57] You'll notice in the graphic included in the staff report the locations of the homes of the three appellants.

[3:56:03] This is unsurprising given where the original project description letter was distributed by the developer only to the immediately surrounding homes of the property.

[3:56:14] In this graphic, the yellow circle represents the thousand foot radius for noticing required by the city resolution for the neighborhood meeting that didn't happen.

[3:56:25] 23 homeowners within this area have chosen to express their feedback retroactively regarding the project with the yard sign.

[3:56:33] There have been 35 letters to council 11 letters to the editor and 29 yard signs posted around town all expressing opposition to the approved project.

[3:56:44] Of course, there have also been outspoken community members on the other side of the issue who are not to the same degree.

[3:56:50] Perhaps more importantly, the numbers game here is the composition of that public commentary.

[3:56:55] Half of those opposing the project live within that thousand-foot noticing radius.

[3:57:00] These are the community members whose input could have been received before the HCPC hearing.

[3:57:05] Others who have expressed opposition have significant and relevant perspective on matters of historic preservation, such as an architectural historian who is a district resident and a former member of HCPC.

[3:57:18] Heritage homes opposes this project, and the vice chair of the HCPC who is now publicly

[3:57:24] expressed her desire to rescind her ascending vote. We believe the amount of uproar

[3:57:29] are narrated by this project approval is a direct result of the unprecedented scope

[3:57:34] of the project and the community's passion around protecting its designated historic districts.

[3:57:39] As you've heard from many of your constituents, Pedalum's historic charm is its hallmark,

[3:57:45] And one of the reasons many choose to make this their home, this reaction from the community

[3:57:50] mirrored the reaction we as appellants had when it came to the impacts of the project

[3:57:54] and led us to seek a second professional opinion on its adherence to the historic district guidelines.

[3:58:00] I will now invite Ms. Kara Brinzel of Brinzel Historical to speak, followed by Attorney

[3:58:06] Les Perry and the final appellant Bonnie Spindler. Kara,

[3:58:19] I think you have to unmute yourself,

[3:58:21] it's in the upper right of your video.

[3:58:30] Okay. Am I muted now? Yeah, we hear you. Okay.

[3:58:36] Thank you. Mayor Barrett and council members for letting me speak and giving me this time.

[3:58:44] My name is Kayla Bunzel. I'm the principal of Bunzel Historical and I would like to know for city

[3:58:49] records that my name is spelled B-R-U-N-Z-E-L-L. And that my project review is based on drawing submitted

[3:58:58] to the HCPC in April and updated in August of this year. With the Masters in Public History,

[3:59:07] I meet the Secretary of Interior's professional qualifications for history and architectural history.

[3:59:13] I have worked in historic preservation and cultural resource management for over 13 years.

[3:59:18] I've completed numerous projects in Petaluma and Sonoma County and worked

[3:59:24] throughout California and other states. I will confine my remarks to the

[3:59:29] proposed projects most serious violations of historic preservation standards. I

[3:59:35] do not take issue with the qualifications or experience of the project

[3:59:39] proponents consultant. Diana Painter is well-qualified and the HRE was thorough.

[3:59:45] However, her conformance analysis is in error.

[3:59:50] The most egregious problem is noted by painter preservation's recent memos, which state

[3:59:56] unequivocally, that the compliance review she

[4:00:00] We prepared in November 2019 was based on an outdated set of drawings. It is self-evident

[4:00:07] that the HCPC staff and city council cannot make a ruling on outdated documents prepared

[4:00:15] for a previous version of the project. The project, as currently proposed, does not meet

[4:00:22] the secretary of interior standards. Painter relies on a typical interpretation of the standards

[4:00:29] which do allow flexibility at the rear of a historic property.

[4:00:34] However, flexibility does not mean anything goes.

[4:00:39] Original materials and details will be destroyed by the project.

[4:00:44] The introduction of a large, modern-looking Terrace Ballast draw that rises 21 feet into the air

[4:00:50] is outside the scope of the flexibility intended by the standards.

[4:00:55] Part of the reasoning behind flexibility with respect to rear facades is that they are typically not visible from the public right of way.

[4:01:05] In this case, however, the location of the house and the extraordinary size and height of the rear addition mean that it will easily be visible from B Street, from Post Street, as well as from several neighboring properties.

[4:01:21] The proposed large front gate and grade change in the driveway, which are visible from 6th street, would result in substantial negative effects on the house itself and on the district.

[4:01:35] Although briefly mentioned in the 2019 PAIR report, they are inexplicably excluded from

[4:01:43] her review under the Secretary of Interior and the local standards.

[4:01:49] And I also noticed during the staff report that the staff doesn't really deal with these

[4:01:56] very serious substantial parts of the project.

[4:02:01] The assertion that the driveway is not character defining is an attempt to distract from

[4:02:08] the disruption excavation will cause to the site and the setting.

[4:02:14] The secretary standards quote, encompass related landscape features and the building site

[4:02:22] and environment, unquote. And with respect to the setting of a district or

[4:02:28] neighborhood, the standards are also clear, quote, the relationship of buildings

[4:02:34] to each other, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and

[4:02:42] street trees and other landscaping together, establish the character of a

[4:02:47] district or neighborhood unquote. Introduction of a sloping driveway by excavating a flat site in a flat

[4:02:56] neighborhood is a significant alteration to the landscape. This feature set back only a few

[4:03:03] feet from the public right of way will be easily visible in the same way that raising a sidewalk

[4:03:09] four feet off the ground or lowering it two feet below grade would obviously create a significant

[4:03:16] negative impact on nearby historical resources, the driveway grade change will alter the site.

[4:03:25] Alterations to the grade of properties and major excavation are not specifically

[4:03:30] prohibited by the standards, perhaps because they are typically infeasible due to costs.

[4:03:36] But that does not mean that such radical changes are without negative impact.

[4:03:41] Painter asserts in the recent memo that the gate should not be subject to scrutiny because

[4:03:47] it is, quote, not a permanent feature.

[4:03:51] Nothing about the physical characteristics of this solid wooden gate as presented in

[4:03:57] renderings and plans indicate that it is temporary.

[4:04:01] It is a structure that is highly visible from many vantage points within the district and

[4:04:07] And it absolutely must be considered as part of the project.

[4:04:11] Comparison of this gate to the form of parkour is inappropriate and irrelevant.

[4:04:18] Historic evaluations and project reviews must be confined to current conditions.

[4:04:25] An introduction of a skylight would on its own be relatively minor, but adds to the cumulative

[4:04:30] negative impact of the whole project.

[4:04:34] Proposed violations of Petaluma's a-street historic district preservation

[4:04:39] guidelines aren't even more glaring. The local standards require the size and

[4:04:44] rear of the house to be compatible with the front. This project does not

[4:04:49] conform. They require harmony of proportions with its surroundings including

[4:04:56] neighboring structures. This project is not conformed.

[4:05:00] They require a project to not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics of the property. The project does not conform. The local guidelines, it is true, are not perfectly compatible with the secretary standards. They have never the less been adopted by the city of Patelwuma and must be applied equally to all applicants until legally changed by the city.

[4:05:30] In summary, the proposed project fails to meet the requirements of both the Secretary

[4:05:35] of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Petaluma's A-Street Historic District Preservation

[4:05:42] Guidelines and should be substantially scaled back in order to preserve the subject property

[4:05:48] and the historic district.

[4:05:50] Thank you for this time.

[4:05:53] Excuse me, I'm going to interrupt it one moment at this moment because we need a vote on the council to continue the meeting past 11 o'clock.

[4:06:04] Better mayor, I'll make the motion second.

[4:06:07] Okay, I have a motion the second. Is there anyone in opposition to that on the council?

[4:06:13] Well, being no one raised their hand, we can continue and you get one extra minute for this interruption.

[4:06:22] Good evening, a less parry attorney for the appellants in this matter.

[4:06:27] This project is not proceeding in compliance with CECLA.

[4:06:31] It would be unusual indeed to disregard CECLA for a project that entails significant modifications to the historic asset that is an important component of an environmentally sensitive area.

[4:06:43] that recognized that experts conclude

[4:06:45] will result in adverse changes

[4:06:47] and is the center of public controversy.

[4:06:50] In my experience,

[4:06:51] when you try this hard to fit a project

[4:06:53] to avoid seek review,

[4:06:55] the effort is not well received.

[4:06:58] The only projects that should proceed

[4:07:00] without environmental review

[4:07:01] are those words abundantly clear at the outset.

[4:07:05] Of course, that's the fundamental purpose of an exemption.

[4:07:09] Exemption relied upon minor additions

[4:07:12] is not applied. The examples given are clearly inconsistent. If this is not a minor alteration,

[4:07:19] it's not in negligible expansion. It does not relate to minor interior partitions.

[4:07:25] The 2500 square foot limit does not apply and reliance on the 10,000 square foot limit is not applicable in that the project is situated in an environmentally sensitive area.

[4:07:38] that is the A Street Historic Preservation District.

[4:07:43] Nor does the project fit within the expansion,

[4:07:46] exemption for historic resources restoration.

[4:07:50] By its terms, this exemption does not apply to demolitions or additions.

[4:07:56] But most important for tonight's purposes is that there's an exception for historic assets,

[4:08:03] which prevents reliance upon an exemption.

[4:08:05] any exemption. That exception says, a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource.

[4:08:19] So since it is clearly an historic resource, the only question is whether there is any evidence that the project may cause a substantial adverse change.

[4:08:27] and there can't really be any dispute about that.

[4:08:31] There may be a difference of an opinion

[4:08:33] that there's evidence of that,

[4:08:37] but that's not relevant at this sequence juncture.

[4:08:41] The evidence presented by Ms. Brinzel,

[4:08:42] you just heard,

[4:08:43] satisfies the exception.

[4:08:45] Contrary evidence by the applicant,

[4:08:47] staff, or even your views,

[4:08:49] do not change the inevitable result.

[4:08:52] All that matters is that there were substantial evidence

[4:08:55] evidence there may be an at first change.

[4:08:58] It cannot be questioned that Ms. Brunzel is a qualified

[4:09:01] professional with recognized experience and expertise

[4:09:05] and her findings are further confirmed

[4:09:07] by Ms. Hurley, a professional historian

[4:09:10] with lengthy experience in Petaluma.

[4:09:13] She advises the proposed project is not consistent

[4:09:16] with either the secretary standards or the A-street guidelines.

[4:09:20] Her reviews are pretty dramatic.

[4:09:21] She states this would be a major loss of historic design and materials and she states the proposed

[4:09:30] demolition and modern additions will certainly compromise its historic integrity to such a degree

[4:09:36] that the house may lose its current status as individually eligible for the register.

[4:09:41] That's about as clear as it gets, the exception concludes reliance on any categorical exemption.

[4:09:49] That is the, not only is that, that the law, it makes practical sense with regard to your historic resource. Thank you.

[4:10:00] Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. I'm Bonnie Spindler. Let me start by saying that the press and staff have set this up like it's a WWF NIMBY grudge match between neighbors. They've all missed the point. This is a struggle for the soul of a historic neighborhood, the slippery slope that leads to McMansions and decimated communities. We don't want to be Atherton or Cupertino. Since 1983, I've restored historic homes. I'm a former president of the Victorian Alliance.

[4:10:29] a past president of Alamos Square neighborhood association, a historic district, and a past resident of the Oak Hill Brewster.

[4:10:37] I deliberately choose historic districts because of the protections for these dwindling resources.

[4:10:43] Every year, more and more Victorians are torn down, gutted, and lost forever.

[4:10:48] Three years ago, I bought Dr. Gossage's Victorian at 600 B Street.

[4:10:53] It is a Petaluma heritage home in a historical resource.

[4:10:56] Dr. Gosage was chosen by Petaluma to head up their 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic

[4:11:03] Response and served on City Council. His home ties us to our past and helps us

[4:11:08] interpret our present. The construction materials in this home and other

[4:11:12] historic homes are rare. Preserving these construction materials wherever possible

[4:11:17] is healthy for the planet. It is green to keep what is there, to not have off-gassing

[4:11:23] materials of your home and to not buy new materials to replace historical items.

[4:11:29] After this massive remodel of both the interior and exterior of 266 Street, it can never

[4:11:35] be returned to its original state.

[4:11:37] The A Street guidelines were set up specifically to prevent projects like this from occurring.

[4:11:43] The excavation proposed is risky, not only for the developer's home but for other resources

[4:11:49] around it.

[4:11:49] My Victorian is just feet away from this ramp and the parking structure that will be dug through bedrock.

[4:11:56] This garage space is the size of a standard lot and will cause large amounts of groundwater to be removed to keep it dry.

[4:12:04] The garage expansion figures used by the developer do not include the ramp soils displacement.

[4:12:11] Damage can be expected to my house and surrounding areas.

[4:12:14] the staff member has noted in her report that the developer is concerned about his liability,

[4:12:21] both pre and post-project, and yet the developer has rejected a trust, insurance, or a bond

[4:12:28] to create a safety net for the surrounding properties. In summary, there are only 77 homes in the

[4:12:35] historic district. You are contemplating giving one up and endangering several others. We care deeply

[4:12:42] about the historic district and its protections, the protections are only meaningful if you defend them.

[4:12:49] It is up to you to decide if this is the right project for this house, if this is the right project

[4:12:55] for a historic district. Are there sufficient protections in place for the other historical

[4:13:01] homes that may be in harm's way? We are asking you to enforce the historic guidelines by protecting

[4:13:08] the defining dormor, the rear porch addition and preventing an expansion of the square footage

[4:13:14] of a bungalow, which would certainly change its use in human scale.

[4:13:19] If you won't protect this home, we ask at a bare minimum, you require a secret report,

[4:13:26] a meridian survey for endangered homes paid for by the developer, and a fund or insurance

[4:13:31] policy to repair future damage of surrounding homes.

[4:13:34] The Brainer Jones House at 266 has been there 112 years is completely original and it's

[4:13:43] a mistake to rush to make this irreplaceable alterations happen.

[4:13:48] Please protect our historic district and our historic resources.

[4:13:52] Thank you so much.

[4:13:59] Okay.

[4:14:00] Thank you.

[4:14:02] So is that the end of the Collins presentation?

[4:14:08] Correct.

[4:14:08] Okay, fine. So now we have the applicant's presentation,

[4:14:20] whichever was going to go first. Please go ahead.

[4:14:26] You're on the wheelchair for your muted.

[4:14:36] Okay, now he looks like he's frozen.

[4:14:43] Okay, Mr. Woolberg, you are on mute.

[4:14:50] Are you speaking?

[4:14:52] There we go.

[4:14:53] Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. I was clicking on it and it just would not unmute. Okay. Thank you.

[4:15:00] Thank you, Madam Mayor and council members. Some background pertinent to this project. My name is Bill Wolpert. My experience includes 34 years as a licensed architect. Upon moving to petaloma 20 years ago, I became involved in updating the 2005 general plan and participated in the subcommittee that created a separate chapter for historic preservation and petaloma. I was a member of the historic and cultural preservation community.

[4:15:30] for three years before being appointed

[4:15:32] to the Planning Commission for eight years.

[4:15:35] I developed a relationship with Jenny Haas

[4:15:38] after working with them and their daughter

[4:15:41] to rehabilitate another historic property

[4:15:44] on the corner of Fifth and B Street.

[4:15:46] The home had been divided into two units

[4:15:48] and we restored it back into a single home.

[4:15:51] There were some questions from adjacent neighbors

[4:15:53] which we addressed and there were no complaints

[4:15:56] throughout the completion of the project.

[4:15:59] The same general contractor, Rempi Construction, will be responsible for this project.

[4:16:05] Steve Rempi has completed more challenging projects in San Francisco and

[4:16:08] Saucelito. Rempi was also responsible for the restoration of the Lynch jewelry building

[4:16:14] on Western Avenue, which received historic tax credits for the quality of the restoration.

[4:16:20] We have a team of over eight consultants, all of them experienced in this kind of work.

[4:16:25] The care and preparation in advance of construction is quite beyond any project that I worked on.

[4:16:32] We have voluntarily produced arborist, jutec, and hydrology reports and constructed story pools.

[4:16:40] When I began this project, the Coddenture ADU in the back was already in plan check and the main residents already had a floor plan that met their needs.

[4:16:50] As I worked with Pete and Jenny on the edition, they got some pushback from me and they made

[4:16:55] a lot of compromises. The project is to be their final home to age in. It is not a corporate

[4:17:01] retreat or an office. The dining room does not seat 72 people as something, but shows

[4:17:08] two possible table arrangements. The proposed basement includes not only a garage, but

[4:17:14] a workshop, mechanical room, my room, and a wine cellar.

[4:17:18] This is a home for generations of family to gather, nothing more.

[4:17:25] Regarding public outreach, our public outreach could have had a better start.

[4:17:30] In May before we submitted our application to HEPC, I told Pete and Jenny that we needed

[4:17:35] to have a neighborhood meeting in advance of the hearing.

[4:17:38] When we were notified of our hearing date scheduled for July, we realized that a neighborhood

[4:17:43] of a meeting had not been arranged yet.

[4:17:45] But by this time the COVID pandemic was ramping up,

[4:17:48] wildfires had started in Sonoma County

[4:17:50] and the Hosses took a cautious approach

[4:17:52] by placing plans of the project at the front door

[4:17:57] of every adjacent neighbor with a note

[4:17:59] that they would answer any questions

[4:18:00] in lieu of a group meeting.

[4:18:03] Following the ACPC hearing, I personally met

[4:18:08] with the Beaties and the Torels

[4:18:09] to better understand their concerns

[4:18:11] and show them our virtual 3D model so that they can see the perspective from different locations.

[4:18:18] Shortly after discussing the neighbors concerns with Pete and Ginny, the

[4:18:22] sunroom was removed from the project and the lower deck shortened by three feet.

[4:18:27] However, the appellants continue to circulate flyers and images of the project with the sunroom.

[4:18:33] There are complaints that there has not been enough public outreach.

[4:18:37] Personally, I have never had a project with so much public awareness.

[4:18:41] I went in for a haircut a couple of months ago and my barber asked me what was going on

[4:18:47] and informed me that it was all anyone was talking about.

[4:18:53] Regarding historic resources, Diana Painter Preservation was retained to evaluate our project

[4:18:59] and write the historic resource evaluation.

[4:19:02] Dr. Painter holds a PhD in architecture, a master's degree in urban planning, a certificate

[4:19:08] in urban design and a BA in interdisciplinary design.

[4:19:12] She established her firm 18 years ago and she lived in Petaluma for nine years and continues to work within the community and the county.

[4:19:24] Excuse

[4:19:32] me, I lost my notes when the slide came up.

[4:19:41] I feel that a riff was created by a misconception to the neighbors that the historic districts are there to preserve the houses.

[4:19:55] and not understanding that rehabilitation

[4:20:00] Is allowed and has a separate definition, and that's the definition that's in front of you now. The three slides of this house are being preserved intact. The dormers to be removed and is one of six. It faces the backyard. It's removal will not alter the essential historic character of the house. The hip roof, replacing it, maintains the overall symmetry of the roof and keeps the

[4:20:29] same form as the dormant though at a different scale. Likewise, the rear facade has been

[4:20:37] significantly altered since the houses originally built. The porch addition, the deck, the French

[4:20:43] doors, the exterior stair have been added to the rear elevation. And if you look closely at the

[4:20:50] details, none of the historic detail that's asserted to exist is actually there on this rear

[4:21:00] You can see that the doors are off center, the moldings are not the same as the house, the detail and craftsmanship simply doesn't exist.

[4:21:10] The original elements on this elevation amounted four windows and the wood siding which are not considered character defining features.

[4:21:18] It's been altered, and it's no longer historically significant.

[4:21:23] And because it's not historically significant,

[4:21:26] the categorical exemption from CEQUA is correct.

[4:21:30] A more detailed justification is contained in the letters from painter preservation,

[4:21:35] and also spaulting from Charter's Fresny, both dated 1221.

[4:21:43] on. What this project is removing is dirt from under the house. Well, it may be more than

[4:21:51] typical remodel, it is not especially deep, and there's no evidence that it will negatively

[4:21:56] impact the neighbors or the groundwater, much less the historic integrity of the neighborhood.

[4:22:02] Expanding the basement as other neighbors have done does not warrant an environmental report.

[4:22:07] The

[4:22:10] footprint of living space has been expanded by 15%, that's 585 square feet of living space.

[4:22:19] The proposed remodel in addition do not expand the second floor, do not increase the height, and it's less wide than the existing house by a couple feet on each side.

[4:22:29] Being able to see the addition from the neighbor's perspective is unavoidable, but this project is not looming above other homes.

[4:22:36] in every way the overall dimensions of the proposed project are smaller than the existing house.

[4:22:44] In terms of privacy, as planners and architects, we still encourage front porches on houses

[4:22:50] to promote personal engagement with the sidewalk and have eyes on the street.

[4:22:55] As neighbors, we watch out for each other.

[4:22:58] Having a porch does not imply that we do not respect each other's privacy.

[4:23:02] The desk proposed in this project extend the living space into the Hosses back yard.

[4:23:09] No windows or views have been created looking into the neighbor's windows.

[4:23:13] There is no desire to focus on their back yards.

[4:23:17] The BDs have requested that trees be planted in the Hosses back yard at the BDs fence line.

[4:23:23] However, existing utilities from the ADU that run through this area will conflict with

[4:23:29] the plenty of trees.

[4:23:30] And in response, the Hausses have offered the pay for the planning of trees in the Beatty's

[4:23:36] backyard to help maintain their seclusion.

[4:23:41] This prop- the opponents claimed that this project sets a precedent, and I agree, but for

[4:23:45] different reasons, Petalwoman not only encourages but requires homeowners to maintain their home's

[4:23:51] historic character, asking a homeowner who has gone through submitting for a permit or a

[4:23:56] remodel, and you will hear how difficult and expensive it is.

[4:23:59] I ask that the appeals be denied and that the conditions of approval do not become

[4:24:04] onerous.

[4:24:06] So I thank you for your consideration, and now, Pete and Jenny Haas would like to speak.

[4:24:13] Okay.

[4:24:13] I guess we have one minute to go.

[4:24:15] Thanks, Bill.

[4:24:16] Mayor Barrett and Council members, we are, Jenny and Pete Haas, unfortunately more people

[4:24:24] know about us today than they did a couple of months ago.

[4:24:28] both of us lived down the road and spent most of our lives in Nevada. However, we became enamored

[4:24:36] with Petaluma five or six years ago for the sense of community, its vibrancy, the fact that

[4:24:44] so many people of all ages come out for the events, whether it be following, whether it be the many

[4:24:52] the events and fairs that take place as well as better

[4:24:57] And we're late, stuffed with all and stuff.

[4:25:00] American graffiti. There's a real downtown here, and soon to be created a gem in McNeer,

[4:25:09] Peninsula. We say there's a lot of there there here. Our mothers lived in the 90s, and we became aware

[4:25:18] of how ice lighting was for them when they no longer could drop. Sorry, Mr. Mrs. Hoss, but the 10 minutes

[4:25:23] this was now okay

[4:25:27] thank you and we're sorry to to cut you off perhaps you'll get that in and some

[4:25:33] response okay so right now we have heard from the Helen's and we have heard from the applicant

[4:25:42] and are there any questions on the part of council members before we go to the public I have one

[4:25:56] Brittany, you had said that there was some changes to the back of the house that were done sometime after 1937. It wasn't clear, but that there were changes and the architect also said that, but one of the appellants said that the entire front back and sides were 100% brainer Jones, which of those is correct.

[4:26:26] I'm going to ask the city

[4:26:27] Can I look into that a little bit?

[4:26:30] Yeah.

[4:26:32] Okay.

[4:26:33] Does anybody else on the council?

[4:26:35] I'm looking for hands.

[4:26:37] It says I have one hand up,

[4:26:38] but I am so not.

[4:26:40] There it is.

[4:26:41] It's my healing.

[4:26:42] Good.

[4:26:42] Okay.

[4:26:42] Go ahead, Mike.

[4:26:44] Thank you.

[4:26:45] I was going to ask the city attorney if he could

[4:26:49] summarize the level of discretion the council has

[4:26:52] in looking at this since where we are,

[4:26:55] I believe, backing into quasi-judicial capacity,

[4:26:57] and what factors were allowed to weigh

[4:26:59] and what ones were not allowed to weigh.

[4:27:02] Mr. Dan Lee.

[4:27:03] I'd be happy to do so, Madam Mayor.

[4:27:05] May I proceed in response?

[4:27:07] Yes, of course.

[4:27:08] Thank you.

[4:27:09] So Council, I'll touch, I'll do my best to answer that.

[4:27:18] And in doing so, I'll be touching on the decision factors

[4:27:21] that I think Brittany did a great job identifying and summarizing and explaining in her presentation.

[4:27:30] So, the council, as I think you know, is sits when it's the appeal of Peel Body deciding to appeal

[4:27:41] with Denova jurisdiction, meaning it stands with the full original discretion that the original decision

[4:27:48] making body had but then the question is what was that original discretion and it's important

[4:27:54] for the council to be aware that it's limited discretion. This is if it weren't for the fact

[4:28:03] that the home is in the a street historic district this would just require a building permit

[4:28:09] but it's in the historic district and the guidelines apply that the written

[4:28:18] identified and those findings and requirements in the applicable guidelines are the

[4:28:26] bases for the council's decision making discretion on this project. So it's a

[4:28:33] conforming project in terms of its use. It's the use is an R3 project. It's a

[4:28:38] residential use that proposed use is not going to change, so it's just the conformance

[4:28:48] of the project to the applicable historic spa requirements that are before the council

[4:28:53] for decision as they were for the historical preservation committee.

[4:28:58] So those are the secretary standards, the ten rehabilitation standards that have been

[4:29:06] identified and I can run over those if that's if that's helpful again or

[4:29:11] Brittany can bring them up from her slide. They're the IZO standards. They're

[4:29:16] just three of those and interestingly those are in the negative so I'll just

[4:29:20] touch on those briefly. They're from section 15.07O and they're presented in

[4:29:27] such a way that it says that an application shall not be approved unless the

[4:29:34] proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or

[4:29:39] other features of the property or adversely affect its relationship in terms of harmony

[4:29:43] and appropriateness with its surroundings including neighboring structures or adversely

[4:29:48] affect the character or the historical architectural aesthetic interest or value of the district.

[4:29:53] So that's the second group of standards and the third and final group is what you've heard

[4:29:58] to discuss this is the issue.

[4:30:00] The history of historic district standards that Britain also identified for you, some of which are not relevant to this application. But the main ones are that note, no structure in the district is to be altered from or reconstructed in anything other than its original style. The historic district standards are very, their style conscious, their careful definitions of the different architectural styles in them. All additions, restorations,

[4:30:29] alterations and reconstructions are consistent with the structure's original design and then there's

[4:30:36] some discussion of setback attention to be given to the maintaining the rhythm of solid mass to

[4:30:41] open space along front ages, et cetera. So those are the council's bases for decision and exercise

[4:30:53] As you can see, it's not like it's a zoning amendment that we sometimes refer to those as truly discretionary and can be denied outright by the council.

[4:31:04] It's a more limited kind of review.

[4:31:06] And in terms of environmental analysis, you've probably seen, hopefully seen in the record that there's been disagreement between the applicant team.

[4:31:17] And the, and the appellant team with respect to whether the sequel review has been adequate.

[4:31:27] I support the staff contention that it has been.

[4:31:32] The letters that we received today from the appellants are, I'm sorry, from the applicants legal team and from their historic expert are, I think are very pertinent and substantive.

[4:31:45] And I think they there's good authority cited as to why not just one but arguably three exemptions apply to the project and and also there's authority cited for for the standard that really applies to consider whether the exception to the exemptions applies.

[4:32:04] And I think there's a good argument that it does not.

[4:32:08] And at least on my reading, I find, you know, Mr. Perry's arguments and the ones we heard from the appellants regarding this three to be, I think those are fairly conclusory those those arguments.

[4:32:20] Another thing that's not discussed and that the council's familiar with is the fact that and it's difficult to apply this, I grant you.

[4:32:27] and then the council is aware of this too, but since the Macorple decision, we've had

[4:32:35] to confront the fact that decision-making values like the council when it's sitting in

[4:32:41] its quasi-adjudicatory capacity at night, and that exercising limited discretion are also

[4:32:49] subject to to to to limited SQL review in the sense that that under the mccorkal case the council can only require SQL review with respect to environmental impacts that the that the council's decision making authority on that on that application permits them to to condition.

[4:33:11] And in this case, we've just reviewed, you know, I've just reviewed in a more cursory

[4:33:17] way than Brittany described for you.

[4:33:19] What those bases for decision are, those are the same ones that are the potential bases

[4:33:24] for mitigation of potential environmental impacts.

[4:33:31] And you can see how focused they are in aesthetics and how limited they are, and when you think

[4:33:37] the full range of potential environmental impacts that are addressed in an EIR.

[4:33:42] So that's not something that's been addressed in the exchange between the applicants and

[4:33:49] appellate experts, but I think it's important for us to be aware of that too in terms of what

[4:33:54] even an EIR might look like in this kind of context. It seems a little circular to me.

[4:34:02] Finally, and it's important for the council to be aware that even though it's decision-making

[4:34:12] with respect to this application is required to focus on those factors of decision, the

[4:34:21] historic guidelines, the historic spark guidelines that we've been discussing, and conditions related

[4:34:30] to those that are supported by substantial evidence in the record and in access to those findings.

[4:34:36] If the applicant, even in the absence of potential of those links, is amenable to conditions

[4:34:46] that have been sought or recommended, then that's then there's not a barrier to the council

[4:34:54] including those in its conditions on the project, so.

[4:35:00] Hopefully that's somewhat clear, and I'd be happy to answer further questions if the council has them. Thank you very much. Mr. Healey, did you want to follow up on that? No, you're good. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Brittany Brittany.

[4:35:21] Yeah, so I can I can address your question now about the rare. Let me go ahead and share my screen.

[4:35:30] because there are a few features on the rear, and I want to be sure that we're discussing.

[4:35:39] We know what we're discussing.

[4:35:41] So this is the applicant's PowerPoint presentation.

[4:35:45] I found it useful for this actual exact question.

[4:35:51] The HRE talks about a rear porch and then the rear deck and stairs.

[4:35:56] And the weird, this feature here is the porch, and this feature here is the deck and stairs

[4:36:03] that it mentions.

[4:36:05] And the Menzel Pier review discusses one that the deck and stairs, while she agrees that

[4:36:13] they were sometime after 1937, really thinks that circa 1937 is a better way to put that.

[4:36:20] So that was one kind of discussion point back and forth between the two specialists and then the men's LPR review also asserts that because this happened within

[4:36:34] Jones period of activity. It's possible that he designed it although painter then responses

[4:36:44] responds with an assertion that it's highly unlikely because he would have moved on

[4:36:51] to more lever projects by then. And then the applicant slides show the level of historic detail

[4:37:02] And the porch itself that's missing to try and kind of clarify that point here.

[4:37:10] You'll see the little bracket work underneath the window trim is done here on the side window, but it's missing from the porch.

[4:37:23] It's those detail elements that they're they're using to justify that position.

[4:37:28] And you can ask either one of the specialists if you'd like them to kind of assert their position more more than how I've described it.

[4:37:35] I was just asking whether or not there were additions to the house later than the original house in the back.

[4:37:44] Because that is what I heard and that is what you just confirmed.

[4:37:49] So that's my question. So that's fine.

[4:37:54] Councilmember Healey, do you have your hand back up?

[4:37:57] Are you okay?

[4:37:59] I have to answer that question. I'm sorry, but I don't know the right timing to.

[4:38:06] That's Diana painter speaking right there, but no, I'm satisfied with the answer to my question at this point.

[4:38:12] If someone else brings it up, we will, you know, you might be part of that response with your team.

[4:38:18] Okay.

[4:38:21] Vice Mayor Fisher.

[4:38:23] So following up on the comments by our city attorney in regard to our scope of authority here and what we can be doing and the environmental analysis and the conditions of approval so in on starting on page 19 of the staff report.

[4:38:39] There are additional conditions of approval that staff is recommending.

[4:38:44] A number of them and I'm wondering if you can clarify for me which one of those conditions we can actually impose and which have to be approved by the applicant to be able to impose.

[4:39:00] You're happy to do my best with staff's help. So let's see.

[4:39:06] So is that starting with?

[4:39:19] So,

[4:39:25] I mean, so starting with 17, I mean staff correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't, I don't see anything regarding condition 17 that has a link to the historic spa.

[4:39:44] requirements that we just have been talking about under the IZO, the secretary standards

[4:39:51] and the A-Street guidelines. Am I too disagree?

[4:39:55] That's correct.

[4:39:56] This is something that the applicant has been willing to do.

[4:40:00] So to provide some sort of additional comfort level to the appellans relative to the scope of work proposed. So the applicants has expressed willingness to accept 17 as a condition, even though we don't see a nexus to the historic spa requirements. Right. Okay. So just so is that okay as an answer for that item and vice mayor will continue going through. Looking forward. Thank you. Okay. So let's see.

[4:40:31] Well, maybe, maybe the same time,

[4:40:34] I need to want to talk about that.

[4:40:36] So, in my presentation,

[4:40:39] I raised the two conditions

[4:40:43] that the applicant has concerns over.

[4:40:46] So, let me ask that.

[4:40:48] 22 and then 28 is 22

[4:40:51] and then 28 and 29,

[4:40:53] which are specific to the tree plantings.

[4:40:56] So, with 22,

[4:40:57] I'm really the concern was just clarification that this was let's say 22 is the project applicant will provide copies of the grading and reading drainage plans excavation plan foundation plan water proofing plan, etc.

[4:41:13] The concern here is wanting to ensure that the appellans understand that they can't necessarily pull those back from being approved by the city, but it's more a communication gesture and then also wanting to omit the floor plans from those plan packages for the privacy of the homeowners.

[4:41:38] So, so maybe that latter bit should be should be expressly added, but I think, you know, 22 as it's written now just talks about providing those copies and that doesn't create any new discretionary approval of this counselor or any other body, right?

[4:41:58] So, you know, if the, if in, in satisfying that condition, the information is provided and there's neighborhood objections, there they're not going to be.

[4:42:10] Those objections wouldn't be a basis for somehow revisiting project approvals if the project is in fact approved.

[4:42:18] Right.

[4:42:21] Anyway, that's my view.

[4:42:22] So, and the next one was section number 28.

[4:42:35] So I see I mean, it might be I want to make sure that it's not misnumbered in the stock award. I have 27 and 28 on the. Yeah, so do I. Okay.

[4:42:46] Or seems to be a duplication of 17 and 18.

[4:42:50] Okay, yeah, that's in touch. That's right. So starting with 27 then.

[4:42:55] on page 20.

[4:42:59] Again, I don't see any nexus to any of the historic

[4:43:02] spa requirements for that. Do you disagree, Bernie?

[4:43:15] Relative to the standards of review that we've discussed now.

[4:43:19] Yes. You don't disagree?

[4:43:23] No. I don't disagree.

[4:43:25] Okay. So in other words, I think if the council were to condition that

[4:43:30] And that would require the applicant to be agreeable to accepting that.

[4:43:37] And then I would say the same with respect to 28, only more so in terms of the, you know,

[4:43:47] not just the planning, but then deed restrictions, I find no basis for requiring any of those

[4:43:52] things.

[4:43:53] And in the historic spot requirements,

[4:43:58] any disagreement, Brittany?

[4:44:00] And I would say the same with respect to some of the comments where you haven't even presented

[4:44:06] them as a condition.

[4:44:07] I don't think but even more so for the proposal that I think at least one of the opponents

[4:44:13] mentioned about seeking some kind of some kind of actual security, you know, if there's

[4:44:20] some kind of, I'll say the general matter, if there's some kind of damage that results

[4:44:24] to neighboring properties like subsidence or other property damages as a result of this project

[4:44:30] work, if it's if it's approved by the council to go forward, that's going to be a basis of

[4:44:34] civil liability for the for the applicant that would also be a basis for affected property owners

[4:44:42] to, you know, make claims against their insurance. So that's the mechanism to address that, but I

[4:44:48] there's nothing in that historic spa requirements that would give a basis for the council to to

[4:44:53] to require that as a condition if the applicant was not agreeable.

[4:44:58] Great.

[4:44:58] Thank you very much.

[4:44:59] Sure.

[4:45:00] Thank you. Okay, thank you. I don't see any other questions from council members, so I'm going to ask our, we're going to, this is a public hearing and we're going to go to public comment right now, and I'm going to ask our city clerk if she's received any public comment. Mayor Barrett, we received 23 public comments prior to tonight's meeting, all of which have been posted to the website. Okay, thank you.

[4:45:29] and now I'm going to ask our moderator Aaron to see if there's people in attendance who want

[4:45:38] to speak to this issue. Now I'm assuming there's going to be a number of you who do want to speak

[4:45:46] to this because as has been mentioned there's been a lot of community involvement in this issue.

[4:45:53] I would really ask you, given the time of day right now, if someone has already said what you wanted to say, please just say me too.

[4:46:08] But, you know, please do not just be repetitive.

[4:46:11] So if you have something new to add that has not been covered by the appellants or by the applicant, you're more than welcome to speak but, you know, I just want you to be

[4:46:25] observant of our time on this issue.

[4:46:28] So Mr. Moderator.

[4:46:32] Thank you Madam Mayor. During public comment, the public is invited to make comments on items

[4:46:37] of public interest that are within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction and for

[4:46:42] this specific agenda item. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person. At

[4:46:47] this time, anyone in the public that would like to speak of this item, please raise your hand.

[4:46:53] Madam Mayor, I see one hand raised so far.

[4:47:00] Just as I says that, we have a few more. So to

[4:47:04] start. I will have Susan Kirk's followed by Lawrence. Susan, I'm allowing you to speak.

[4:47:11] You can unmute yourself in the end.

[4:47:16] Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

[4:47:20] I am Susan Kirk's, Pedal and the resident. I was a recent candidate for City Council and I really

[4:47:27] wish I was sitting with you this evening because I think that this is a really a pivotal issue being

[4:47:34] heard at 11.37 at night. And I think it carries many, many implications for the citizens of

[4:47:43] our community. And I'm really pleased to be able to make a few comments. I'd like to acknowledge

[4:47:50] the appellants and the who are the neighbors, who would be the neighbors to the houses if and when

[4:47:57] and they move into this amazing home.

[4:48:02] And I think that's something to really keep in mind

[4:48:04] that these are the neighbors.

[4:48:06] These are the residents of the historic district there

[4:48:10] who have devoted their lives and are raising their families

[4:48:14] and really enjoy their quality of life

[4:48:19] and enjoy what being in a historic district is.

[4:48:22] And I don't think it could be understated

[4:48:25] that the excavation from underneath this house is massive.

[4:48:30] It's the equivalent of two middle-class homes

[4:48:34] being excavated from underneath this historic home

[4:48:39] within a few feet of other historic residences.

[4:48:45] And I note that Mr. Danley mentioned that there was a disagreement

[4:48:52] between the applicant and the appellant on the CEQA

[4:48:57] extension and the CEQA review.

[4:48:59] And I'd ask you to take note of that.

[4:49:02] And I do believe with the ICO mentions by Mr. Danley

[4:49:06] that you could find that all of those

[4:49:10] would be creating adverse effects.

[4:49:13] Also, I'd like to say that it's

[4:49:20] not that the Hosses

[4:49:22] are not welcomed in Petalima, of course they would be, but I was not persuaded by Mr.

[4:49:28] Wolperts reasoning for there not being the required community outreach. That just

[4:49:34] simply isn't acceptable. And as leaders of our city, I think you have to consider all

[4:49:40] of these factors and that home. And what it means to excavate the equivalent of two

[4:49:47] middle class houses from underneath the head house and the potential environmental impacts

[4:49:54] including to three root systems, and to other

[4:50:00] Unnones for these families who live within 10 feet of who their neighbors would be. I hope that you can come to a decision so that there can be a harmonious outcome. I think that's really important. And thank you for accepting my comment.

[4:50:20] Thank you.

[4:50:24] So the next thing we have is Lawrence, followed by Kit. Lawrence, I'm now allowing you to speak. You can unmute yourself in the end. Well, thank you for this opportunity to present.

[4:50:36] my case or observations, I as a very, very near neighbor to the perspective remodel and very,

[4:50:48] very concerned by the city's application of responsibility of having an independent non-biased

[4:50:58] source that is a environmental impact done by the government into the excavation.

[4:51:08] This has been mentioned a number of times I'm going to limit my comments to that.

[4:51:12] That is my main concern.

[4:51:13] I am within five foot of that property.

[4:51:16] Thank you.

[4:51:20] Thank you.

[4:51:27] The last hand up we have is Kit.

[4:51:29] I will now allow you to speak.

[4:51:31] You can unmute yourself in the end.

[4:51:33] Hi.

[4:51:33] My kid, Slick is my wife, I'm Steve Slick, she is ill tonight and I would like you to permit me to read her statement.

[4:51:41] Madam Mayor, City Council members and city manager, my name is Kit Slick, I've been a part of Heritage Homes since 2004 and served as president for two of those years.

[4:51:52] I also serve on the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee as the representative from the Petaluma Museum Association.

[4:51:58] This last July of the HCPC approved a proposal for the changes at 26th Street.

[4:52:06] Reflecting back on our decision, I regret my vote for approval.

[4:52:10] I believe this remodel will set the negative precedent for how we treat our historic neighborhoods.

[4:52:15] There's a larger issue here that we pet allumans should discuss.

[4:52:18] Our most recent general plan encourages smart growth for infill projects in the city core.

[4:52:24] I support that vision for the most part, especially in commercial areas.

[4:52:29] But in some historic neighborhoods, many lots are small and or narrow.

[4:52:34] And so adding two story additions and accessory dwelling units, ADUs, creates negative and

[4:52:40] effects on neighbors.

[4:52:41] Every two story addition and ADU impacts the privacy and natural light for multiple neighboring

[4:52:47] households.

[4:52:48] Unfortunately, there's nothing in our building code that prohibits this kind of new construction.

[4:52:51] A number of some recent proposals before the committee have caused grief for petal and

[4:52:56] miscitizens living in several neighborhoods, including John Maher, known as Petal and

[4:53:01] McPete and his wife Brenda.

[4:53:03] As petal and miscitizens work to update the general plan, I hope better consideration is

[4:53:09] made to providing restrictions for ADUs in historic neighborhoods, depending on height, lot size

[4:53:15] and proximity to neighbors.

[4:53:16] But in the short term, I advise rejecting the proposed renovations to 26th Street.

[4:53:23] And I support neighboring residents in their request that this project be scaled down

[4:53:27] to lessen its impact on others.

[4:53:30] Thank you.

[4:53:33] Thank you.

[4:53:35] The next speaker we have is Helen, followed by Ali.

[4:53:39] Helen, I will allow you to speak.

[4:53:41] You can unmute the speaker.

[4:53:45] Hello.

[4:53:45] Hello, my name's Ellen Halfaway. My family and I live in Petaluma the last 20 years. We live in a historic home. I just want to echo my support for the public comments that have come before me and also just say it's unfortunate that this is taking place this evening at such a late hour because I think that there would be a multitude of people such as myself who have young children or elderly and not able to stay up to

[4:54:15] to midnight to voice their support

[4:54:19] of scaling back this project or stopping it.

[4:54:23] And I also just hope for prudence.

[4:54:26] What is the rush, you know,

[4:54:27] that there was not the public,

[4:54:31] was not made aware of this

[4:54:32] and why are we rushing it through?

[4:54:37] Let's take a pause.

[4:54:39] Thank you for your time.

[4:54:43] Thank you.

[4:54:44] Next speaker we have is Halle Cates, allow you to speak. You can unmute yourself and begin.

[4:54:53] Hello mayor and council members. My name is Allie Cates and I am a member.

[4:55:00] I really like to call myself a member because I really do love what Petaluma is and the community that is created around Petaluma is huge and to make such a big issue over the hauses coming into Petaluma and specifically with their project is just a disservice to the community.

[4:55:22] This family is upholds so many, so many amazing values and I think that we should welcome them into our town.

[4:55:33] I think that the city of Petaluma has bigger things that we can be working on and to be honest everything that as as a neighbor in this area of where they are doing their building.

[4:55:49] I do not echo the same beliefs that have come before me about that this is going to be a huge project or that it's going to impose on other neighbors like, yes, whenever there is any construction does you're going to hear the noise and the construction.

[4:56:06] but that's what happens when we are building up our community.

[4:56:10] So I just really urge you to consider how incredible these individuals are

[4:56:14] and that they're coming into uphold this community and its values.

[4:56:19] And that is the reason why my husband and I moved to Petaluma

[4:56:22] and while we want to start a family in Petaluma

[4:56:24] is because we love the values of Petaluma.

[4:56:27] So let's uphold those.

[4:56:29] Thank you.

[4:56:35] Thank you.

[4:56:36] The next speaker we have is Janice Kier Thompson. Janice, I'll allow you to speak.

[4:56:40] You can unmute yourself and begin.

[4:56:45] I just want to voice support for this project.

[4:56:53] Thank you.

[4:56:59] The next speaker we have is NR and R. I will unmute you or allow you to speak.

[4:57:05] You can unmute and begin to speak. Thanks. I just wanted to again reiterate some of the comments.

[4:57:13] I want to support this project by the Hosses.

[4:57:18] There are several presidents that are disturbing to me.

[4:57:21] Number one is the mischaracterization and misinformation campaign by the neighbors.

[4:57:27] It's extremely disturbing to me as a resident.

[4:57:31] And two, if the city has approved this,

[4:57:36] we should be fighting to change the laws if we have a problem with that.

[4:57:39] We shouldn't be fighting the neighbors.

[4:57:41] I feel that the experts that spoke tonight and all of the information that's been submitted are by experts who've taken every, they've taken their time.

[4:57:53] They've researched this and I'm in full support and I don't want to take them any more time other than to voice my support. Thanks.

[4:58:04] Thank you.

[4:58:06] out of the air at this point,

[4:58:07] I do not see any other hands raised.

[4:58:12] Thank you very much.

[4:58:13] And with that, we will close the public comment

[4:58:15] and we'll bring it back to the council.

[4:58:18] I just like to ask the council to weigh in.

[4:58:23] I think it's important, especially in a case like this,

[4:58:27] which seems kind of controversial

[4:58:29] in that there's been so much community involvement,

[4:58:32] that if people have had meetings with people who are involved in this, it would be nice for the council to make that known.

[4:58:45] And saying so, I will say that I have been to the site. I did walk the site with the architect. I met the horses, but very briefly they just came out to introduce themselves.

[4:58:59] and went back to where they're living on the site.

[4:59:05] And I did walk around the whole thing.

[4:59:08] I have been back to the site several times,

[4:59:13] but not on the site.

[4:59:15] I haven't been trespassing. Don't worry.

[4:59:17] But I have been going by and just checking it out

[4:59:22] from what I'm reading and looking at in these pictures.

[4:59:26] So I just wanted to disclose that.

[4:59:30] So I don't know if other council members want to do that.

[4:59:34] Or if we just want to get right into the conversation about this,

[4:59:38] this project.

[4:59:40] Well, I will say that I did call the architect when I first heard,

[4:59:45] um, several, maybe two months ago,

[4:59:47] that, you know, what was happening in the neighborhood and had a discussion with him about,

[4:59:52] about what was happening.

[4:59:55] and met with him again today and have been to the site number of times.

[5:00:00] I'm starting three years ago. Okay. And did I see a hand from Mr. Kerney? Yeah, Madam Mayor, I live in the neighborhood. So I've been by the site numerous times. I've not walked the site with the architect. I'm not met with a host family nor have I met with any of the appellants. I've just read the volumes that have been presented by our staff or are meeting this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember King,

[5:00:28] followed by council member Miller.

[5:00:32] Just amount of mayor.

[5:00:34] I too have been by that street, you know, somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 times, I suppose.

[5:00:42] I'm a resident of six street further up the road quite a bit.

[5:00:46] And my office is not far from there.

[5:00:50] I have not been on the property.

[5:00:51] I did walk over to just see.

[5:00:55] what would be dealing with one morning, as with you, I did not trust pass or go beyond that.

[5:01:02] In fact, I'm not sure if I cross the street.

[5:01:05] I did have a brief conversation with, or Peter Kowski on the issue of continuance of this request that we not continue this two or three weeks ago.

[5:01:16] I would estimate that conversation was about three minutes.

[5:01:18] I have not talked to the appellants or the applicants, specifically about the project.

[5:01:31] I imagine I have received the same emails that all of us have received and communications

[5:01:39] from the public, obviously the staff report.

[5:01:46] I didn't want to make a comment about the timing.

[5:01:49] We had a couple of people comment on this.

[5:01:51] No one is wild about being here at 11-30 or whatever the time of the night.

[5:01:57] The staff, I can tell you, is not happy about this.

[5:02:00] The council probably would prefer to deal with this at an earlier hour.

[5:02:04] Unfortunately, when we have the type of agendas that we have,

[5:02:09] it takes time.

[5:02:10] There are other pressing matters with the city.

[5:02:13] and we unfortunately frequently find ourselves moving into the next day so I apologize to those

[5:02:22] of you that are inconvenienced by this but that's unfortunately the way the council rolls

[5:02:30] these days so anyway those are my comments for the moment about that subject.

[5:02:34] Thank you. Councilmember Miller, followed by Heather Hines.

[5:02:44] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've been by the site. I've looked at it. I've not walked

[5:02:49] aside or met with the appellants or applicants regarding this project. I did have a brief conversation

[5:02:57] with Mr. Petrovsky about pushing the item into a later on to a later date but that's been the

[5:03:08] extent of my conversation with anybody affiliated with this project regarding the project. Thank you.

[5:03:18] Heather, hi.

[5:03:19] Madam Mayor, I just wanted to remind that about rebuttals for the appellant and the applicants once

[5:03:26] you're done with, X partake communication. Thank you. And council member MacDonald follow my council member he'll

[5:03:36] Thank you. I too have had that same one three-minute phone call with the applicant's attorney regarding scheduling

[5:03:44] but I do walk by here every other day in four years and notice all the construction and it's no

[5:03:52] I wonder if there's a sensitivity for instruction in the neighborhood.

[5:03:55] There's been investment and that means traffic issues and noise issues.

[5:04:02] And we can see why we get tiresome.

[5:04:04] Thank you.

[5:04:06] Okay, Mr. Healy.

[5:04:08] Yeah, likewise, I've been by the site.

[5:04:12] I went by to try to spot the story polls.

[5:04:17] I've not been on the site.

[5:04:19] I've not spoken with the applicant or the appellants, and I have had the same three-minute phone

[5:04:26] conversation with our venture caske regarding scheduling. That's it. Okay, thank you. So now is the

[5:04:34] time for the rebuttals or the final comments, so we will start with the appellants and then the applicant.

[5:04:46] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I'm Jason Beatty. I will start the appellance for

[5:04:51] butthole. First, let us thank you, Madam Mayor, council member, city manager, and city

[5:04:56] staff for your service to the community on these many layers.

[5:05:00] And thank you to the members of the community who took time out of their busy and stressful lives to be engaged and provide comment on this project. Yes, we have concerns with impacts as the immediate neighbors concerns of impacts for our own homes during construction impacts to privacy and enjoyment of our spaces and impacts to our lives while we're sheltering in our homes, working and schooling our children while a major construction project occurs next door. But what will impact us more if this project has passed as proposed?

[5:05:29] Those will be the lost interest in faith we have in the city following its established processes and the fair and consistent, consistent application of established standards to protect the community's interest and resources.

[5:05:43] We are disappointed in hearing that some council met with the applicants but not appellants.

[5:05:49] We've outlined how the developer skipped required public outreach requirements.

[5:05:54] How this left a gap in information for the HCPC and staff to consider when making the recommendations

[5:06:00] and decisions. We've explained how a established preserved petaluma, which now has about 50 members,

[5:06:07] to complete this public outreach and provide information that was included in the approved

[5:06:11] historic spa application and the architectural drawings. This was not misinformation.

[5:06:16] information, just information that the developer did not share with the community and the neighborhood prior to the first public hearing on the project.

[5:06:23] Without lying how much of this commentary is from community members, well versus historic preservation, or who recognize the value of our historic districts.

[5:06:32] We have invited Ms. Brunzel an experience and qualified architectural historian to review the project, and she provided a separate opinion of its non compliance to the standards to which this project should adhere.

[5:06:44] less parry and experience attorneys specializing in land use provided you and the city's attorney a legal opinion that the category exemptions applied to avoid further seek review for this project are erroneous.

[5:06:59] And that with conflicting professional opinion there is a requirement for the city the purveyors of the application of Sequa for this project to complete a more rigorous see per review.

[5:07:08] What is the real harm in taking this extra step in putting the city's concerns first?

[5:07:14] If it is truly not a significant impact to a short resource, the project can proceed.

[5:07:19] Or if it is a significant impact as proposed, it can be reduced in scale or scope.

[5:07:24] It is in the best interest of the petal and the community to take time for due diligence in this matter and soundly establish the correct path forward.

[5:07:33] The developer will likely raise issue with fairness to the length of this process.

[5:07:37] I contend that this has taken five months to get to this point in a large part due to the

[5:07:42] developer's noncompliance with the required neighborhood outreach. For the developer,

[5:07:47] this project has been in the works for two years, plenty of time for the proper neighborhood outreach

[5:07:52] meeting to occur prior to COVID. Since COVID hit, the community has become well-versed in virtual meetings

[5:07:58] and work around to share information. The other HCPC hearing on the same night held the required

[5:08:04] neighborhood outreach meeting. This project appeal most likely would not be before you but compliance with the city resolution for public outreach been upheld.

[5:08:13] We understand and acknowledge that there are far more pressing pressing issues in our community at this moment, many of which have delayed this hearing and coming before council.

[5:08:22] But this matter demands Petaluma's attention today for this precedent that sets for tomorrow.

[5:08:28] There's no doubt that approving the project as proposed will set a lower bar for

[5:08:33] historic preservation and environmental review within Petaluma's historic districts.

[5:08:38] The districts that are established to protect the resource for the community.

[5:08:41] A district that includes 77 properties that are, quote, a distinctively representative

[5:08:47] of slides that Petal Williams passed in a nearly untouched condition.

[5:08:51] While the staff report, the media coverage and the developers proposed modifications continue

[5:08:56] to frame this matter as a neighbor to neighbor dispute, we contend as we have all along that

[5:09:02] its impacts reach far beyond them.

[5:09:04] This is about historic preservation.

[5:09:07] We ask you to look how this project aligns with the general plan, the long established standards

[5:09:11] and intent of the A3 guidelines, and the Secretary of Interior's guidelines when considering

[5:09:16] your decision. Tonight you decide on the significance of the historic preservation for petal

[5:09:21] lima. I would like now to ask if Lesbari would like to clarify the sequel position.

[5:09:31] Thank you, Jason. It's always a pleasure to discuss

[5:09:33] sequel issues with Mr. Danley. We have some issues, some history, all friendly, of course.

[5:09:41] But I do take issue with his explanation of how these exemptions and

[5:09:46] and exceptions should be applied.

[5:09:49] With regards to an exception, it's really a two-step process.

[5:09:53] The first step of whether an exception applies the exemption, this is typical SQL talk.

[5:10:02] The first step is whether the exception applies. Does that historical exception apply? On that issue, whether this is an historic resource, Mr. Dan Lee's analysis, I believe, is correct. And that is you have discretion to weigh the evidence and decide. However, here, it's not disputed. This is an historic resource. Everybody admits that.

[5:10:26] the applicant's experts all conceived that this is an historic resource. Once that's established,

[5:10:34] I submit the law is in fact clear that then the issue is whether there's any substantial evidence

[5:10:40] from which you can be fairly argued that the project may have a significant impact on that resource.

[5:10:46] It's the fair argument standard once you get to that second step and we submit there's obviously

[5:10:53] There's an abundance of evidence that this project, as proposed, may cause a significant

[5:11:02] impact to this historic resource. The authority that was alluded to in the presentation and

[5:11:09] by the applicant's attorney is the Berkeley case, the City of Berkeley case, and that case was

[5:11:18] really about the unusual circumstance exemption rather than a store, but it actually supports

[5:11:26] the position I'm presenting. It says at the very end of that decision, and I quote,

[5:11:34] that court continued, once the resource has been determined to be an historic resource,

[5:11:40] then the fair argument standard applies to the question of whether the proposed

[5:11:47] this project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource

[5:11:54] and thereby have a significant effect.

[5:11:57] This discussion supports the conclusion that if the exemption applies is established

[5:12:03] and agency should apply the fair argument standard in determining whether there is a reasonable

[5:12:09] possibility that the circumstances will produce an adverse change.

[5:12:13] So, it's complicated, it's subtle,

[5:12:18] seek with stuff, but I submit that it is apparent

[5:12:23] that on the issue in front of you,

[5:12:25] whether this project is gonna have an adverse impact

[5:12:28] on the resource based upon the guidelines,

[5:12:31] based upon the secretary standards,

[5:12:34] issues determined based upon a fair argument

[5:12:36] and if there's any evidence, then the exception

[5:12:39] applies and the exemption does not.

[5:12:43] Thank you.

[5:12:47] Is there anyone else from the aqua team that's going to use your last few minutes?

[5:12:54] No, okay.

[5:12:56] So then we will move to the applicant.

[5:13:11] No one likes construction next door to their house and we get that.

[5:13:17] There should be some comfort taken in the fact that there's an excellent team.

[5:13:23] of consultants and construction people involved with this project that have a proven track record for doing excellent projects.

[5:13:36] I'm still stunned by how this 585 square foot addition is blown out into some mansion or big dig project.

[5:13:48] there were comments about it being a two-story addition, which it's not. There were comments

[5:13:56] about us being a developer. We're not a developer. At every step we've been demonized and I think

[5:14:11] It has just been a lot of misrepresentation.

[5:14:15] It was mentioned, the council members that went by and looked at the project, I'm glad

[5:14:21] you did, but I want to say, and the appellants are saying that there wasn't enough outreach

[5:14:29] in all this time since the ACPC meeting, not one person, no, I think that about one person

[5:14:37] from the public has contacted me to ask questions aside from the council members. Nobody has reached out to me to ask me anything about this project and I'd be happy to meet with them or talk with them on the phone.

[5:14:55] And I'm curious and asking and talking to the...

[5:15:01] Ms. Brunzel has never met them, or they have never met her, and I have to wonder how much detailed information about the historic integrity of the back of the house that you get if she's never been in the backyard. And if she has, how did she manage to do that without the horses knowing that.

[5:15:24] And there seems to be some magic way that you can do an addition to a house, a historic

[5:15:31] house without touching the house or removing any of the historic fabric of the house.

[5:15:39] We know that's not possible.

[5:15:41] When you do an addition, it's going to be seen.

[5:15:44] and so you do it with all the sensitivity that you can.

[5:15:50] I have experience with historic districts,

[5:15:53] with additions and remodels.

[5:15:56] I think they've turned out well,

[5:15:59] and the contractor has excellent experience

[5:16:02] doing work in the historic districts.

[5:16:05] So this is not a massive project.

[5:16:09] It's an addition on one story with some debts.

[5:16:14] and the big issue, but the dirt is all underneath the house, and they're from the geotech reports

[5:16:25] and hydraulic reports. There's no indication that it's going to cause any damage to any

[5:16:32] of the surrounding properties. The contractor is bonded and has insurance, the houses have insurance,

[5:16:40] And should there be any damage caused during construction, it would be taken care of.

[5:16:48] But I'd like to think that reasonable minds will prevail.

[5:16:52] And as petal humans, we can go back to being neighbors.

[5:16:59] I don't know if there's anyone else from the team that would want to speak at this point, but I'm complete.

[5:17:06] perhaps Mrs. Haas would like to finish her comment that she got cut off. She has one minute left.

[5:17:15] You're on mute.

[5:17:22] I'm going to make it quick. I was just going to say that our mothers lived into the 90s. Reason why we wanted to live here.

[5:17:30] We saw them how isolating isolating it was for them when they quit driving.

[5:17:36] So we looked and found a house that was within walking distance of much of what this city offers and that we could achieve a floor plan where everyday activities basically could be on one level.

[5:17:52] We have outlined in our December 14th letter what and how we want to accomplish that.

[5:17:58] And, you know, I just got to say, I love this city.

[5:18:02] I mean, I was born in Nevada and I love Petaluma.

[5:18:07] My dad worked here when I was a kid.

[5:18:14] Yeah, he said that this was the place to live.

[5:18:17] Back in the 70s, he sold real estate as a retirement job.

[5:18:21] And he said this was the.

[5:18:23] Sorry to have to do this again, Mrs.

[5:18:24] It's possible, but that is five minutes.

[5:18:28] Okay, sorry about that, but I think we got your point.

[5:18:32] So with that, I'm going to bring it back to the council for discussion and action.

[5:18:43] Seeing council vice mayor Fisher is raised your hand.

[5:18:47] Yeah, I have a question for the for the appellans.

[5:18:52] Well, it is after midnight. Sorry.

[5:18:55] What do you hope to learn by requesting more

[5:18:59] SQL analysis?

[5:19:00] Because when I look at all the studies have been

[5:19:03] done and everything I've read about the

[5:19:06] hydrology report and the geotechnical report,

[5:19:09] which I mean,

[5:19:10] I don't really fathom it or understand,

[5:19:13] but I'm wondering what more information

[5:19:16] would you be given

[5:19:18] and that would help create a fuller picture for you

[5:19:25] in terms of environmental analysis

[5:19:28] that hasn't already been done.

[5:19:30] Could I just make the point briefly

[5:19:32] that the hydrology report is expired

[5:19:35] and it was done on the ADU for the ADU project,

[5:19:38] not on the construction project in this house.

[5:19:42] So I just wanna, everyone keeps referring to that.

[5:19:45] The report does say that it's risky,

[5:19:47] the contractor said it's risky and the hydrology report says that small

[5:19:51] sands will be pulled out from underneath our houses by the pumps. So to say

[5:19:56] that it's not risky, everybody says it is risky.

[5:20:00] And that is a misinterpretation of the hydrology report.

[5:20:06] Councilmember Fisher, I think what we've been trying to point out is that we feel that this project is a significant adverse impact to the historic resource that these changes, especially the rear dormer being removed in this upper level deck. I think that is, I can ask, um, carrot to speak again, but that being removed is a significant adverse impact.

[5:20:32] to the resource as well as the other items there.

[5:20:36] So with that, you would have to reduce scale

[5:20:39] in order to make it not a significant adverse impact.

[5:20:45] Thank you.

[5:20:47] Thank you.

[5:20:51] Okay, Mr. Healy.

[5:20:56] Thank you.

[5:20:57] So I just want to preface this by saying that I'm actually

[5:21:00] someone who came out of the historic preservation community

[5:21:03] in Pateloma. In the early 90s, I was a vice president of Heritage Alms for a period of time.

[5:21:10] And in the late 80s, I was one of four neighbors who spearheaded the petition drive to get what's

[5:21:17] now the Brewster Oak Hill historic district adopted by the city. So I'm very supportive of historic

[5:21:26] preservation in our community. At the same time, I actually agree with the analysis in the staff

[5:21:32] report. I think the way the historic districts were promoted among the homeowners and we got

[5:21:42] the homeowners to agree to put the the ask the city council at the time to put that in place

[5:21:48] was that it was really limited to exterior changes especially facing the street or visible from

[5:21:55] this free. And I think this proposal is doing its very best to honor that. And so I do share the points, I do support the staff recommendation.

[5:22:08] And then on the sequel point, you know, the city attorney talked about the mccorkl case, which we are all unfortunately more familiar with than we want to be my least favorite published decision ever.

[5:22:22] And so the the the sequel question is not the normal one. It's would would sequel in form any issue over which the city council has discretion to change something and Eric you can probably articulate that better than I can, but I just don't see it here.

[5:22:41] So that would be my those would be my comments at this point.

[5:22:46] Thank you.

[5:22:47] council member King. Thank you Madam Mayor and since we are examining the

[5:22:55] field I just I want to thank the staff for its very detailed report I reviewed

[5:22:59] it several times and the 29 attachments as well which contained a lot of

[5:23:08] interesting information. I'm not saying that my usual wise guy kind of way I

[5:23:16] I did read it into order to try to get informed about this with a number of these issues we have doing experts both on the law and the nature of the historical preservation districts in this particular project.

[5:23:30] But in looking at the entirety of what's been presented to us, including what we heard tonight.

[5:23:35] These are my my conclusions.

[5:23:38] conditions. I will be voting to deny the appeal. I agree with the staff recommendations

[5:23:45] and in particular special conditions. With the exception of 28 and 29, which would

[5:23:53] need to be modified, 28 is the planning of trees. My understanding is that that would

[5:24:01] be acceptable if it was on the baby property at the Haas expense, I would go along with that and

[5:24:08] that would make number 29 moot, which is the deed the trees care as part of the deed restriction.

[5:24:19] We have the committee, the historical and cultural preservation committee

[5:24:27] It was 5-0 at the time adjusted to 4-1 in the aftermath.

[5:24:33] I know that they take these matters quite seriously and are well versed.

[5:24:40] So I do rely a bit on that. I know this is a denouable appeal.

[5:24:46] The underlying construction will need to meet our city standards throughout, including the excavation.

[5:24:54] There's been some concern about insurance and liability as their family has pointed out.

[5:25:00] And I think it's pretty, pretty common. If there are problems of that nature, the houses potentially could be liable. And that can be dealt with in the court system. So I would not add on anything along those lines. Getting to sequel.

[5:25:25] I'm going to, I'm going to go with the direction of our city attorney.

[5:25:29] on this and I appreciate the the experts from Mr. Perry and the letter from

[5:25:36] Sharp's is that freeze law firm in the city and I concur with council member

[5:25:44] Healy about the corkall case not being a particular favorite of ours but I do

[5:25:51] not believe that an environmental impact report is required for this individual

[5:25:56] house.

[5:26:00] I believe the remainder of the items are pretty well addressed by that, because that's

[5:26:06] mine. That's where I'll be voting. Thank you. Councilmember Kerney followed by Councilmember McDonald.

[5:26:15] Was that at all a motion at all coming out of Councilmember Kerney? No, that wasn't. We're still in

[5:26:20] discussion. Okay, so I would echo his comments. I looking at the argument being made about the

[5:26:28] exterior, the rear of the house. I just I don't see I don't see the argument holding up as far as

[5:26:37] the talent goes. What's been a little disturbing in this conversation is the houses are two folks are

[5:26:46] are dealing with just this one house, but they keep being referred to as the developer,

[5:26:52] the developer developer, and it almost is an attempt to dehumanize the fact that these are

[5:26:58] people are just trying to make this house work for them while at the same time preserving

[5:27:05] the historical nature of the house. And so it's alarming for me and it doesn't sit well for me that

[5:27:13] the way that's been handled, but I don't think that the arguments have made the threshold

[5:27:19] for me to overturn the ruling of the HCPC at this time.

[5:27:27] Thank you.

[5:27:29] Councilmember MacDonald.

[5:27:32] Thank you.

[5:27:35] I do have an empathy for the magnitude of that underground construction and what it would

[5:27:40] I mean, for trucks and things, but I don't see it falling under where we're headed here,

[5:27:46] and certainly it has been a long period with opportunity for modification between the parties,

[5:27:52] and there's been discussions and changes on the project, which is always what we like

[5:27:58] to see in a difficult project as it goes forward.

[5:28:04] And it's nice. I think I'll concur with the lawyers on the council here on the CEQA issues and I do appreciate the survey condition in there than the condition of approval.

[5:28:22] And then just to comment on the historical, I think it was a four-row vote that went to three-one.

[5:28:29] But yeah, I think they got it right on this one. Thank you.

[5:28:36] Thank you.

[5:28:37] Vice Mayor Fisher.

[5:28:40] So I want to say that somebody else said earlier that I think it was the architect.

[5:28:45] The Wilbur who said that the initial outreach to the community could have been better.

[5:28:50] And I think that's probably where things broke down pretty significantly.

[5:28:55] And I agree, you know, we are in the middle of a pandemic.

[5:28:58] We are all every day trying to figure out how to navigate this environment.

[5:29:03] And, you know, I don't think it was intentional, but I do think when you look at the record that the negativity just sort of skyrocketed from there.

[5:29:14] And I really appreciate the applicant and their willingness to listen to the community and their concerns initially and get rid of the sun room and make other concessions.

[5:29:24] modifications and I think the architect did a great job of showing it on the plans that was

[5:29:30] really easy for me to understand what the House looked like in 2018, with the with the other

[5:29:36] body approved, and then what we're looking at now. And so I in fact will be voting as the others are

[5:29:47] and with the addition of condition number 22, as we mentioned, just wanting us not to forget to

[5:29:58] I admit the floor plan I got.

[5:30:00] I do think that's a good idea, and I think for privacy reasons, although I learned a lot about the floor plans already and what they look like. So, I feel like I know the house. And I think with that, I'll leave it to the next person. Thank you. Councilmember Miller, did you have anything you wanted to weigh in on with this one?

[5:30:23] No, I agree with what's been said by the previous council members and I will support staff report on this.

[5:30:31] Thank you. I appreciate that. So I will just weigh in and that I really think what Vice Mayor Fisher said really is the crux of the problem with this project.

[5:30:45] I have been a long time advocate of getting community meetings together when you're doing

[5:30:54] a development or when you're doing a remodel, whatever, because you really solve a lot

[5:30:59] of the problems early on.

[5:31:02] And whatever the reason for that not happening, I think it created this massive rebound effect

[5:31:11] that is I believe out of proportion with what is being asked here.

[5:31:20] You know, I do understand the directly related neighbors have concerned.

[5:31:26] But there's been a larger than life response to this that does not seem warranted.

[5:31:33] And I am a survivor of a very, very bitter infill project

[5:31:41] from my time on the planning commission on D Street

[5:31:46] between two neighbors who I believe both moved away from their houses

[5:31:52] within a year of the decision.

[5:31:55] So, you know, that was really a loose, loose.

[5:31:58] And I would really, really like to see this be a win-win.

[5:32:02] And I think that that's going to take effort on the part of everybody involved in this appeal and in the application.

[5:32:11] And it really is up to you because I do think that they, I believe there were tremendous amount of city resources that were put into this that could have been much better used.

[5:32:24] and we are here moving into 1230 at night to be discussing something that probably could have been taken care of early on.

[5:32:36] So I hope this is a lesson learned if nothing else.

[5:32:39] And with that I will entertain a motion and I would like to ask one of our departing council members if they would like to do that.

[5:32:48] And I saw councilmember Kerney raised his hand.

[5:32:50] Madam Mayor, I will move to support the staff report denying the appeal.

[5:32:58] Does it mean?

[5:32:59] And do you want to make the change that was referred to about in a condition of approval 22 that omits the interior plans?

[5:33:10] Yeah, then was I'm sorry. Was there another recommendation on 28?

[5:33:15] Yes.

[5:33:15] Yes, and 29 and 29 so we incorporated the changes to 22 28 29 as well.

[5:33:22] Thank you.

[5:33:23] And then I'll second Madam Mayor.

[5:33:26] Thank you.

[5:33:26] Okay, so we have a motion by Kerney and a second by Miller and we will councilmember Kerney.

[5:33:36] Are you I mean, no, a healy? Are you raising your hand?

[5:33:39] Yeah, please. I heard it is 28 and 29. In my reading, it looks like it's more 27 and 28, but I'm a little confused on.

[5:33:53] Really? Yeah, I have trouble finding the raised hand button myself.

[5:33:59] I did go back and confirm it's 28 and 29 in the resolution and misprint is in the staff report.

[5:34:06] Okay, it's 24 to 27. Yeah.

[5:34:10] Good. Well, at least we cleared that up so that's good.

[5:34:13] Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second and we will have a roll call vote.

[5:34:22] Yes, sir.

[5:34:23] Yes, is to uphold the staff report.

[5:34:27] Yes, tonight they have people.

[5:34:30] So, please, when you have a guest.

[5:34:32] Okay.

[5:34:35] Yes,

[5:34:38] Yes.

[5:34:40] Yes.

[5:34:43] Yes.

[5:34:44] Did you all.

[5:34:45] Yes.

[5:34:47] Yes, yes, thank you, thank you everyone again and with that I'm going to adjourn the meeting in memory.

[5:35:04] Good evening, and happy holidays for everybody, and we'll see you in 2021.

[5:35:09] Good night, all. Happy holidays.

Meeting of the Petaluma City Council and Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency

Agenda

Transcript