[0:01] Recording in progress. Oh, good. Okay. Good evening everyone,
[0:05] and welcome to the regular meeting of the petaluma city council, petaluma community
[0:10] development successor agency for monday, july 20th, 2026.
[0:16] and as you know, we've recently begun accepting public comments, both in person and
[0:20] via zoom. And this is in compliance with state bill 7 0 7,
[0:25] which is an update to the brown act, california's open meeting
[0:29] law. Because this is a new process, we do ask for your
[0:33] patients as staff gets used to the technology and work on,
[0:38] on refining our procedures. So, um,
[0:42] as per our regular procedures, if you wish to provide a public comment
[0:47] on tonight's agenda, we are, um, and are joining us in person, please
[0:51] fill out a speaker card. They're located in the hallway, outside the chamber,
[0:55] and bring it to our clerk who is at the front of the chambers.
[1:00] um, as for the new procedures, for those who are
[1:04] participating via zoom, please raise your hand virtually when
[1:08] the item is called, those participating over phone and zoom can raise
[1:12] your hand by pressing star nine. The city clerk
[1:17] will provide these instructions during each public comment period.
[1:21] so please do not raise your hand yet. Please wait until,
[1:26] uh, your, to raise your hand until the item is called.
[1:31] please note that concurrent translations services are available in this meeting
[1:35] in spanish and a variety of other languages. And to access translation
[1:39] services online, please use, use the link on the agenda
[1:43] to access the language in the room, please scan the qr code on
[1:48] the sign in the back of the room. Okay,
[1:52] so, madam clerk with that, let's have our roll call for the evening.
[1:58] barnacle present cater thompson.
[2:02] here di carly. Here
[2:07] now. Here, quint. Here. Sch shrimps.
[2:11] here mcdonald here. And we do have a quorum. Wonderful, thanks.
[2:15] and let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance,
[2:22] our visions to the flag of the united states of america,
[2:26] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
[2:31] god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[2:39] and a moment of silence, please.
[2:50] now from time to time, the council uses this opportunity to honor
[2:54] a member of the petaluma community who has contributed to the fabric of petaluma
[2:58] through their efforts and life and has recently passed. Tonight
[3:03] is a moment of such honor and sadness, and I'd like to close tonight's
[3:07] meeting in honor of bernie al. Uh, bernie passed away this month at the
[3:11] age of 90, and had been active in petaluma issues until just
[3:15] recently. Um, bernie had been involved in so much of petaluma over so
[3:19] many years that I can't cover it all, but he was a science teacher.
[3:24] and that doesn't begin to cover or describe bernie. So
[3:28] let me read just one quote from the press democrat in nine in 2007,
[3:33] a small sign on d street reminds cyclists to ride on the right side of the road
[3:38] with the traffic fittingly. The sign is on the wrong side
[3:42] of the road where cyclists who are not, um,
[3:46] uh, where cyclists who are not riding with the traffic will see
[3:50] it fittingly. The sign is bilingual, and this is since
[3:54] many local cyclists hail from mexico where the custom is to ride against
[3:59] the flow of traffic. Bernie did this. Bernie was an out of the box thinker
[4:03] and achiever. Bernie is a recipient of the sonoma county lifetime environmental
[4:08] achievement award. He was a member of the county and of petaluma's
[4:12] bike advisory committees. He was instrumental in starting bike to
[4:16] workday in the county. He worked with cots to help their clients succeed. He
[4:20] is a founding member of the friends of lynch creek trail, and I'm pretty sure
[4:25] that bernie's bicycled to heaven and formed a committee to
[4:29] help make it better there. . Tonight we'll be closing the meeting in
[4:33] honor of bernie. So at this point in the meeting, we
[4:37] looked at, at our agenda, and I look up and down the diocese to see whether tonight's agenda,
[4:42] uh, has any modifications to be made on it
[4:46] and seeing no council member, um, proposing
[4:50] then, uh, the council the agenda tonight is exactly as
[4:55] you see it in your, uh, handouts or online.
[4:59] and we move now to general, uh, public comments.
[5:04] and as per our regular procedures during general public comment,
[5:09] the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the
[5:13] city council's subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed
[5:17] on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person,
[5:22] and depending on the number of persons wishing to address the council, tying will be allocated
[5:26] in equal shares equaling no more than 20 minutes
[5:30] as per our new procedures. And as a reminder, we'll now be accepting
[5:34] comments from zoom as well as in person.
[5:39] the, um, in-person and remote commenters will be granted
[5:43] equal time. So if we have more than 20 people wishing to speak,
[5:48] the first 10 in-house speakers will get to speak and the first
[5:52] 10 remote speakers will be able to speak.
[5:58] um, zoom tracks the order of hands that raise, and we'll
[6:02] work from that list in order for zoom and an in-person
[6:07] participants to know if they have the first 10 or not. Then, um,
[6:12] the names of the speakers will all be announced. Additional comments
[6:16] will be heard after the last business item on the agenda. If there
[6:20] are less than 10 in each in-person and online, then we will balance
[6:24] out until 20 speakers have been, uh, heard in the evening.
[6:29] so, um, we will hear the in-person comments first,
[6:33] I'll call, um, I will call speakers to the podium. Once these have concluded,
[6:37] the city clerk will call upon remote speakers to unmute themselves
[6:41] and in turn make their comments. It's a bit of a learning experience
[6:46] for all of us, so I appreciate your patience in this new procedures.
[6:50] and, um, back over to the city clerk here.
[6:54] um, so we did receive eight comments ahead of the meeting, and also there
[6:59] are 20 attendees, uh, joining via zoom. So at this point, I
[7:03] will start a 32nd clock for general public comment. During
[7:07] these 30 seconds, members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker speaker
[7:11] cards to the clerk's desk if they have not already done so. And members of the public attending
[7:15] online should raise their virtual hand. Those attending via phone should press
[7:20] nine to raise their hand. And speaker requests received after this time
[7:24] may not be accommodated.
[7:41] okay, we did receive three hands online. And those are s kirks, veronica,
[7:46] o and theodore scar. Ato
[7:50] no, for sure of. Okay,
[8:13] so we have three hands raised, three hands online, and,
[8:17] and we have 12, 12 comments, 12 cards right here. So 15 total, so that's a 15 total.
[8:22] and so with 15 speakers, it's one minute each speaker,
[8:26] and tonight, and it looks like everybody gets a chance. So our,
[8:31] uh, first speaker is christopher brown, um,
[8:39] to be followed by jennifer boyle.
[8:44] my name is christopher brown. I'm from little woods mobile home park. Um,
[8:48] and I'm here just to state that, uh, the psychological
[8:52] terrorism from harmony communities continues. Our parking is still
[8:57] abominable. Um, bullying
[9:01] is being continued and it feels as they operate
[9:05] without impunity.
[9:10] the city council, you guys have been great. Everybody that
[9:14] has supported us has been great. Um, but I just feel like
[9:19] nothing's happening with them. And there's no, there's no, they're operating
[9:23] with no impunity. That's what I got.
[9:27] thanks. Thank you very much. Jennifer boyle to be
[9:32] followed by tina yonkers.
[9:41] good evening mayor. City council, city staff. We, the mobile
[9:46] home park residents at youngstown, little woods and capri
[9:50] continue to feel the weaponization and intimidation in our parks.
[9:55] youngstown mobile home owners and management
[9:59] continue to make, to market and sell mobile homes they
[10:03] own to all age families. This is still unlawful. As a senior
[10:07] park overlay zoning has remained in effect since october
[10:11] 20, 23, 80 20. Still does,
[10:16] does not allow any mobile home to be sold as all ages,
[10:20] nor does it allow purchase agreements, leases or rules
[10:25] and regulations to say anything but senior park
[10:29] as spelled out in the lawful zoned ordinance under california
[10:33] laws. And note and notably federal laws and local
[10:38] and local laws, the following, apply possible civil
[10:42] violations, fraud, or intentional. Thank you mis. Our
[10:46] next speaker is tina yonkers to be followed by marie kunio.
[10:53] okay, thank you.
[11:00] possible civil violations, fraud or intentional
[11:05] misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation,
[11:10] violations of state consumer protection laws, breach of contract
[11:14] or warranty. Failure to make required disclosures,
[11:18] unfair business practices, possible criminal violations,
[11:23] theft by false pretenses, real estate or
[11:27] business fraud, forgery or falsification of documents
[11:32] perjury, ab
[11:37] 2 5 9 6, which just codified existing laws
[11:42] for senior parks will be on the consent floor in the california
[11:46] state senate when legislatures resume work august 3rd.
[11:50] in addition, I know I, I won't be able to finish this, so
[11:55] I'll just leave it at that. Marie coneo to
[11:59] be followed by jimmy rankin. Just start here.
[12:03] okay. Thank you.
[12:07] thank you. In addition, little woods and capri both have been
[12:12] served with another arbitration with the clear intent to bleed
[12:16] residents legally dry. Since large equity park owners
[12:21] are not winning, the arbitrations abuse, frivolous pleadings,
[12:25] and im intimidation are among these egregious
[12:29] acts. Youngstown capri and little woods mobile home parks
[12:34] residents have and continue to experience reduction
[12:38] of services of pools, keys, clubhouse, hours,
[12:42] management hours, trash, overcharges, and demand
[12:47] credit. These permits to operate in petaluma should be
[12:51] suspended immediately. We have heard rumblings from a few
[12:55] non-mobile park disgruntled in residents that the city of petaluma
[13:00] is not prevailing in court in just learning about one case,
[13:04] where it was not dismissed immediately. The cases
[13:08] in the federal. Thank you. Thank you jimmy rankin
[13:12] to be followed by kelly rankin.
[13:19] hello. Uh, so I live on vallejo and d street. Um, the company,
[13:24] uh, rebuild petaluma together has opened a house on three
[13:28] 16 vallejo street, which they call a shared housing,
[13:33] um, development. Uh, they have a lot of people there that are,
[13:37] you know, using drugs. Um, we've seen prostitutes walking down
[13:41] the street, people speeding up and down the street that we've never seen before. I grew
[13:45] up in this neighborhood. I've lived there for 32 years. We have not had problems like this
[13:50] recently. People's houses have been being broken into, and there's a preschool,
[13:54] not more than half a block away. So I just feel
[13:58] scared because I work an hour and a half away from home and I get a call from
[14:02] my wife saying that the back gate to our backyard has been open to
[14:06] close until my dog ran around the corner and started barking. And that's
[14:11] when the door closed. So I just don't feel safe in my neighborhood anymore
[14:15] since this house is opened. And it's only been three weeks, maybe a month that they have been living
[14:19] here. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly
[14:23] rankin should be followed by mark kimberly.
[14:28] okay. I'm on the same topic that he's on. So our neighborhood has gone downhill again, and
[14:32] I'm super disappointed in the city for this. Nobody in the neighborhood was informed that
[14:36] this would be happening. We were not consulted. Um, we have been
[14:40] a neighborhood that has had its share of homeless in the area, in the armory
[14:44] with the soup kitchens where the, the home for this, uh, place is
[14:48] now. And so we finally had this neighborhood with these beautiful families. Look right
[14:52] here, these beautiful babies walking through the street all the time. And now they're afraid
[14:57] one of this couple back here doesn't even wanna buy a house in our neighborhood because of this pro,
[15:01] this situation. And mayor, what I was told is this was your idea. So
[15:05] I just want you to understand that the community, I'm speaking for a lot of people. I've
[15:09] been talking to all of my neighbors. The fear is big. This
[15:13] couple back here has their houses to the back. They're here screaming, yelling, cussing all the
[15:17] time, all throughout the night. Um, we, again, we are seeing all kinds
[15:22] of things, and they're about to bring in 10 shipping containers and build more houses
[15:26] for low income housing. So I can only imagine it's gonna get worse.
[15:30] thank you, mark kimberly to be followed by tim portus.
[15:39] I have here this government issued license plate 1 3 5 7 5 0 1.
[15:44] I found it in santa rosa. According to dmv, this belongs
[15:48] on a vehicle that's owned by the city of petaluma, but not in the possession of city of petaluma.
[15:52] there was no release of liability filed. The government plate's not returned.
[15:56] so the vehicle has not been sold, it's just missing. But no one here seems to know about it.
[16:01] I investigated further and I found the actual truck as well.
[16:05] it's sitting in santa rosa in front of 1906 bel air way.
[16:09] I suggest that you report it stolen and have santa rosa pt retrieve that for you
[16:13] tonight. Uh, guess who lives there? I'll give you a hint.
[16:18] his initials are ms. And him and his corporation were fired by city of petaluma and
[16:22] six o others recently, you know, the same guy that built millions of
[16:26] dollars out of all of you in this city over the last eight years. You did nothing. The
[16:30] same guy who allegedly killed animals and falsified records to hide it as you all
[16:34] did nothing. The same guy you all protected and covered for, for years,
[16:38] ignoring all reports and complaints. Yes, that's the guy. Here's your license
[16:42] plate. Thank you, tim portus to
[16:47] be followed by christine white.
[16:53] thank you. Hello.
[16:58] the cases in federal and sonoma county court that have been dismissed are
[17:02] over. The additional frivolous pleadings, in our opinion, are headed the same
[17:07] way. There is not one case where the large investment
[17:11] in vi investment mobile park owners have prevailed dating back
[17:15] to two oh through three in petaluma surrounding areas, different
[17:19] judges, different opinions, but when all the facts are shown, they produce
[17:23] the same result. These residents do not want notoriety nor even
[17:28] recognition for standing up for the truth. They simply want peace,
[17:32] calm, legitimate business practices that follow the city, state, and federal
[17:36] existing laws. Sadly, we have lost some of our seniors
[17:41] as recently as three days ago, that never saw their money returned or their social
[17:45] security in their past last days on a mobile home that they own. Our city
[17:49] has stood tall in the protection of the most val vulnerable
[17:54] as they have voted time and time again after careful analysis to
[17:58] defend, enforce, and strengthen their own laws and ordinances.
[18:03] thank you. Thank you. Christina white, followed by michael shapiro.
[18:11] good evening, mayor. Counsel. Uh, first of all, I wanted to just
[18:15] say I am so sorry for everything that little woods is going through.
[18:19] it's just I've listened to it time after time at all these meetings, and it's just,
[18:24] I, I empathize with you. I, I wish I could do something I cannot,
[18:29] but know that you have people who are thinking good things for you. Um,
[18:33] secondly, I'd like to say thank you to chris cornett for their grazing. They,
[18:37] for the first time have grazed behind our home, and they are still back there.
[18:41] the sheep will be back there for probably another week. So it's phenomenal, and they're
[18:45] doing such a great job. So, uh, we feel protected. And lastly,
[18:50] I I've been approached by many people asking me about data centers
[18:54] and what is petaluma? Have I heard anything at the city council meeting
[18:58] about the data centers? I know fairgrounds are being approached
[19:03] to put in data centers. Big concern for everybody is water.
[19:08] we have a water issue here in california, here everywhere. We need to
[19:12] have water for our people. And data centers
[19:16] use a lot of water. So just concerns. And I don't know when that's gonna come up in
[19:20] a city council meeting. Thank you. Thank you michael shapiro,
[19:24] to be followed by, um, uh, j
[19:29] mangan. Good evening. Uh,
[19:33] I'm here to make my annual plea to bask ban gas powered leaf blowers.
[19:38] um, I don't know how to get this accomplished, but I do know that
[19:42] communities that have done this have reported that the quality of life is
[19:46] vastly improved. Much less noise, far fewer fumes
[19:50] from these gas powered leaf blowers. Um, these leaf blowers,
[19:54] burn gas and oil, and about a third of that is expelled in an aerosol. So
[19:59] it's basically an airborne oil spill. And this is what we and our kids are breathing.
[20:04] um, I was in washington, dc uh, two months ago.
[20:08] they have successfully banned gas powered leaf blowers. I spoke to a gardener. I
[20:12] spoke to a, a woman at the smithsonian who manages the garden there. Everybody's
[20:17] thrilled with it. And I can actually document that with video if you're interested. Um,
[20:21] petaluma has a great climate ready plan. We're three and a half years away
[20:26] from 2030, less than that actually. And if the goal is really carbon neutrality,
[20:31] one of the easiest and most, uh, productive ways of getting there
[20:35] is to do a slow but gradual and
[20:40] progressive ban of gas powered leaf blowers. You can start with a few months
[20:44] very much, and then go from there. Our next speaker. Thank you. We'll be
[20:48] mondragon to be followed by nina zito.
[20:54] um, good evening counsel. Um, thank you for all the hard
[20:58] work you guys do to upkeep. Um, my, my little p town hometown. Um,
[21:03] I appreciate it. But I'm here to ask you, uh, I'm here to ask more of you as, um,
[21:07] so many folks before me have, um, I have
[21:11] recently, um, been aware of, uh, how many flock cameras we
[21:15] have around, um, the city of petaluma. And I would request that if,
[21:20] uh, the contract is coming up soon, I remember, um, that was something that
[21:24] was, um, mentioned at some point might be, um, open for community
[21:28] discussion that we do not renew the contract with flock. Um,
[21:32] they are tracking people's locations, they're lying about keeping our data. Um,
[21:36] they can be easily hacked and they're using ai and the ai can get it wrong.
[21:40] um, and they're giving our data to ice, which is a transition that
[21:44] I'm also requesting that when the council puts it on the agenda for a non-cooperation
[21:49] ordinance with ice, that every one of you does the right thing and votes in favor
[21:53] of a no cooperation ordinance. Thank you. Thank you.
[21:57] and nina zito, and then we go to our zoom participants.
[22:02] thank you, council. Um, I appreciate the
[22:07] council council's creativity
[22:11] in making public comment available. I'd, um, like
[22:15] to point out that it feels disrespectful to folks who make the
[22:19] not inconsiderable effort to show up
[22:24] and, uh, take time from their day and to have their remarks, um,
[22:28] weighted, um, with people who
[22:33] just feel it's enough to like dial in. And I, I, I do feel that's disrespectful.
[22:38] perhaps those that time can be allotted differently
[22:42] or perhaps people can provide a reason why they can't show up in person.
[22:46] but it invites, uh, flooding the zone as
[22:50] we've learned to think with, uh, stakeholder remarks,
[22:55] um, that, that don't necessarily reflect the will of the community.
[23:00] thank you. I think this is important. Thank you.
[23:05] now over to our clerk to do the zoom work. We did also
[23:09] receive one late hand up. I dunno if you wanna accept one additional speaker,
[23:15] uh, sorry. Online. Uh oh. Please do that. Okay. So we'll
[23:19] start with s kirks. Uh, I'm gonna allow you
[23:23] to speak and then ask you to please unmute yourself and make your comment.
[23:32] good evening, susan kirks petaluma,
[23:36] the city of petaluma, has engaged in eight
[23:40] harmful and destructive actions at the paulo lane
[23:45] open space property in west petaluma. I'm speaking about
[23:49] one of those this evening with the need to correct
[23:53] that action. About 10 days ago, a little fawn
[23:58] was struck by a vehicle and severely injured on bodega
[24:02] avenue at paula lane. The fawn was down at bodega avenue
[24:06] with the mother doe and the other twin fawn, where they never
[24:10] would have been had they had access to their natural
[24:14] home and habitat. The city of petaluma has installed barbed
[24:19] wire fencing around the perimeter of the open space
[24:24] property on paula lane. And that fence should never have been installed,
[24:29] and it needs to be removed. That is my comment this
[24:33] evening. And by the way, the fawn was euthanized by
[24:37] fawn rescue after marin humane came and, and retrieved
[24:41] it.
[24:45] our next speaker will be veronica o.
[24:52] please unmute yourself and make your comment. Hi, good evening,
[24:56] council and community. Thanks for, thanks for allowing me to comment
[25:00] tonight. Data centers are a climate issue, and I want to name that
[25:04] they cool through evaporation consuming water that doesn't return to the supply
[25:09] in a state already managing chronic doubt. And the power behind
[25:14] them mostly still comes from the grid that isn't fully clean yet. So every new
[25:18] facility adds real ongoing demand at the exact
[25:22] moment when we're trying to bring down emissions and not add sources.
[25:26] a company called global stack is pitching exactly, um, at
[25:31] fairgrounds across the state. Um, I don't want one
[25:35] at ours, and I don't want one anywhere on sonoma county's farmland.
[25:39] this isn't the use that belongs on land. We're trying to keep agricultural
[25:43] and climate resilient. My ask is to agendize the 12 month moratorium
[25:48] on data center land uses so the community can weigh in and staff can define
[25:52] this use and set standards before a proposal arrives
[25:57] rather than after. Thank you very much.
[26:02] the next speaker is theodora sato. I notice you lowered
[26:07] your hand if you are still interested in making a comment.
[26:11] uh, thank you. I'm testifying in support of agenda number two,
[26:15] consent request for a proposal for a data center. Moratorium data centers
[26:19] bring together nearly every type of pollution, air, water, land,
[26:23] light, noise, and emf. With im with impacts that can extend four
[26:28] miles. Communities are blindsided by proposals
[26:32] and by the time residents become aware it's often too late. I work
[26:36] on this issue nationwide. Cities, counties, and the
[26:40] state all have a role to play. And the first step is putting a regulatory
[26:44] framework in place before, not after a data center proposal
[26:48] arrives a proactive regulatory framework. It
[26:52] helps you avoid costly litigation, protects public health, and
[26:56] equally important, it spurs innovation towards lower impact
[27:01] ai infrastructure, air pollution. As an example,
[27:05] a single hyperscale facility may have 40 to more than 50 diesel generators
[27:09] on site. And they are regularly run a report by caltech and the university of
[27:14] california riverside called the reports called the unpaid toll
[27:18] documents, how data center air pollution is crossing state lines. Thank
[27:22] you. It is steeply increasing fine particle pollution. And I did submit
[27:27] extensive, uh, documentation in my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much for the comment. We're moving to
[27:31] our next zoom speaker. The next speaker is andy schrader.
[27:46] hey, andy schrader from petaluma. Uh, the woman who said that we
[27:51] shouldn't have zoom capability, obviously doesn't have to pay a a hundred bucks for
[27:55] childcare. So, um, thanks for that comment lady.
[27:59] uh, I want to call in a second the ban on leaf
[28:04] blowers. I want to second getting rid of barbed wire that's, uh, inhibiting
[28:09] wildlife connectivity. I also want to second getting rid of flock
[28:13] uh, surveillance cameras. But most of all, I want to say that
[28:17] the city council should hear and discuss data centers.
[28:22] I work on colorado river compact issues. Lake mead is at a record
[28:26] low lake powell's at a record low when southern california can't get water.
[28:30] they take it from northern car, california. And, uh, we
[28:34] really need to do everything we can to save water. Also, data centers will
[28:39] deeply inhibit the city's ability to meet its climate
[28:43] goals. So, uh, we need to do everything in our power
[28:47] to make sure that they don't come to petaluma. And the city council should hear that as soon as possible. Thank
[28:51] you.
[28:56] that's all of our online comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. That, uh,
[29:01] concludes the, uh, speakers for general public comment tonight. And,
[29:05] um, I'd, um, like to bring it back on up
[29:09] to the council. And, um, this is our opportunity for council report
[29:13] in on what they've been busy with since our last meeting. And, uh, I'll
[29:17] start with, uh, council member shri. Um, just one
[29:22] item to report. Um, I was watching the news story
[29:26] on tv, um, a week or two ago, and it turns out, uh, sacramento
[29:30] is having an infestation
[29:35] of a new, um, insect. It's called the turkistan cockroach.
[29:39] not the oriental, not the german, it's a turkistan cockroach, which is a little different
[29:43] species than other cockroaches. It's new in town, it's come to sacramento,
[29:48] and they think it may have come in on the planes that, uh, from air travis air
[29:52] force base that go to the mid east area and back again over the last several years. So
[29:56] it's come in a few years ago, but apparently it's gotten really bad in sacramento.
[30:01] however, it is, um, we need to have awareness of it, and
[30:05] I got really aware of it because I think I have an infestation in my front yard.
[30:09] so I, uh, anyway, I took the actions, I took all the recommendations, and it looks
[30:14] like, uh, fortunately it doesn't climb walls as well.
[30:18] it is an outdoor cockroach, not an indoor cockroach. It seeks water is the
[30:22] only reason it comes indoors. I said it doesn't like to climb, likes wet environments,
[30:26] uh, mulches and the like. And, um, so I did all those things, put out traps,
[30:30] cleaned out the yard, and pretty much got it under control. So I don't see any more, haven't seen any in
[30:35] about three weeks. So that was, that's been really good. So I can, that's a good report that
[30:39] that is manageable. But, uh, be aware that there is a new insect here in
[30:43] town, um, uh, coming from, uh, from other countries. So
[30:47] it, it's just something new to be aware of at this time. So when you see it, it's, don't automatically assume
[30:51] a german oriental, it might be the new turkistan. And they're very,
[30:55] um, they grow very fast, um, uh, and, and, and
[30:59] propagate anyways, just, just for awareness. Thanks. Thank you. Okay,
[31:04] that's, um, disturbing . Thank you. Uh, council member
[31:08] quint. Yeah. Uh, that, that's a tough one to follow. Um, so I just,
[31:12] uh, I don't have any liaison reports for tonight. I do want to say, I want
[31:16] to congratulate the petaluma national majors little league team for beating
[31:21] rankin valley, uh, and winning the district 35 all-star tournament.
[31:25] they advanced to the section one tournament. Uh, this is the same team that in 2012
[31:30] went all the way to the world series. And if they continue to win, who
[31:34] knows? They're a good team, a good group of, uh, kids playing
[31:38] and some really good coaches over there. So, um, share your support.
[31:43] uh, I also wanna share, uh, concerns. Uh, I wasn't here
[31:47] last week. I know there was discussion around ice. I just wanna share that
[31:51] I share our community's concerns over the actions of ice. I'll leave it at
[31:55] that. Um, and I also, um, support, um,
[32:00] a phased out ordinance on gas, uh, leaf
[32:04] blowers. I realize that that's not a, um, a priority at this time, but,
[32:09] but I do think it's a good thing. Thank
[32:13] you, council member now. Um, thank you, mr. Mayor.
[32:17] um, I attended the petaluma police department's display date, and you
[32:21] can still have the same opportunity on tuesday, august 4th from four to seven
[32:26] on the petaluma fair fairgrounds. Oh, sorry.
[32:30] uh, you will get to see up, close the equipment, enjoy free food, meet
[32:34] staff, win prizes, learn how to be safe in our local neighborhoods.
[32:38] so a wonderful free family event. And I have,
[32:43] I have a gift for the mayor here. Our local petaluma regional library had
[32:47] a 50th anniversary. I was given the task of remembering opening
[32:51] day in 1976 when I was a sophomore at petaluma
[32:55] high school. I was excited for a modern library to do research and
[33:00] homework and hang out with friends. Plus its modern library. Had a
[33:04] copy machine for our mayor, a book bag
[33:08] for the occasion. Um, and I like to
[33:12] visit on wednesdays when my grandkids get to read to
[33:16] the dogs at the library. On a more serious
[33:21] note, um, I wanted, um, address our city
[33:25] attorney about little words parking. Um, it's still an
[33:29] issue and a lot of the tenants have, um, tenant
[33:33] agreements with the owner that they have parking
[33:38] privileges, but there is no parking privileges. And I'd like to
[33:42] have an update to the council on how that's going with, um,
[33:46] the owners and on the leaf blowers. Um,
[33:51] I don't know where the gentleman went, but I would like to see, um,
[33:56] maybe our climate protection committee bring this back and
[34:00] talk about how we can do something in petaluma. Thank you.
[34:05] thank you. Council member barnicle? Yes. Um,
[34:10] one update. I attended the ribbon cutting for the son, clean power,
[34:14] um, uh, solar and storage project. It's a four megawatt project up in
[34:18] mendocino county. It is currently our largest, uh, solar and storage project
[34:23] by a factor of four. Um, it brings our evergreen portfolio to 20%
[34:27] served by local, uh, solar and, um, in storage. So,
[34:31] um, quite a feat. And, um, we're the only cca in california that's, uh,
[34:36] serving a hundred percent of our evergreen, um, portfolio with local renewables.
[34:40] so, fabulous. Uh, council member cater thompson.
[34:46] uh, thank you. Um, I too would like to, um,
[34:50] well, actually with the leaf blowers, I've been talking to michael for a long time about this.
[34:54] and can this be just incorporated in the general plan? Um,
[34:59] go in that direction since we're close to completing our general plan.
[35:03] and I would like an update on the house on vallejo street.
[35:07] um, you know, it's challenging when you're dealing with unhoused,
[35:12] and I think we just need to make sure that the neighbors feel,
[35:16] feel protected and that what's happening or what they're saying.
[35:20] I want to know if that is happening. So I would like an update on that. And
[35:26] that's it. Thank you very much. Thank
[35:30] you. Vice mayor di carly. Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Over at
[35:34] parks and rec. We elected new officers and there was no net change there.
[35:38] I think everybody stayed the same. Um, we talked about, uh, there's a trail
[35:42] on the east side of town that's gonna be getting a new name and kind of narrowed that down,
[35:46] and I'll save that for when it comes to council. And then, um, no airport meeting,
[35:50] but I will say that the taxiway is finished. Um, everything looks
[35:54] pretty good. I think they're wrapping up some few little things here and there.
[35:58] and then, um, yeah, I, I did attend the, uh, the
[36:03] rebuilding together, their new house that they just bought over on vallejo, and as you saw, some
[36:07] neighbors came and just spoke about it. So I would kind of like to see too that, you know, we're not,
[36:11] um, you know, that we're doing a good thing, but not introducing problems to,
[36:15] to neighbors over there. And, um, you know, the other weekend, uh,
[36:19] it was the swiss picnic in penn grove, um, outside of petaluma, but a lot of petaluma's
[36:23] that go to it. So rich swiss heritage around here. Um, so that
[36:27] was fun. That's, that's every year right after 4th of july if anybody ever wants to attend.
[36:32] and then, um, I did also attend the library's 50th anniversary.
[36:36] um, as you heard, councilwoman now gave a, gave, gave a great speech there. Uh,
[36:40] john sheehy talked about his, uh, bib biblio mania,
[36:45] um, as a child. Um, harlan osborne gave what he put the
[36:49] common man's, you know, recant of libraries in town in that part of,
[36:53] uh, of petaluma. And then mary dooley talked about her addition to the
[36:57] library that she did some years ago. And so that was really great. Um,
[37:01] you know, great community thing. And then the, at the sonoma county fair,
[37:05] the four h auction is coming up. That's, that's a great way to support agriculture
[37:10] to go out there. Um, you know, the kids work really hard on these projects. It
[37:14] teaches them about business responsibility, raising animals, and, um,
[37:18] you know, they're always looking for buyers to help support them. They'll use that money to,
[37:23] you know, further their projects go to school, um, and help them really understand what
[37:27] responsibility is. And that's all I have this evening. Thank you. Thank you very
[37:31] much. Um, yeah, I do want to, uh, address that, uh, uh,
[37:35] vallejo street house. Um, you know, I, I think it's a great step forward to try
[37:40] and, and, uh, provide, uh, low income housing in the community and, and,
[37:44] uh, solve our homelessness problem. But a step forward can't be a
[37:48] step backward. At the same time, we have to make sure that it, uh, doesn't harm
[37:52] the neighbors as, as we move on. Um,
[37:56] also, um, on a much lighter note, now that the world cup has concluded, um,
[38:00] and all normal business can continue, um, you know, I, uh,
[38:05] note how many, uh, watch parties there were around town and how that helped businesses.
[38:09] I was at taps to watch, but I love taps because I love the businesses
[38:13] that face the basin and, and, and then do well. And
[38:17] that all leads to, I want to commend the team that put, uh, from the float house
[38:22] that put together the huge bands on the basins festival on july 11th.
[38:26] I mean, you could walk kayak to paddleboard to kayak right across the basin. It
[38:30] had just one more big fun thing in petaluma and
[38:35] also want to come, uh, commend, uh, the same weekend art and garden festival in july 12th,
[38:40] also another huge year. And, um, I helped with the team that tabled
[38:44] for, uh, the improvements to the trestle promenade now. Uh, and thanks
[38:48] to downtown business association for their efforts there, I attended to the, the
[38:52] county homelessness coordination committee meetings. And, uh, we're still moving
[38:56] on trying to re reduce and, and get through the
[39:00] impacts that, uh, changes that the state and fed are bringing to our systems.
[39:05] uh, I was able to help with the chamber of commerce with their, uh, new, uh,
[39:09] officer installation meeting too. So, um, been a busy
[39:13] short two weeks. And, uh, with that, I'd like to ask the city manager
[39:18] for her report. Thank you, mayor council community. Um, just
[39:22] a couple things. Speaking of events, we have the 19th annual petaluma music festival that
[39:26] will take place this saturday on, uh, the fairgrounds. They're
[39:31] gonna feature 14 bands. The gates open 1130 and music
[39:35] will continue through 9:30 pm family friendly local food,
[39:39] three stages, and all proceeds support music education programs
[39:43] in petaluma public schools. Uh, for tickets go to petaluma music festival.org.
[39:49] um, also in our continuing effort to address downtown parking, we've added seven
[39:54] seven angled on streete parking spaces on the c street block between first
[39:58] and second, make it even easier to visit downtown businesses and
[40:02] restaurants. And the new spaces were striped late last week, and they're available now.
[40:06] and then I'm going to ask brian o of our community development department,
[40:11] welcome back, brian, to talk about, um,
[40:15] the rebuilding together project on vallejo.
[40:19] thank you. City manager, brian o director of community development.
[40:23] I didn't see, I, sorry that I didn't catch the,
[40:27] um, constituent committee member that was here. I'll go back to the tape and
[40:31] try to connect. Uh, but there's a request on the vallejo
[40:36] project. The city has had an initial, very preliminary,
[40:41] um, preview of the housing proposal there,
[40:45] rebuilding together, um, recently purchased it. It's been an underutilized
[40:50] site for, um, many, many years. And so
[40:55] it's very early in the process. There's no, I mean, at this point,
[40:59] I'd say it's conceptual. Uh, no permits have been submitted.
[41:04] um, but, uh, everything, um,
[41:08] every indication from drake, the executive director down
[41:12] to the staff with rebuilding, they're really strong partner of ours
[41:16] for the city. Um, every indication points to wanting to
[41:20] be a good neighbor. Um, there was a recent introductory,
[41:25] um, community meeting that the vice mayor had, uh, referenced.
[41:29] I suspect we'll continue to have those or encourage those, um, from
[41:34] rebuilding and any public safety issues. Um, much like with
[41:38] any neighborhood, um, we have the means, um, to ensure that,
[41:42] um, our safety and any, um, code or compliance
[41:47] issues can get addressed, um, whether it's through code enforcement or public safety.
[41:52] and so, mayor, we will continue to provide updates, um,
[41:56] as they come, um, from the property owner.
[42:00] thank you very much, appreciate that report. And that concludes
[42:04] mine. Thank you. And that concludes, uh, city manager report, and that brings us
[42:08] to our consent calendar for the evening. And at this point, um, I look coming
[42:12] down the diocese to see whether any council member wishes to, uh, poll any of
[42:17] the consent items. Council member barnacle, item two,
[42:21] item two ladies. And, um, that's, um,
[42:25] item two being pulled. And, um, let's move to public comment
[42:29] on this and on the consent calendar. And we will take
[42:33] public comment on the consent calendar in its entirety. And when we bring it back to counsel,
[42:38] we'll have a voting on the two issues separately.
[42:43] so, um, please, um, uh,
[42:47] bear with us while we have our little movement in the room
[42:59] as we open public comment on the entire consent calendar. Uh, the public is
[43:04] invited to make comments, uh, on the listed items. Our procedure
[43:08] on the agenda will, will follow the, um, process that I
[43:13] outlined extensively earlier. And, um, except
[43:17] that the number of speakers is not limited in this case. And public comments are limited to
[43:21] three minutes in person. However, uh, the time per speaker may
[43:25] still be reduced depending on the number of speakers. We'll hear in-person comments
[43:29] first, I will call on speakers to the podium. Once those have concluded, the city
[43:33] clerk will call upon the remote speakers to unmute themselves. So, um,
[43:38] city clerk, it's your take it away. We did receive 12 comments on
[43:42] item number two ahead of the meeting, and those are posted online. We also have
[43:46] 23 folks joining us on the zoom at this time. I'll start
[43:50] a 32nd clock. During these 30 seconds. Members
[43:54] of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk. Members
[43:58] of the public attending online should raise their virtual hand, and those attending
[44:03] via phone should press star nine to raise their hand. Speaker request
[44:07] received after this 30 seconds may not be accommodated.
[44:23] okay,
[44:38] we have, um, uh, 10 cards and one hand that's,
[44:42] um, 11 speakers. And so I'm gonna shorten
[44:46] the, um, speaking time to two minutes per person for this item.
[44:51] and I'll start with donald johnson and move to darren kuzen.
[44:57] donald johnson
[45:01] going once donald johnson, um, darren
[45:05] kuzen to be followed by alex ale.
[45:13] thank you. And I think john hania seated time on this item as well. So
[45:18] if you have his card and need to call his name or just to make sure we get
[45:22] the john hania. Thank you very much.
[45:26] um, the two minutes will be doubled. Excellent, thank you.
[45:30] so ai data centers obviously in a major issue across the country. Jurisdictions
[45:35] keep getting caught. Flatfooted projects are lobbied and approved before
[45:40] residents have a chance to weigh in. If you want more information on it. Aaron brockovich?
[45:44] yes, that aaron brockovich has put together the comprehensive website on the proliferation of
[45:48] ai dentist centers and the issues surrounding them. Uh, just this morning
[45:52] though, uh, one of my environmental consulting hats, I received an email from eurofins
[45:56] international testing company talking about the risks and sounding the alarm. That development
[46:00] is outpacing regulation when it comes to ai identity centers pointing
[46:05] to the threats, I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. Mm-hmm . Um, um,
[46:09] you need to make a nexus to an item on the agenda. So what you're talking about, consent
[46:13] calendar item number two, there's a memorandum proposing the discussion of a moratorium
[46:17] on data centers. Correct? It, it is not to be deliberated tonight,
[46:22] it is to be decided whether well, we're gonna talk about the discussion of whether or not a discussion of a moratorium should
[46:26] happen. So I'm giving context to that end. I'm literally gonna get to the sentence of, we
[46:30] should have a mor moratorium carry on. Kevin, we're, we're in control
[46:34] here. All right. So it's certainly logical and smart to meet this moment
[46:38] with an open discussion of an ai data center moratorium box checked
[46:42] kev. I've seen petaluma get caught out by undesirable land uses before
[46:46] when our layered land use rules and ordinances proved ineffective at stopping expected
[46:51] and undesirable land uses that came forward. So I hear the argument,
[46:55] why not just wait for the ieo if you guys have interfaced with our ieo
[46:59] from 2008, it was widely considered as riddled with loopholes and inconsistencies
[47:03] that have been closed over the years. But that history is a reminder that the ieo is not
[47:08] a perfect or permanent document. Zoning codes and even general plans
[47:12] can be changed. The protections they offer are mutable. When a proposed
[47:16] project doesn't conform developers work to change the ieo or a general plan, create
[47:20] overlays or use other tools to get around zoning protections around land use.
[47:24] I've also seen developers bundle undesirable uses with a desirable one to
[47:28] help, help push it through. The david dom project is a great example. The
[47:32] d street extension homes were resisted for 20 years until the developer promised to expand
[47:37] helen putnam park. And now the park looks infeasible, but we got the
[47:41] homes. So an example of where projects come forward. And even if the council and staff
[47:45] say that a land use is not desirable, there are ways that a developer makes that
[47:49] happen and pushes it through. Could a data center developer change or skirt code?
[47:53] could they package a data center with a more attractive project or an environmental concession
[47:58] to sway decision makers? A moratorium or an equivalent policy action
[48:02] is a stake in the ground. It demonstrates community values and clearly signals
[48:06] what we want to do to prohibit this land use. I understand that a concern
[48:11] is a moratorium would defer existing work on the zoning code updates,
[48:15] but beyond the mutability of the izo, the timeline for those updates is unclear.
[48:21] and honestly, we're talking about generating word documents. I can't believe we can't draft
[48:25] an ieo update and discuss a moratorium in parallel.
[48:29] as the mayor says, we can tie our shoes and chew bubblegum at the same time. I think we
[48:33] can make a couple word docs. The trickiest part is defining what the data center
[48:38] land use actually is, and that will have to be done eventually. Whether it's now through discussion
[48:42] around a moratorium or later when we roll out updates to the izo,
[48:46] there is a strong argument to front load that work now we need to at
[48:50] least have a public discussion of these issues. I don't think the public at large has heard almost anything
[48:54] about the city's stance on data centers. Even as we constantly see stories of communities
[48:59] run over by these projects, discussion of a moratorium is warranted.
[49:03] it is a logical step, and we would hope the city would be an ally in those kinds of discussions.
[49:08] let's not get caught flatfooted when we have this much lead time in this many cautionary
[49:13] examples. Let's get ahead of an emerging land use trend and have the conversation
[49:17] in the open, the merits of a moratorium. What other tools exist
[49:22] and how we intend to prevent or shape the future of this land use. Thank you.
[49:28] thank you. So in council chamber,
[49:32] we generally observe a certain decorum, which means that decorum, which means
[49:36] neither cheering nor geering anyone. So let's
[49:41] not have that behavior again this evening. Um, alex adela
[49:45] to be followed by, uh, heather gallagher.
[49:50] it's a, it's aade, just so you know. Okay. Um, here to talk about the data centers,
[49:54] the moratorium. I feel like nobody wants a data center
[49:58] in their backyard. It's pretty simple, you know? And
[50:03] there really isn't much more to say than what, I can't remember your name, but
[50:07] what he just said, which is, you know, air pollution, noise, pollution,
[50:12] emf, everything comes up and everything checks off. It
[50:16] uses a lot of water. Nobody wants it.
[50:20] so a moratorium to make sure that it
[50:24] doesn't get pushed through, it doesn't get past anything, would be great.
[50:28] that's really all there is to say. And I think you guys all get it. Nobody wants it.
[50:33] thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker is, uh, heather gallagher
[50:38] to be followed by, um, dean barbero.
[50:45] good evening council community staff. Thank
[50:49] you for bringing the topic of discussion of data centers. While considering a ban
[50:54] in the general plan, we have all heard of the health hazards
[50:58] and environmental hazards associated with standalone data centers.
[51:02] and we are now learning of the same hazards associated
[51:06] with ai data centers disguised as standard office
[51:10] buildings or r and d facilities. The equipment needed to
[51:15] support these massive technology companies create low frequency
[51:19] noise pollution, water usage concerns, and light pollution issues
[51:23] that harm residents and adversely affect agricultural communities.
[51:28] please consider setting a precedence for sonoma county by
[51:32] opposing all attempts from tech company companies who
[51:37] encourage you to sign non-disclosure agreements
[51:41] that conceal project details from the community during the permitting
[51:46] and approval processes. Thank you for investing in our
[51:50] health and safety by dec decide dedicating your time
[51:55] to place a moratorium on data centers, big and
[51:59] small. Your decision influences the surrounding communities
[52:03] to do what is best for the entire sonoma county agricultural community.
[52:08] thank you. Thank you. Um,
[52:12] dean barbar, barb to be followed by susan ball.
[52:18] so I'm new to this, um, subject, but, um,
[52:23] yeah, I hear nothing but bad news in the, in the news about
[52:27] water usage of these centers. And I use ai occasionally.
[52:32] I asked it today what it thought, it said yes, regulate me.
[52:36] so I would thought that was good advice.
[52:40] so I would just encourage you to, um,
[52:44] probably I would, speaking for petaluma, that people want enforceable, you know, and enforceable
[52:49] protections in place ahead of time. So I thank you ahead
[52:53] of time for doing that. Thank you,
[52:57] susan. Paul should be followed by beverly alexander.
[53:08] good evening. I encourage you to,
[53:12] uh, not to to ban instead
[53:16] of do moratorium. I have been on sort
[53:20] of the ground
[53:25] for 10 years on following water in sonoma
[53:29] county. I started out protesting the wells
[53:33] being taxed at the santa rosa grounds,
[53:38] uh, santa rosa planes protection
[53:44] organization. That is anything. But I have
[53:48] discovered, we discovered that the the water is being sold
[53:53] to santa rosa. Santa rosa is selling to marin. Marin is selling it to
[53:57] oakland, and oakland is selling it to the
[54:01] la area. We are running out of water
[54:06] here. Our groundwater is not being sustained.
[54:11] most of the supervisors are backing the vineyards,
[54:15] the, the marijuana and, and the agriculture is,
[54:19] is, is being harmed. Farms are being sold because they
[54:23] don't have any wells. This will increase
[54:28] if we start moving in data centers. These
[54:32] are big guys. They will come in and make lawsuits that we
[54:36] will not, you will not be able to, to deal with. So
[54:40] you have to start at the beginning. You have to start at a ban
[54:46] and then get your ducks in a row for the, for what's coming at it. That's
[54:51] my, that's my say. Thank you very much, beverly alexander
[54:55] to be followed by paul alexander.
[55:01] good evening. And I'm not tall enough. Um,
[55:06] and thank you for listening. And I'm amazed, um,
[55:11] to think that the library is 50 years old, because I remember bringing our
[55:15] children to the b street library and, and,
[55:19] uh, going upstairs and they had vinyl records, all kinds
[55:23] of stuff. Anyway, to get to the point again about the data centers,
[55:29] um, a moratorium, I, I would too, would love
[55:33] a band. But if that's not possible, a moratorium
[55:37] will give us time to study, to take public feedback
[55:42] and to show that you really respect your constituents
[55:47] and let developers know that petaluma will stand firm.
[55:53] there will, and one of the lines that
[55:58] I saw there was about standalone data centers.
[56:03] does that mean they can attach anything to a data center
[56:07] like, uh, a swimming pool? That's meant to be sort
[56:12] of a joke about the devon development.
[56:16] but, um, you know, once something is
[56:21] attached to a data center, it no longer is a standalone.
[56:25] and these developers have a lot of money,
[56:30] a lot of resources, and I don't wanna see them pushing
[56:34] us around. So we really,
[56:39] really need to have all our ducks in a row. And I think
[56:43] a mor moratorium will help with that. So thank you for listening.
[56:48] thank you paul alexander to be followed by jorge
[56:52] reg ti.
[56:57] uh, good evening council members and fellow petal lumen. I also
[57:01] support a moratorium on data centers, although
[57:06] a ban would be even better, but if we must consider them, here are
[57:10] some points I'd like to, and they've been eloquently expressed already, but I'll express them more
[57:14] as well. Petaluma needs a data center
[57:19] moratorium built into our general plan now
[57:23] to protect our quality of life, our climate, and our environment.
[57:29] a moratorium is needed with no buy right permitting,
[57:34] where developers pay a hundred percent of infrastructure costs
[57:39] and the industry reclassification zoning and
[57:43] code loopholes. Loopholes are closed. We
[57:47] need meaningful and defensible noise and vibration. Frequency limits,
[57:53] air and water pollution and usage limits and heat island
[57:57] effects limited. And we need to consider
[58:03] limiting surveillance and flock data impacts.
[58:09] so developers are sliding in, getting through
[58:13] by somehow becoming listed as
[58:17] not standalone. That was me before, or tenant improvement
[58:22] or ways to dodge local restrictions that are not airtight. We have to be careful
[58:26] of that. So we need a moratorium or ordinance that isn't comprehensive,
[58:31] would be barely better than the ordinance at all. So we need our city
[58:35] to proactively close these loopholes now, not
[58:39] discover them open later. And finally,
[58:44] petaluma wants strong, enforceable protections in place before,
[58:48] not after a developer shows up. Thank you for your time, and please take this
[58:52] seriously. Thank you. Thank you jorge.
[58:57] rag ti to be followed by don johnson.
[59:01] second chance for don.
[59:06] thank you. Can you hear me? Um, I
[59:10] strongly support the request from council members, alex de carley and john
[59:14] trips to impose a moratorium on the construction of data centers
[59:18] in the city of petaluma. In my opinion, a ban would
[59:23] be even more desirable. The environmental impacts of these
[59:27] data centers have become public knowledge for communities where they are deployed
[59:31] and nationwide. Huge amounts of water for, for refrigeration
[59:36] of the computers, huge amounts of electricity, air pollution, light
[59:41] pollution, sound pollution, et cetera. These environmental
[59:45] impacts are very grave, but the main purposes of the, of the data centers are
[59:49] even more concerning. Some of those are real-time
[59:53] location tracking, behavioral data capture, biometric
[59:57] and financial surveillance. Automated enforcement tied to digital
[1:00:02] id and programmable money of every individual.
[1:00:07] this already disaster list is complemented with the department
[1:00:11] of defense project of creating ai control fighting
[1:00:15] robots. Your decision to ban any data center in petaluma
[1:00:19] should be easy to make if you come to understand that the benefits are hard to
[1:00:23] find and the risk are many and very large.
[1:00:28] thank you. Thank you. Uh, donald johnson.
[1:00:33] not seeing donald. We'll go to our zoom, uh, participant now.
[1:00:37] we have one speaker, uh, on zoom and that's amy taylor.
[1:00:42] I will ask you to unmute yourself.
[1:00:51] amy, if you could go ahead and unmute yourself and make your comment.
[1:01:02] sorry, we're not hearing you, amy. I made a mistake
[1:01:06] and I wanted to speak on agenda 12. Okay, got it.
[1:01:10] sorry about that. No problem. Okay.
[1:01:18] okay, that brings it, that that closes public comment. That's the, the
[1:01:22] last zoom and last house card we have. So I'd like to bring it up to council. And again,
[1:01:26] we've split this into two sections. I'd like to treat the bulk of the consent
[1:01:30] calendar first. Any, um, questions or, um, uh,
[1:01:34] comments on the that, or may we have a motion on the all items, but
[1:01:39] to consent calendar, I'll move all items except to
[1:01:43] I'll second. We have a motion from quint and a second from shrives.
[1:01:47] may we have a roll call? Vote barnacle. Aye. Cater
[1:01:51] thompson? Yes. Di carly?
[1:01:55] yes. Now? Yes. Quint? Yes. Shrives?
[1:02:00] yes. Mcdonald? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
[1:02:04] and now to the matter of item two. Uh, item two, uh,
[1:02:08] arises, uh, on, on our agenda as a standard
[1:02:13] te tentative, uh, tentative agenda and a request to modify the
[1:02:17] tentative agenda. And, um, so the issue
[1:02:21] at hand is what the issue is
[1:02:25] and not the advocacy of it, but what the clarity of what the issue is
[1:02:29] and also, um, whether the timeliness of it warrants
[1:02:34] assigning it to a, that's the deliberation we're having as a council at
[1:02:38] this moment. Council member barnacle, you, um, asked for this to be pulled.
[1:02:42] why don't you, uh, lead the conversation? Yeah. Um, appreciate
[1:02:47] the concern about data centers. I certainly don't want one here. Um,
[1:02:51] I checked with, uh, sonoma clean power, ceo, and he said
[1:02:55] we have a very early report system with anyone, uh, looking at data centers.
[1:02:59] um, also the staff, I asked the question here, there's been no
[1:03:04] reported action, uh, or interest in data centers in sonoma county that he's aware
[1:03:08] of, um, and that our staff's aware of in the city of petaluma. Um, still,
[1:03:12] uh, in the, it says though there is not a permissible use
[1:03:16] within the city's implementing zoning ordinance. There are loopholes that leave
[1:03:20] the city vulnerable. And my question to the two council members who put this on is what
[1:03:25] are the loopholes that leave us vulnerable?
[1:03:30] and would either of the advocates, uh, like
[1:03:34] to address that? Council member di carly,
[1:03:38] thank you. And I appreciate everybody coming to speak on this. Councilman schibs and I brought it
[1:03:42] forward because we do believe it's a very serious issue and there's a lot of concern nationwide
[1:03:47] and in our state about this, and a lot of concern based around, you know, things everybody
[1:03:51] mentioned. But, uh, you know, certainly water and energy consumption.
[1:03:55] um, the amount of land it can take, you know, what that would do, what that would do to us here.
[1:03:59] there's also health concerns, um, and, and a whole lot of unknowns about them.
[1:04:04] and so, um, you know, we, we just saw over
[1:04:08] the hill, there was one proposed in calistoga that's really not that far away.
[1:04:13] and, you know, that's arguably, um, a very similar town
[1:04:17] in some ways too. You know, you wouldn't expect one to pop up there, but there it was.
[1:04:21] and so, you know, in, in initial discussions, uh, with staff, you
[1:04:26] know, we talked about doing an ieo update and they've agreed that they want
[1:04:30] to do that and put that in there. And I think that's wonderful, you know, but that
[1:04:34] does still leave us vulnerable for however long that takes. And best case
[1:04:38] scenario, we'd be looking at four months of where we're at now until
[1:04:42] that's implemented. And, you know, given how long ieo updates,
[1:04:46] how long it's taken to get here, you know, we're, we're way behind on those
[1:04:51] four months is the best case scenario. So that could take even longer.
[1:04:55] and, um, you know, that said, that's, that's why I think we
[1:04:59] should be looking at a moratorium. And the value of a moratorium here
[1:05:03] is it actually gives us 12 months to, to really be thorough
[1:05:08] to think about it, consider all the different things, because data centers
[1:05:12] is a very broad term. And, um, you know, and there's
[1:05:16] been a lot of concern about, you know, staff time prioritizing things.
[1:05:20] and when you, when we give 12 months to staff to
[1:05:24] determine this, to help ban it, you know, that's gonna give them
[1:05:28] a lot of time to fit it in with everything else. And then we won't have to worry in the meantime about
[1:05:33] anything coming in. So I think the moratorium is a value valuable tool
[1:05:37] in that sense. Now, um, you know, what
[1:05:41] I'd really like to have on this is, is also a public discussion.
[1:05:45] and I feel the public needs to hear our stance on this. It's a great opportunity for
[1:05:50] us to declare our values and say that we don't want this here if that's how the entire council feels.
[1:05:54] that's how john and I feel. And, um, you know, it, it provides
[1:05:59] transparency. It, it, uh, you know, helps with public trust.
[1:06:03] um, you know, and we should be discussing things like, like ndas with staff. If,
[1:06:07] if somebody comes in and wants to actually discuss something like this, because I think that's an important
[1:06:11] thing to have because if we just do an icl update, we're not talking about things
[1:06:16] like ndas. And so, um, you know, if, if this prevents
[1:06:20] even one data center from being built, I feel it's a very valuable use
[1:06:24] of our staff's time and resources. I, I think you were being asked
[1:06:28] if you could identify the loopholes that you were referencing.
[1:06:32] yeah. I mean, some of them were addressed in the first public comment, so all a developer
[1:06:37] has to do is come to town, request a variance, request, new zoning,
[1:06:41] and, and they're able to start that process. They go through cqa, they go through all the hoops
[1:06:45] and, you know, and, and, and they're, they're rolling.
[1:06:49] you know, and one of the things I was assured of when I first started this discussion
[1:06:54] is we would never allow a data center to be built here, but I'll let councilman
[1:06:58] trips talk about it. But we do have some small ones, and maybe those are okay.
[1:07:02] maybe they're not, I don't know. We're gonna have to define it and figure it out. But,
[1:07:06] you know, we already have them built and have been assured that they never would be.
[1:07:11] so the biggest loophole is somebody coming in and,
[1:07:15] you know, it's, I mean, nobody ever thought there would be a six story hotel right
[1:07:19] in the center of downtown, yet there were loopholes found and staff
[1:07:23] went with it. Councilor barnicle.
[1:07:27] okay. I, um, I interested to hear what council member schibs
[1:07:31] has found.
[1:07:36] okay. The, um, let's get back to the original question, which is, uh, why
[1:07:40] even think about a discussion about a moratorium and about timing?
[1:07:45] and I think it's the right time to at least have a discussion, whether we go
[1:07:49] with it, this or that, or how we define it, or what we ask staff to do. I think at the
[1:07:53] right time to do it, uh, to at least have a discussion on this thing, on
[1:07:57] this issue. Um, uh, 'cause there is these things happening. So here's, I'm
[1:08:01] gonna give you a list of, of what brought me to this conclusion of
[1:08:06] the things that are happening in our state and even locally. Um,
[1:08:10] so data centers are being supported, uh, by, of course the tech industry and the ai
[1:08:14] companies and the global folks working out there. Um, but it's also being supported,
[1:08:18] uh, specifically by gavin newsom, our mayor. Our governor is fully supporting him,
[1:08:22] and he has the full supporter of the ag department, which is now pushing him
[1:08:27] and, and actually seeking out fairgrounds all over the state to, to put these on.
[1:08:32] recently, calistoga had a, had a proposal put down for their
[1:08:36] fairgrounds, uh, which also included, uh, a heliport for,
[1:08:40] um, uh, drones that are transport of people, transporting drones.
[1:08:45] so it wouldn't be a standalone thing. So if, if there's laws against standalones
[1:08:49] that can be bypassed. There's also, um, one in morgan
[1:08:54] hill that was proposed. It's been denied temporarily on a
[1:08:58] moratorium. Um, so it's happening there. The largest,
[1:09:02] there's a proposal right now in santa clara county to, for the largest
[1:09:06] ai data center in the world is being proposed at santa clara,
[1:09:11] uh, uh, county right now. And it was probably gonna go through 'cause of the current, uh,
[1:09:15] 'cause that's where the tech industry is. Another factor we are, uh, are
[1:09:19] have been called telecom valley. So we're not silicon valley,
[1:09:23] we are telecom valley where we had a fc and we were the leaders of telecom.
[1:09:28] we still have all that expertise still here, and there's still a lot of 'em are still working
[1:09:32] here. And, um, and because of that, what people don't,
[1:09:36] may not realize, we have two data centers here in town already. They're already here.
[1:09:41] uh, one is a data center. It's small, it's a pilot study. We have a company
[1:09:45] in town that's actually producing special optic tools, optical
[1:09:49] cable tools to connecting these servers. And they have a, a testing room. I've seen it,
[1:09:54] um, actually a really nice company, uh, local, almost all local
[1:09:58] employees, uh, from from the telecom valley. They're working on it. And they're producing
[1:10:02] these special little, little things about the size of your thumb, uh, for
[1:10:07] data centers from all over the world for tens of millions of dollars right now.
[1:10:11] so we actually may be getting a one, one, uh, cent per sale sales tax from, from this
[1:10:15] company right now. And they're operating right here in town. A second company,
[1:10:19] which people I wasn't even aware of, um, is called, um, it's called
[1:10:23] x two n sat. They have a small data center. It's using 1.2,
[1:10:28] uh, um, megawatts of power right now. And it
[1:10:33] actually serves the satellite community actually is hooked up with satellite
[1:10:37] dishes on the roof. And they're actually hooked in right now. And it's a, um, they've
[1:10:41] got high tech, um, uh, cooling potential
[1:10:46] on there to keep 'em cooled down right now. Not as much water. They're actually using,
[1:10:50] um, uh, electricity cooling systems rather than water cooling systems from what I'm
[1:10:54] reading here, uh, for my notes. So these are things that are happening right
[1:10:58] now. Um, right now in the us there's 1,500 to
[1:11:02] 3000 data centers be in various stages of, of
[1:11:06] construction or proposal in california. Right now, there
[1:11:10] are 32 new data centers being planned right now in
[1:11:14] california with 2,270 megawatts of additional power.
[1:11:19] and where's this power coming from? Um, I thought, oh, they'll do it with solar
[1:11:23] and, um, and the light and, and uh, uh, battery backups and
[1:11:27] turns out, oh, um, no, they're gonna be using natural gas and even
[1:11:31] small nuclear power plants is what's actually being used worldwide right now. So it's
[1:11:35] all fossil fuels. So that was a concern. What are they targeting?
[1:11:39] not necessarily cities anymore. 'cause there's a lot of cities already. There's four here
[1:11:43] in california nearby that are already saying, let's look at it.
[1:11:48] so it's already happening here. And in around, uh, california is
[1:11:52] actually leadings, there's some legislation right now in california legislature
[1:11:56] that's pushing this forward a little bit slowly, but there's two bills right
[1:12:00] now on this. Uh, in california there is a,
[1:12:05] um, oh, by the way, and even the folks that are, um, what I did, I
[1:12:09] did, I used ai to actually do this. I'm using ai almost every day now to do something.
[1:12:13] um, and what some of the letters we got in anti a ai saying no data centers,
[1:12:18] it was obviously they were produced by ai. So we're using it. Um, and
[1:12:22] so it, it, it is gonna be, it's coming, it's gonna be worldwide, it's happening.
[1:12:26] um, and there's even more in other countries than even here in the us now, um, being proposed
[1:12:30] and done. Um, they use consumption of water. Uh, so
[1:12:35] it's the size of facility that matters for large ones. They can
[1:12:39] run up to one to 5 million gallons of water a day. Um,
[1:12:44] and they're using a huge amount of energy. Uh, we're talking about, uh, uh, on grid.
[1:12:48] now they can promise to produce more energy than they use and actually give energy to
[1:12:52] the grid, but it's all gonna be fossil fuels or nuclear right now. So these
[1:12:56] are the concerns that are happening, uh, right now. And given that we've
[1:13:01] already had two proposals here in the bay area, calistoga, and, um,
[1:13:05] and are we a sonoma county? A possible target? So yes, sonoma
[1:13:09] county is a target. The farmland here is a target. Uh, they may even come through
[1:13:13] as a possible offer down the road here at may. So right
[1:13:17] now, there is no proposal for us locally in sonoma county. But,
[1:13:22] um, in my perspective of looking at the near future, yes, would
[1:13:26] they come here and what power do they have to push forward? Maybe not in pen, they
[1:13:30] don't. The largest property you have here in town, I think is 18 acres. Small data
[1:13:34] center could easily put on 18 acres. Not the big, so it a scale.
[1:13:39] so we already have two, uh, in operation. It depends on the
[1:13:43] size. What size do you wanna limit? If we say, oh, no big
[1:13:47] ones, okay, well then they're gonna come in with a 10 acre one and and maybe
[1:13:51] do that. Um, and it's gonna provide service. Does our hospital need a data center? Maybe that's
[1:13:55] where it's gonna be. Um, so these small ancillary data centers
[1:13:59] we may like to have here. We may want to have technology here. We may want to have telecom
[1:14:03] valley again and have, have our, our folks here working
[1:14:07] on this and produce ai centers. The small ones that are ancillary and beneficial
[1:14:11] to us. We use locally for our local businesses, for our
[1:14:15] local hospital, whatever. So that needs to be discussed, um, as
[1:14:20] to what is it we want here because we already have it here. So where are we
[1:14:24] gonna put the limits on and where, what are we gonna tell the county? Us the city
[1:14:28] needs to tell the county, county, hey, hey, awareness, wake up. It may happen.
[1:14:33] it may come this next year. Are you prepared? So I just want pre preparation
[1:14:37] to happen anyway. That's my rationale as to why it needs to be at least discussed
[1:14:42] and thought about and maybe planned ahead. We may not have
[1:14:46] to have taken action right now. It may not have to put on a moratorium 'cause there's no proposals right
[1:14:50] now. And looks like our staff said we have regulations in place to, to slow
[1:14:54] it down, stop it, whatever. I just want to have better planning and to
[1:14:58] move forward so that we're thinking ahead and, and have a future, uh, options
[1:15:02] and actually push it up the scale as to what we want the the county to do. What do
[1:15:07] we want the state to do? Let's have a voice in this matter. So that's why now I think it's
[1:15:11] important to do it now, okay. Rather than later. Anyway, that's my discuss. Council member
[1:15:15] barn. Does that answer the question you asked? No, it doesn't, but that's all right.
[1:15:19] um, I don't doubt that a fallow vineyard is a, is is a target
[1:15:23] and that the, the downturn in the wine industry makes our county a target for,
[1:15:27] for data centers. Um, but I don't see prime
[1:15:31] real estate in the heart of our, in, in our city being, um,
[1:15:36] being a target for this. Um, and I don't see, um,
[1:15:42] like some of the, the commenters talked about san jose. San jose
[1:15:46] explicitly allows data centers in their commercial general combined industrial,
[1:15:50] commercial, industrial park, light, industrial, heavy industrial transit employment
[1:15:55] centers. All of them allowed explicitly. Petaluma doesn't even define
[1:15:59] it. The closest we come is exactly what you described, which is a
[1:16:03] business that does processing and, and equipment and things like that, having a
[1:16:07] data center there to support their business. And with a co with
[1:16:11] a council that says that we support business and we want to see economic development
[1:16:15] to then take a business that's generating tens of millions of dollars for our city and
[1:16:19] saying we don't want another one of those because of a small, uh, a small
[1:16:23] data center in their facility. Um, I think that, uh,
[1:16:28] we're, um, putting a moratorium on that is the wrong thing to
[1:16:32] do. Addressing it in our zoning code where we're actually addressing policy and we're
[1:16:36] talking about policy is, uh, the right way to approach something
[1:16:40] like this. Um, the other thing is, is
[1:16:45] there are, um, the idea that we can walk and chew gum,
[1:16:49] absolutely we can, we do it every day. Um, the idea that we can
[1:16:54] continuously add more things to our plate without compromising the
[1:16:58] amount that we show up for our mobile home parks, because our city attorney is ultimately gonna
[1:17:02] be involved in this, um, is, you know, like there's
[1:17:06] only so much that we can load on our staff. And I don't think that
[1:17:10] this is a risk to our city right now. What I do see every day
[1:17:15] is people not being able to afford housing here. Like it's not lost
[1:17:19] on me that people my age that are on this council or people on that are not
[1:17:23] my age on, on this council, but have kids. All of them, if we're, if they're living in this city,
[1:17:27] have been helped by their family members, and that's not, that's not the city that I
[1:17:31] wanna work on, or that's not the city I want to govern. I want to try and address those problems.
[1:17:35] those are real problems that I think we should be focused on. And this right here,
[1:17:40] put it into the zoning code update, put it into the general plan update. We've got four planning
[1:17:44] processes running right now, and we want to add in an emergency
[1:17:48] moratorium for a problem that currently
[1:17:52] doesn't exist. We have zero applications in the, in the works anywhere in the county.
[1:17:57] and neither one of you could identify a loophole yet. You said there was loopholes.
[1:18:02] I'm just like, what problem are we trying to solve other than like,
[1:18:06] we need this. So I'm a, I'm a no on this because it's
[1:18:10] a distraction. Okay. Uh, council member quint.
[1:18:15] yeah, I, you know, I, I'll share, as I was hearing, uh, listening to
[1:18:19] council member di carly and, um, and, and the,
[1:18:24] the members of the audience speak, the first question that came to my mind was, I wanna understand
[1:18:28] the loopholes. And, uh, so thank you council member barnacle for
[1:18:32] answering that because if there are loopholes, I really wanna understand it. One
[1:18:36] question that I have, and I don't know if this is for the city attorney or not, but in our,
[1:18:41] in our izo, um, if something isn't
[1:18:46] specifically identified as a permissible use,
[1:18:51] how is that treated as an impermissible use?
[1:18:55] and can you define that for the layperson? Sure. It means, it, it means effectively we
[1:18:59] have a ban on that use unless, and until the council chooses to amend it
[1:19:04] and lift it. Got it. So, um, how
[1:19:08] would, like, just in terms of the discussion of loopholes, can you
[1:19:12] give your point of view in terms of how
[1:19:16] at risk we are from loopholes? Thank you. Um,
[1:19:20] council member quinn, I'd be happy to do that. Um,
[1:19:25] so we have looked at this issue because
[1:19:29] there's no debate about the potential impacts of, of large data
[1:19:33] centers and standalone data centers that members of the public has spoken about, council
[1:19:37] members have spoken about. Um, we're seeing the literature about that. There's lots of discussion
[1:19:42] among municipalities about that. But the issue is,
[1:19:46] are we at risk of having, of the council having to approve a use because it's already permitted.
[1:19:50] and the answer that we see when we review the code is no. Um, because
[1:19:55] standalone data centers, large data centers are not a permitted use in our code like
[1:19:59] they are in san jose as council member and other jurisdictions as council member barnacle has
[1:20:03] pointed out. So, um, so we don't see the
[1:20:08] risk. Um, I'd like to draw a comparison to the last time
[1:20:12] staff were recommended and brought forward, um, moratoria
[1:20:16] on a use in petaluma. And that was when, um, the council had
[1:20:20] already indicated a desire to, um,
[1:20:25] um, to, to prohibit future new
[1:20:29] gas station uses in the city. Um, and
[1:20:33] we recommended and brought forward to the council. And the council enacted
[1:20:38] moratoria first the urgency one that can last 45 days, and
[1:20:42] then the renewal that you have to start on immediately because the first one will last 45
[1:20:46] days that can extend it a year. Um, I don't think we needed the third renewal
[1:20:50] that could take it up to three years. Um, and that, and we recommended that
[1:20:55] because it was a real risk because we knew there were, um,
[1:21:00] developers that were in interested in, in proposing
[1:21:04] gas station uses, and it was a permitted use in the city. And there was
[1:21:08] land that was developable where it was a permitted use. So I would
[1:21:12] contrast with that, with our, our current circumstance. And so if we,
[1:21:17] given the council concerns, given the community concerns, given our
[1:21:21] own awareness as staff of the potential negative impacts of large
[1:21:26] data centers and standalone data centers, if we thought there was a wi risk, we'd
[1:21:30] be already working on it. And so, and, and certainly,
[1:21:34] um, you know, anticipating the council directing us if we weren't already working on
[1:21:39] it. So the other thing I wanted to mention procedurally is that for
[1:21:43] the city council, for the city to enact a moratorium
[1:21:48] that's under section 6, 5 8 5 8 in the government code,
[1:21:53] um, we need to make findings, urgency findings, that there's
[1:21:57] a risk, um, with respect to a change in the land
[1:22:01] use scheme, that the council wants to freeze
[1:22:05] the status quo, um, because of that risk while it's considering,
[1:22:10] um, legislative change. And, and so we have to have those urgency
[1:22:14] findings about what the risk is, excuse me.
[1:22:19] um, and, and it's like the risks are like the ones I described
[1:22:23] that, that were real risks when, when the council was considering, and in fact ultimately did
[1:22:27] adopt what was the first, um, ban on new gas stations in the united states.
[1:22:33] so I, we, I
[1:22:37] I I think we'd have a difficult time making those findings in this case. Um,
[1:22:42] and the reason why is because we don't have a risk, because
[1:22:46] we're protected by the fact that we have a defacto ban already against large
[1:22:50] data centers and new data centers. 'cause they're not a permitted use. And what's
[1:22:54] what's helpful for us about that is, um, let's
[1:22:58] see, I was gonna look at the timing that staff provided regarding the,
[1:23:03] um, updates that are, that are already scheduled.
[1:23:07] so there's a planning commission session scheduled for august 11th,
[1:23:12] um, that's a study session, uh, planning commission, public hearing
[1:23:16] scheduled for september 8th and city council first reading october 5th
[1:23:21] on zoning code updates. And that is a wonderful and a lovely time
[1:23:25] for the whole community and the council to have this discussion. Um,
[1:23:29] that I think is probably because it's not a permitted use now
[1:23:34] is probably gonna have to, I anticipate ha it having a different focus,
[1:23:38] more like the one council member barnacle just suggested. And that is
[1:23:43] recognizing that large data centers, standalone data centers
[1:23:47] are not a permitted use. What
[1:23:51] policy does the council want to consider and potentially adopt and,
[1:23:55] and, you know, and receive public comment about, and staff recommendations
[1:23:59] about to ensure that uses like we have in place
[1:24:04] now that don't present the, um, water usage, power usage,
[1:24:08] other nuisance conditions, risks, um, um, to
[1:24:12] the public, um, such as large and standalone data centers do so that
[1:24:16] we can have that economic development, um,
[1:24:22] in a way from businesses that's, that don't raise those threats. So,
[1:24:26] so that's what I would say in answer to that
[1:24:31] question if I missed anything. Oh, one, one other thing is, um, and this is quick.
[1:24:35] so the loophole that the vice mayor
[1:24:39] identified is always a risk. And that is,
[1:24:45] right now the zoning code
[1:24:49] does not permit large data centers, standalone data centers.
[1:24:54] um, an applicant could come forward
[1:24:58] and apply for a discretionary
[1:25:02] decision by the council that would be subject to environmental review and discretionary deliberation
[1:25:07] by the council to add that use as a permitted
[1:25:11] use to make his zoning amendment. And if the council,
[1:25:15] um, w in the course of the zoning amendments that are planned
[1:25:20] that I just talked about, the scheduling of, um, were
[1:25:24] to prohibit that use or
[1:25:28] permit it in limited circumstances as an ancillary use, it could still,
[1:25:32] in response to subsequent action or later, counsel could still change that.
[1:25:36] so that it's not really a loophole. The possibility of, of discretionary
[1:25:41] legislative change always exists, but it's only
[1:25:45] based on a, the decision of a majority of the council. So I, I don't think
[1:25:50] unless the council will be inclined to improve, approve such a thing, I don't think that's a real
[1:25:54] risk. 'cause the council gets to control that. So that's, that, that concludes my,
[1:25:58] my answer. If there are more questions, we'd be happy to address 'em. So,
[1:26:03] so I'm satisfied from that, that our current, um,
[1:26:08] situation is that we don't have a lot of, we don't have any loopholes.
[1:26:12] and if anyone disagrees with that, I, I'd welcome your input
[1:26:17] from my perspective, um, you know, I don't know if I could
[1:26:21] act like the mayor for a moment. I'd like to see a show of hands from the council who
[1:26:25] here is in favor of a standalone data center in petaluma
[1:26:29] . Um, seeing no hands. Okay, so my point is
[1:26:34] that from my perspective, none of us want it. And, um,
[1:26:39] and so, so the question at hand is do we
[1:26:44] act immediately to stop some threat
[1:26:48] that doesn't exist right now?
[1:26:52] or do we wait a couple of months, a few months and
[1:26:57] address it in the zoning code? And so, so that's kind of the
[1:27:01] question from my perspective. And when, you know,
[1:27:05] if there is, um, if there, if there's things being thrown out, they give us
[1:27:09] anxiety, like the data centers are coming in and they're gonna overrun our fairgrounds,
[1:27:13] uh, like they are in calistoga. To me that feels a little bit,
[1:27:18] um, like, you know, just trying to create fear and anxiety.
[1:27:22] and what I would say to that is, and again, this is just, this is me
[1:27:26] using ai, hopefully it's from a, a data center that's in iowa.
[1:27:31] um, you know, I just asked the question, you know, what, what's going
[1:27:35] on in calistoga? And the proposal was not a formal development
[1:27:39] application, it was a conceptual presentation
[1:27:44] made by a private company. Um, and I, you
[1:27:48] know, it was, you know, appro, uh, the approximate use of five acres
[1:27:52] on a 70 acre site. Um, it, it
[1:27:56] was a presentation, it wasn't a formal proposal.
[1:28:01] and what happened, uh, no application was ever filed,
[1:28:05] no entitlement process began, no environmental review occurred
[1:28:10] after the public backlash. Calistoga deputy city
[1:28:14] manager stated that the city would not pursue this idea further.
[1:28:18] and discussions with global stack ended. And, uh,
[1:28:23] that fairgrounds is, hasn't been in use since 2012.
[1:28:28] it's completely, uh, dilapidated
[1:28:32] and overrun and or overgrown. And it, it, it doesn't,
[1:28:36] um, from my perception, it doesn't represent what we're dealing with
[1:28:41] here. And so I would suggest
[1:28:45] that we, instead of creating a distraction for staff to
[1:28:49] work on that, we let them address this in the code update
[1:28:53] the zone update. Thank you, council member. Now. Um,
[1:28:58] well thank you council member quint, because, um, two weeks ago I didn't
[1:29:02] know what a data center was, and I had to go to ai to ask them what a
[1:29:06] data center was, but bringing up the fairgrounds, one thing that makes
[1:29:10] our fairgrounds different, and I wanna smash all rumors,
[1:29:15] the other fairgrounds are mainly owned by the state of california.
[1:29:19] so our governor could, you know, suggest a data center.
[1:29:24] petaluma owns its fairgrounds, we have control
[1:29:28] of it, and no data center's gonna go there.
[1:29:32] and please spread that rumor. The other thing is,
[1:29:36] I applaud the two council members who brought this forward because
[1:29:41] it's the protocol to, if a council member wants to
[1:29:45] have a discussion about something, you can't talk to more than two council
[1:29:49] members, or it's a brown act violation. So you have to put it
[1:29:53] on an agenda request through these channels.
[1:29:58] and it comes to the consent calendar. I welcome this discussion,
[1:30:03] but everything our city attorney said in, I don't know, maybe
[1:30:07] two, three minutes, I would like to read two or three times. So this
[1:30:11] is the reason we put it on an agenda so that the city attorney
[1:30:15] can write all those words down and we can read it and read it and read
[1:30:19] it until we understand legalese. So I really want our city
[1:30:24] to be proactive. But, um, 20 years ago,
[1:30:28] and the city attorney can remind me when we had a request for a
[1:30:32] ban on plastic bags, and I don't remember if it was ordinance
[1:30:36] or a ban, but it took, what, 20 years to have that
[1:30:41] ban in place. And they first came to the cities and there were
[1:30:45] some legal issues. So, um, we wanna be proactive
[1:30:49] and I suggest that our climate committee
[1:30:53] brings something to us as well, because I would like to hear from them.
[1:30:57] that's what they're for. And I believe mr. Rebs, you are the
[1:31:01] liaison to that climate committee, and I don't know if they've ever talked
[1:31:06] about it. Um, and then we need to have the staff report
[1:31:11] and our vulnerability and the legal details,
[1:31:15] and then we have a very robust public discussion.
[1:31:19] and do we, what do we add to the general plan council member
[1:31:23] barnacles is right in october, we're gonna be hearing about zoning. I'm looking
[1:31:27] forward to that discussion and what we
[1:31:31] can do and put in place for our next 20 years general plan.
[1:31:36] so, um, I look forward to that. And I thank everybody who came and
[1:31:40] spoke today. I thank everybody who texted me, phoned me,
[1:31:44] emailed me, and caught me on the streets or in social media
[1:31:48] and had a conversation. But please know that none of us are in favor
[1:31:52] of a data center in petaluma. Thank you. Council member
[1:31:56] cater thompson.
[1:32:01] uh, thank you. Yeah, I am I'm actually looking forward to, um, the zoning code. We've
[1:32:05] been waiting for a long time, and that's right around the corner. And I hope everybody that spoke
[1:32:09] tonight actually participates in that and sends information in. And
[1:32:14] I just wanna bring up, um, you know, just
[1:32:18] another comment. There is a council member that continues, continually
[1:32:22] brings up that we need an amazon distribution center in, in petaluma,
[1:32:26] one of the locations was close to the deer creek shopping center.
[1:32:30] and, you know, when we're doing zoning codes, I wanna make sure that that is also
[1:32:34] included. That we do not have, excuse, excuse me, we're staying focused on,
[1:32:39] on, uh, whether to agendize. I, I understand that, but we're talking about, we're
[1:32:43] talking about zoning and I understand what we're talking about. But they do
[1:32:47] cross and they are both impactful. And so I think this should be done during
[1:32:51] the zoning, which is right around the corner. But people need to participate.
[1:32:56] 'cause it, this is, data centers are not something we want.
[1:33:01] we understand, um, the ne negatives about those, the water,
[1:33:05] the electricity, the sound that's well known, and that's
[1:33:09] not what we want in our town. And just to reiterate, that's why we took the
[1:33:13] fairgrounds back. So we had control. There are 54,
[1:33:18] um, daas in the county, in the state,
[1:33:22] and we are not one of those. And I applaud the council for pulling
[1:33:26] out and taking back our fairgrounds for these very reasons. So we have
[1:33:30] total control of what happens in our community. Thank you.
[1:33:36] uh, thank you. Council member de carley something. Yeah, no, I'd like to respond
[1:33:40] to a lot of that since it's, I, I, I don't think we wanna respond. I think we, we wanna say whether
[1:33:44] we have, um, this to be agendized in the next meeting. This is not the discussion
[1:33:49] of ai or data center. This is the discussion of izing
[1:33:53] it. So you have an opinion and you should express your opinion on why
[1:33:57] it's an imperative to you. Yes, I understand my role.
[1:34:02] so, um, basically it's called being proactive and getting out front of something.
[1:34:06] you know, I feel like, uh, a lot of times we, we aren't, and then,
[1:34:10] you know, there's lawsuits, there's a lot more staff time that goes into something. There's more council
[1:34:14] meetings that are required and time. It's, it's, uh, this is, this is an
[1:34:18] opportunity to be proactive here. I mean, it's, it's really that simple and it's a
[1:34:22] very real issue. And I don't, I don't think that anybody pretending it isn't.
[1:34:27] um, and then saying that they don't want data centers is, that doesn't make sense
[1:34:31] either. So, you know, a concern that
[1:34:35] john and I looked at and what does the moratorium look like was, you
[1:34:39] know, we, this would be part of the discussion. We determine,
[1:34:43] you know, what, what supporting infrastructure is to an existing business and
[1:34:47] determine how many square feet that is. So we could be looking at something like, you
[1:34:51] know, it's a moratorium, but under a thousand square feet it's allowed, you know, that's an
[1:34:55] example of it. And then that way you're not prohibiting anything that should be allowed
[1:35:00] is gonna contribute to our economy and to the betterment of our city. That's
[1:35:04] just one way. But we can't determine that without a discussion. And
[1:35:08] so I will make sure this is working because, um, councilman
[1:35:13] barnacle, you know, you said, I didn't describe a loophole, but I did thank
[1:35:17] you city attorney danley, for describing it in detail.
[1:35:21] but, um, it's, it's as simple as the zoning text amendment. And you just
[1:35:25] had a former, um, planning commissioner with four years of experience
[1:35:30] watching this happen over and over and over again, and just, and
[1:35:34] you just admitted it was possible. You know, it's, maybe it's harder, maybe
[1:35:38] it's not as easy of a path, but it is possible through a zoning text amendment.
[1:35:43] and, you know, I, again, I want to go back to wasting staff's time on
[1:35:47] this. 'cause that was kind of one of your points is that it's gonna waste a lot of staff's time. But how did
[1:35:51] you feel about staff's time during the bathtubs? You know, the community didn't
[1:35:56] walk down. I think we're, we're varying off of, uh, the topic. I, no, I right back on. No, I can finish
[1:36:00] it. So, you know, I think we need to listen to what the public
[1:36:04] wants here. I think we need a standalone discussion on this. Not to
[1:36:08] just loop it in with the izo updates, though I do appreciate that because
[1:36:12] that is what I ultimately want to see. But this deserves its own discussion
[1:36:16] and the public wants this conversation. And that's what I'm trying to get here. Agendized
[1:36:21] here, you know, and I didn't find, I do find it strange that there's so much
[1:36:25] pushback on this because this should really be a nonpartisan issue amongst
[1:36:29] my colleagues and I thank you.
[1:36:33] um, and for my part, um, this is just an discussion of whether
[1:36:37] this should be on tonight's agenda in a minute I'll
[1:36:41] explain what the voting means when we get to that such and such part.
[1:36:46] um, but I do think the conversation about, um, loopholes
[1:36:50] is, uh, a question of what one's perception is. Um, certainly,
[1:36:55] um, what looks like process in public process to
[1:36:59] most of us often feels like a loophole. I mean,
[1:37:04] a loophole means, did it, it could get done. Well, if it gets done by a
[1:37:08] public process, not a trick, then it's not a loophole.
[1:37:12] it's part of the public process. Now, moratorium is a process,
[1:37:16] and what we find is we need to have a finding for it. We don't have the basis for
[1:37:20] that. Um, so we don't, we don't have something we can do
[1:37:24] in terms of a moratorium. There's no, the urgency,
[1:37:29] qualification's not there. So it doesn't have public process.
[1:37:33] if we did have a moratorium on something, um, the loophole
[1:37:37] would be public process. The things that we're worried about getting public input on and
[1:37:42] participation on are all part of public process. Uh,
[1:37:46] I concur that, um, that we do not want, uh, that would not
[1:37:50] be a beneficial use for any lands within the city to, uh, have
[1:37:54] data center here that does fly in the face of
[1:37:59] large economic interest, ai data center, big
[1:38:03] powerful interest. So I am, um, I'm interested in, in
[1:38:07] getting this tightly in to our izo. We have the opportunity
[1:38:12] for a workshop in the next month and a half in, in the august, september window that
[1:38:16] the planning commission is already scheduled for. We've said that this needs to be a
[1:38:20] priority. Staff has heard that this is an issue that should be in the front end of the
[1:38:24] izo conversations. So I think that that is, uh, the
[1:38:28] adequate and correct place. Uh, we talked about staff
[1:38:33] utilization of staff time. I would rather they did it in the correct process
[1:38:37] to really put the right nails into it for the workshop they already intend, rather
[1:38:42] than divert the work planning away from the ice out issues away
[1:38:46] from the mobile home park issues, away from the other priorities that we have.
[1:38:51] it's, I wish the city to achieve more,
[1:38:56] more and better. And I think that works by having it done efficiently.
[1:39:00] so, um, with everybody having weighed in, um,
[1:39:06] uh, we can, we have a
[1:39:10] situation here where the, uh, tenant agenda is listed. It does
[1:39:14] not list the added item of a discussion or of an action,
[1:39:19] um, for, um, as recommended or requested
[1:39:23] by the participants there, uh, and the advocates. So
[1:39:27] due to council rules, if those are, uh, if, if a request
[1:39:32] is made by two council members, it gets put up to this level.
[1:39:36] so the, the motion that's on the floor right now is
[1:39:41] do we have the dis the discussion added to? So
[1:39:45] if we, if we make that motion, then the yes
[1:39:50] position is we're adding that as an agenda item. And
[1:39:54] if we vote no, we're saying we don't want any of that agenda proof, make a new
[1:39:58] motion . And then the alternate is if the motion made is
[1:40:03] approve it as is without the request, then the
[1:40:07] yes is approve it without the change.
[1:40:11] so do we have a motion from the floor? Council member? Barnacle?
[1:40:16] go ahead. Council member, um, um, sch, um,
[1:40:20] yeah, I'll, I'll given the discussion and what we've heard, um,
[1:40:25] I'd like to amend the motion if I may. Um, I'd like
[1:40:29] to, instead of a calling for an immediate moratorium, which is
[1:40:33] what we would like to have, what we've originally suggested, given what staff has
[1:40:37] said and what you have just said about maybe postponing to actually putting it into a
[1:40:41] workshop or, or future to discuss. Because the loopholes we have too,
[1:40:47] um, already in town, it just, it's a size. Are they small,
[1:40:51] medium or large? Small. We already have, what's the motion? So the amendment would be,
[1:40:55] let's have a discussion, um, later on this year and just
[1:40:59] say, we would like to have that in order to, um, um, have
[1:41:03] a, as you said, maybe include it in a planning workshop and have that as a topic.
[1:41:07] um, and, and I would then suggest, okay, let's take it off the actual moratorium
[1:41:12] question. I think where you're going with this one, is it, um, to not add
[1:41:16] the action to tonight, the tentative agenda tonight, but I think the part you're
[1:41:20] asking for is a promise of this conversation happening
[1:41:24] and happening before the end of year is more direction to staff. Yes.
[1:41:28] and so that's not part of a motion, but I think staff's pretty
[1:41:33] well aware what our intention calendar as is. Sorry. So your
[1:41:37] proposal is approves consent calendar as is on the consent
[1:41:41] calendar, the tenant of agenda as is, right? Uh,
[1:41:45] yes. With that understanding. With that understanding, thank you. We have a second.
[1:41:50] second. Can you clarify what that means? We are
[1:41:54] approving, or, or the motion is to approve the tentative agenda
[1:41:59] as written without the request for change.
[1:42:04] and we have a motion by schibs, second by barnacle. One, one
[1:42:08] question. So I do see merit in, in addressing this through the zoning code update.
[1:42:13] um, can we direct staff to, to the ex to the extent
[1:42:17] possible, address it in the zoning code update, which is august, september, october,
[1:42:21] we'll have two planning commission hearings, and then it'll come to the council. Is that
[1:42:25] possible? Yes. And staff are already preparing for that. Alright. But
[1:42:30] then it'll definitely be before the end of the year, so yes,
[1:42:36] that would be satisfying me. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:42:40] um, council member di carly, I don't dunno if
[1:42:45] I can perhaps readdress the motion, but, um, I mean the motion
[1:42:49] was, what we were looking for was on the august 3rd meeting to have
[1:42:53] this discussion, discuss the moratorium and,
[1:42:57] you know, everything that's in the memorandum that was submitted on the 13th.
[1:43:02] the, the, the, the request. The request was to, um,
[1:43:07] like you say, that was the request. And that's the request is not part of the motion that's
[1:43:11] on the floor. It's to approve without the request
[1:43:17] motioned. And second.
[1:43:21] so, uh, may we have a roll call vote on that. Barnacle
[1:43:26] aye. Cater thompson.
[1:43:31] oops. You're muted.
[1:43:36] yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Uh, do carly?
[1:43:41] no, I support the original now. Yes.
[1:43:46] quint, yes. Rebs
[1:43:51] reluctant, but yes. Mcdonald. Yes. And the motion does carry
[1:43:55] with, uh, one no vote. Thank you very much. That
[1:43:59] moves us to public hearings matter for consideration. We have a resolution
[1:44:03] authorizing the city manager to accept the spirit of petaluma beacon as a
[1:44:07] gift from the rotary club, from the petaluma rotary club
[1:44:11] to the city public art collection and execute related donation, transfer,
[1:44:15] installation, maintenance, and moral rights documents.
[1:44:20] to help us through this, we have melissa abercrombie, our public art specialist, and
[1:44:24] very glad to have you too. Thank you. Good evening,
[1:44:28] mayor, vice mayor, council members, city manager and staff,
[1:44:33] and the public before you. Tonight is this proposed spirit of petaluma
[1:44:37] beacon, a public art gift from the petaluma rotary club,
[1:44:43] sorry, um, for installation of the petaluma boulevard south
[1:44:47] at crystal lane. Roundabout. Following nearly a year of design,
[1:44:51] refinement and technical review, the public art committee at its may 28th
[1:44:55] meeting unanimously recommended that city council accept the work as a gift.
[1:45:01] this is a picture of the current conditions of the petaluma, uh, boulevard
[1:45:05] south roundabout. It is one of the city's primary gateways and has long been
[1:45:10] identified in the public art master plan as an appropriate and prioritized
[1:45:14] location for public art. Rotary's proposal transforms the site
[1:45:18] into a welcoming civic gateway, um, while
[1:45:22] maintaining access to the roundabouts existing utilities and infrastructure.
[1:45:29] the spirit of petaluma beacon builds on rotary's lawn history of investing
[1:45:33] in community projects throughout petaluma, from kennelworth, walnut mcdowell,
[1:45:37] and laer parks to the mid to the miracle league. The beacon
[1:45:41] continues that tradition through a privately funded campaign supporting the artwork's design,
[1:45:46] fabrication, installation, and additional maintenance plan of five
[1:45:50] years. Rotary to date has raised approximately $145,000
[1:45:55] from private donations towards its $150,000 fundraising goal.
[1:46:03] the vision for the spirit of petaluma beacon extends beyond a sculpture. It integrates public
[1:46:07] art, gateway, signage, landscape, and lighting into
[1:46:11] a unified welcome at petaluma southern entrance. Tonight we are discussing the
[1:46:15] artwork. The design was developed collaboratively by artist
[1:46:21] david best local engineers, fabricators, and city staff
[1:46:25] to create a distinctive landmark that responds to site constraints while ensuring
[1:46:29] visibility, public safety, utility access, and long-term d
[1:46:33] um, long-term durability. The artwork,
[1:46:39] the approximately 24 foot tall sculpture features a slender steel
[1:46:43] supporting an illuminated circular petaluma bracelet visible
[1:46:47] from multiple approaches. Its open perforated design provides visual
[1:46:52] transparency, prevents water collection, and creates a distinctive landmark
[1:46:56] by day and a subtle beacon by night.
[1:47:00] the site has many constraints, although it appears open. The roundabout contains
[1:47:04] irrigation, drainage, electrical facilities, utility access, and
[1:47:09] the sonoma county aqueduct input from the community
[1:47:13] development department, public works utilities, sonoma county water, and
[1:47:17] the police department shape the artworks location, footprint, and height to protect
[1:47:21] infrastructure while maintaining roadway safety.
[1:47:28] the project brings together internationally recognized artists, david best and local
[1:47:32] fabricator royce van bever of van beba brothers steel. You may
[1:47:37] recognize them as a collaborative pair on the petaluma, uh, river arch on
[1:47:41] the lynch creek trail. So if you're looking towards a feature within our
[1:47:45] community that exists, that shows these types of materials and uses, you can point
[1:47:49] to there, which was installed in 2022, and to this day, has only
[1:47:54] required, um, periodic graffiti removal.
[1:48:00] the sculpture will be fabricated locally using a-s-t-m-a 5 8 8
[1:48:04] weathering steel, commonly known as corten. This will
[1:48:08] be a half inch to three eighth inch in, in, um,
[1:48:12] in, uh, thickness. Also, we will be using structural steel and
[1:48:17] engineered concrete foundations designed to current california boating building codes.
[1:48:22] the corin steel develops a stable protective patina that resists corrosion.
[1:48:26] this is because it has a higher amount of copper, chromium,
[1:48:31] phosphorus, and nickel. These, all these annoying elements form
[1:48:35] a protective layer that prevents extensive corrosion to the sculpture,
[1:48:40] making it exceptionally durable and low maintenance. It's designed as a permanent
[1:48:44] public artwork with an anticipated lifespan of up to 75 years, if not
[1:48:48] more. The beacon will require only routine inspections and occasional
[1:48:53] cleaning based on its construction materials.
[1:48:58] the spirit of petaluma beacon underwent the city's established review process through the
[1:49:03] public art committee. Staff evaluated the proposal using the public art master
[1:49:07] plan, particularly the policy on gifts and loans and
[1:49:11] the implementing zoning ordinance. Chapter 18 on may 28th
[1:49:15] was the unanimous decision to move the item forward as proposed to the city's
[1:49:19] council for acceptance.
[1:49:25] the public art master plan specifically identifies gateways and roadways, so it
[1:49:29] makes it really easy for us to look based on the informed decisions
[1:49:34] that were created in policy.
[1:49:38] we wanted to make sure that this created a memorable sense of arrival. That was why so
[1:49:42] much staff weighed in on the front end to make sure the design really reflected what was
[1:49:46] required of the site. In the end, the site had 10
[1:49:51] foot by 10 foot section available out of a 90 foot diameter.
[1:49:55] the, the petaluma rotary chose in their design to use a much smaller section
[1:50:00] and to make it in scale with the site, they reflected the diameter of the,
[1:50:04] or the circumference of the, the roundabout. And that's what you see
[1:50:08] in that that bracelet shape is them using best use and best
[1:50:12] practices to create a design that that site would allow.
[1:50:18] the proposal fulfills the public art master plan's vision for the gateway
[1:50:22] by creating a permanent, durable landmark that enhances community identity while
[1:50:26] respecting the needs of the site. Staff
[1:50:30] finds the spirit of petaluma beacon is consistent with section 18.120
[1:50:35] of the implementing zoning ordinance. Rotary will fund the first five
[1:50:39] years of maintenance, which will include lighting as needed. That would be the replacement
[1:50:43] of the bulbs, periodic inspections, so that the, the
[1:50:47] project is always being reviewed to make sure it hits the standards of the design that they
[1:50:51] had hired van be and david best to create. And
[1:50:55] they will, they will, um, deal with graffiti and do the abatement
[1:50:59] as needed for the project.
[1:51:04] the acceptance rotary will fund the, these first five years and acceptance remains
[1:51:08] conditioned on final engineering, permitting, utility traffic, safety
[1:51:12] insurance, maintenance and legal approvals staff and the public art committee.
[1:51:17] therefore, recommend the city council accept the spirit of petaluma petaluma beacon
[1:51:21] as a gift to the city. Thank you.
[1:51:28] thank you. We're set, right? We're
[1:51:32] set. Okay, thank you. Uh, any questions from council? Council member schibs?
[1:51:37] uh, thank you. I did, uh, submit a whole bunch of questions I think earlier, uh,
[1:51:41] which you did answer online. Um, so it's all available there for everyone to go
[1:51:45] take a look at. Um, so there is a couple concerns out there. I just
[1:51:49] want to make sure everything gets addressed. I think you did address that. Uh, um, you're
[1:51:53] actually gonna look at the water flows, uh, so that there is actually water capture rather
[1:51:57] than raw water runoff off that site, uh, because I'm looking at a lot of
[1:52:01] hardscape there, uh, rather than ground soil to for penetration. So
[1:52:05] that, that, that, that you're gonna be working on that. Um, and then,
[1:52:09] um, the other area thing I was looking at is, uh, for the birds,
[1:52:14] um, and wildlife, um, there is a, a couple concerns there. If,
[1:52:18] if birds may start inhabiting it like they have here in town, a couple buildings
[1:52:22] here in town, whether or not there's, um, any, um,
[1:52:26] knowledge already that these types of structures are going to either,
[1:52:30] um, have lots of nesting in it or not, and if the birds will be able to pass
[1:52:35] through it or not. Um, so is there anything that we know already
[1:52:39] on these structures and how we're gonna work with, with, uh, with the bird life? Yes. Um,
[1:52:43] david best had at one point created a sculpture that had had a bird enter it
[1:52:47] in sacramento and there were concerns, and that was information that's informed
[1:52:51] us with river arch and with this project. So when you see the scale
[1:52:56] model of it, it might show a cap when you can see it at copper fields or
[1:53:00] petaluma market. And that was really designed so that you could see the lighting in
[1:53:04] these, um, marquettes that are available throughout the community. In the actual design, there
[1:53:08] will be some kind of netting or, um, uh, a perforated
[1:53:13] covering so that you won't, it won't become a basketball hoop, a nesting ground, or a debris
[1:53:17] catcher for any kind of leaves. Um, it'll really, it's really designed to be
[1:53:22] something that's perforated, breathable, but not in any way would trap insects,
[1:53:26] large insects or animals or birds. Okay. Uh, just making
[1:53:30] sure for, uh, that the wildlife gets protected on this. And then on the lighting, um,
[1:53:34] I know we've, uh, I know a couple folks are working with the city on, um, it's
[1:53:38] what's called, uh, uh, night sky project, uh, or dark
[1:53:43] sky project, which case you're changing the light temperature. And, um,
[1:53:47] and, and also the timing of the lights and intensity of the lights illuminations
[1:53:52] for, um, uh, reducing interference with any wildlife that could be bats or anything
[1:53:56] floating around in that area. So, um, will we have control on, on
[1:54:00] that? Yes. All lighting will be approved after,
[1:54:05] um, building department review. It will hit all standards for daylight,
[1:54:09] um, settings and it would be internally illuminated.
[1:54:13] so that's all going to be, um, part of their application process and
[1:54:18] that will be applied to how that's reviewed. Good. So if there is some internal
[1:54:22] lighting, that means there's probably a ladder on the inside of some sort that things could be
[1:54:26] maintained if anything goes wrong on the inside? No, it's gonna be two foot by two
[1:54:30] foot wide in the column from the base, and then it builds up. So there
[1:54:34] would not be an a ladder inside of it. You would, you would have a ladder or something
[1:54:38] in which you climb, you enter the top and change the
[1:54:43] lighting. Okay. So there is, what you're saying is that there is an entry point somewhere
[1:54:47] below the base that folks can get into and then yeah, there will be an access point to replace
[1:54:51] the l-e-d-l-e-d lighting and it would be compliant with, with
[1:54:55] all of our standards. Okay. So, um, the actual, what
[1:54:59] it looks like to me that there is some symbolism that, that's implied here that, that I
[1:55:03] see, and maybe other folks, I thought one person wrote in that they saw something also, but it could
[1:55:07] be, um, a water tower type. 'cause I've seen water towers of similar
[1:55:11] shape. Uh, also the, even the eiffel tower in france has a, a,
[1:55:15] a pillar and it expands out for a restaurant on top. But also our, our
[1:55:20] liberty statue, our statue of liberty has a torch that has a
[1:55:24] very similar shape, and the only difference is it has little flames on top. So
[1:55:28] is it possible that maybe if, um, I know and in fake fireplaces
[1:55:32] there's you, it looks like flames, but it's not just by lighting and a few types of, of,
[1:55:37] of gimmickry be able to create a flame type looking thing. Is there possibilities
[1:55:41] that we could add, enhance it, um, by, by on like 4th of july
[1:55:46] and other special dates to be able to enhance it with some sort of,
[1:55:50] um, uh, lighting effects? I imagine there's
[1:55:54] probably a way to do that, but that's not what I've prepared for the evening. Um,
[1:55:58] it, it's probably true of almost all of our art pieces that they could be augmented with
[1:56:02] lighting in some way, but, um, for this particular piece, it would
[1:56:06] have a co a mesh covering of some kind. And I, I imagine an
[1:56:11] led light, like there are flickering ones that look like fire, so maybe we could replace
[1:56:15] it with something like that. But I'm really, um, that would be up for,
[1:56:19] for discussion at a later date. As of right now, I, I, I would, I
[1:56:23] would suggest that we review the project as is okay. Because as the, um,
[1:56:27] uh, because I saw recently, uh, being my wife's from connect in new york, looking at the ge
[1:56:32] sign that just got put up there and, and with the drones that are out there and leds
[1:56:36] have various lighting of displays that this structure is
[1:56:40] large enough, fancy enough that we could actually create, um, a
[1:56:44] lighting display that is more artistic around it, not just flashing,
[1:56:48] not just a solid white light. So I'm gonna suggest, so is I'm just asking if that's
[1:56:52] possible to be included at this point in time. Um, I wouldn't imagine we'd include
[1:56:56] it as part of this conversation, but it is something that could be considered as a, at a later
[1:57:01] date if there's funding or will to support it. Okay. Those
[1:57:05] are my questions. Thank you. Any other questions?
[1:57:10] and, uh, seeing none, let's go to public comment on the item.
[1:57:15] we did receive 15 public comments ahead of the meeting, and those are posted online
[1:57:20] and we have
[1:57:24] currently 15 people attending the zoom meeting. So at this time,
[1:57:29] I'll start a 32nd clock. Just bear with me while I get my clock going.
[1:57:37] okay. Now we'll start at 32nd clock. During these 30 seconds, members of
[1:57:41] the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk. Members of
[1:57:45] the public attending online should raise their virtual hand, and those attending via
[1:57:49] phone should press star nine to raise their hand. Speakers requests
[1:57:54] received after this 30 seconds may not be accommodated.
[1:58:17] so we have two, uh, speaker cards here tonight, and we also have, um,
[1:58:21] one online. And so I'd like to invite up, uh, lena furlong to
[1:58:25] be followed by sue simmons.
[1:58:36] hi. Hi. Thanks for having, thanks for allowing me to speak on this.
[1:58:40] I wanted to, um, represent the rotary club of petaluma on this
[1:58:44] project here as, um, I am a petaluma resident, and
[1:58:48] I, um, was able to buy a home here by the skin of my teeth
[1:58:52] and work in really super long hours, uh, in the field of landscape
[1:58:57] construction and contracting, right as a, as a mom, uh, with a
[1:59:01] young boy and no familial support at that time. And now
[1:59:05] I've lived here for 13 years and, um, I am part of this
[1:59:09] wonderful group, uh, called, uh, the petaluma rotary club. And in
[1:59:13] my experience in the last few years of being in this club, what I've learned is that we have
[1:59:17] a really rich history being 104 years old this year of
[1:59:21] going around the city and, um, focusing on the seven areas
[1:59:26] of focus, which are, uh, rotary sort of foundation, which include, uh,
[1:59:30] peace building, environmental impact, education, um,
[1:59:35] um, economic development, maternal and children health
[1:59:39] eradicating diseases, and clean water and sanitation.
[1:59:44] and through that information, what I noticed is that these
[1:59:48] group of people get together and they have a lot of fun making friends in the community
[1:59:52] with something to do, you know, giving themselves sort of, um, fellowship, but going
[1:59:56] around and improving on our wonderful community here. And every single
[2:00:01] person in rotary is a volunteer, and virtually every dollar that comes
[2:00:05] into our club is dispersed. And that is the sort of main focus
[2:00:09] of the rotary club of petaluma. So when our a hundred
[2:00:13] third president, sherry ranney sat down with me at lunch and, uh, talked to me about
[2:00:18] what she wanted to do for her legacy project, which is being passed on through
[2:00:22] the next couple years through the next few presidents, and she focused
[2:00:26] on the south entrance to town, uh, naming, you know, citing
[2:00:30] the c-n-e-c-n-n, um, news, uh, naming
[2:00:34] our town the sixth best place to visit in the country. And she was like, look at
[2:00:39] this mess. You know, we've gotta do this for the city of petaluma and for all of us who
[2:00:43] have worked, you know, we're raising our kids here, we're we're, um, you know, arguing
[2:00:47] with each other and being each other's friends and we're in community and we're raising this town
[2:00:52] together. That's what this project is about. And, and it is the true spirit of petaluma
[2:00:56] as we come together, um, in community. And working with
[2:01:00] the city has been amazing on this project so far and, um, so
[2:01:04] many north stars. And, um, we're really looking forward to,
[2:01:09] uh, yay vote tonight and to be able to, um, you know, bring
[2:01:13] this, this piece forward. And in the spirit of 81-year-old david best,
[2:01:17] who's a petaluma resident, and royce van bber, who is 120 5-year-old
[2:01:22] business this year, what we also have a number of supporters that are,
[2:01:26] um, not only centennial businesses from this town, but you know, younger businesses
[2:01:30] or businesses that are 80 plus years old. And what a cool testament to
[2:01:35] the city of petaluma and what our community is, uh, to be, be able
[2:01:39] to bring this forth for our posterity and, um, not just a civic
[2:01:44] landmark. But anyway, thank you. Cheers. Thank you sue simmons.
[2:01:49] simons. Simons,
[2:01:55] good evening everyone. Thank you so much for all your time and energy that you put towards
[2:01:59] the city. And I feel pretty blessed to have joined the rotary with this
[2:02:03] group of people. And the brainstorming and the energy
[2:02:08] and the love that has went into this project really speaks to the spirit
[2:02:12] of petaluma. I've been, I'm third generation, most, you know me, I've been driving
[2:02:16] in and out, probably walking in and out and rode my bicycle in and out
[2:02:20] of that entrance. That's everything that's ever been.
[2:02:25] um, and I think all the entrances of pma, um, means something. And
[2:02:29] there's quite a bit of love and energy put into this project. And I think
[2:02:33] cleaning it up, making it something special, but I think the spirit
[2:02:38] is really, the word for it is taken a lot of,
[2:02:42] a lot of our rotarians bring a lot of things to the package, whether
[2:02:46] it's engineering or landscaping, and they have certainly tried to
[2:02:51] cover and think of everything that you all needed and everything
[2:02:55] that's been stated for a project, including all the underground. So,
[2:02:59] um, it's my extreme pleasure as a person that lives here in
[2:03:03] peta, has raised my family to have this happen. And I'm only hoping
[2:03:07] that it continues on throughout the city and throughout
[2:03:11] that entrance, because it really is just the beginning. Um, so
[2:03:15] I'm very pleased that you're gonna take a vote on it. Thank you very much.
[2:03:20] thank you very much. And, uh, now to our zoom participant.
[2:03:27] yes. Uh, chris rainey, please
[2:03:31] unmute yourself and speak. Thank you
[2:03:36] very much. Uh, thank you very much to the council for your time. Again, my name
[2:03:40] is chris ranney. I'm a resident of petaluma since 1991 and live
[2:03:44] in the westridge area. Uh, my wife, uh, and I are both speaking tonight on behalf of the
[2:03:48] spirit of p of beacon project. We wish we, we could be here, but we're on vacation.
[2:03:52] um, and as I said, this is an art piece that's been gonna be installed at the peta
[2:03:56] boulevard south crystal lane. Obviously, we're also both members of the rotary
[2:04:00] club of petaluma. Um, one of the things that I wanna emphasize here
[2:04:04] is how petaluma truly petaluma centric. This is, um, again,
[2:04:09] it's being designed by david best. It's gonna be built by van, be steel,
[2:04:13] and you've just spoken to, uh, lena. And lena is going to be our project manager,
[2:04:18] uh, and installation general contractor. Um, melissa has also laid out
[2:04:22] a lot of the, um, detailed information that we've been working on with the city for
[2:04:26] the past year in terms of its, uh, guidelines. Uh, I also wanna thank very much
[2:04:30] the city for their guidance and support and encouragement all through along this,
[2:04:34] this piece. Um, also very, very excited to say that we've
[2:04:38] raised over 95% of the funds. Uh, we have 150,000
[2:04:42] goal, we're 145. Uh, we will exceed our fundraising goal
[2:04:47] and we're very excited to be able to move forward with that. Um, this
[2:04:51] is a, again, like I mentioned, a very truly pama centric project and we recommend that
[2:04:55] the council vote in favor for the city manager to accept the spirit of petaluma beacon
[2:04:59] as a gift from the rotary club of petaluma to the city of petaluma. Thank you for your time,
[2:05:05] and thank you very much. Thank you for calling in from vacation. And, uh, with
[2:05:10] that we are, uh, closed on public comment
[2:05:14] and um, so I'd like to bring it back to the dais for, uh, any, any
[2:05:18] comment, um, before we move the item. Um,
[2:05:22] council member quint? Yeah, sure.
[2:05:26] I, I just wanna say I think the project is incredible
[2:05:31] and I wanna express my sincere, you know, appreciation
[2:05:35] to the rotary club for bringing this to life and
[2:05:40] my appreciation to the city, uh, for working with the rotary club
[2:05:44] and, uh, I can't wait to see it. Thank you. Thank you. Council
[2:05:49] member sch ribs? Um, yes, uh, very strongly in favor. I just wanna double
[2:05:53] check on the height. Is there any problem with the height in our zoning
[2:05:57] or anything? Because it is a pretty tall structure. You, are you
[2:06:01] addressing staff? Yeah,
[2:06:07] the, the elevation conforms with the site and we felt like it was really
[2:06:11] adequate in that it is not in the view shed for traffic. So it's
[2:06:15] elevated far above. The height was also chosen specifically, so it would be visible
[2:06:19] from the 1 0 1, so when people are passing through, they might see it at night as a beacon,
[2:06:24] just showcasing what our community stands for in our creative vibes.
[2:06:28] good. And did we, uh, check, check any, um, uh, wind resistance,
[2:06:32] uh, factor there so that the, uh, it's strong enough to withstand yes, there
[2:06:36] are structural, there are structural calculations included, and they, they will also
[2:06:40] be submitted when they, um, pull their permits. Okay, good. I just thought I'd just double
[2:06:45] check on those two features there. Otherwise, I'm very supportive of this project. Thank you,
[2:06:49] councilor barnacle. Yeah, this is, uh, not every night you
[2:06:53] get a really good news project. So thank you to the rotary club, to president rainey,
[2:06:57] um, david best royce, van bber, petaluma rotary, and, and so
[2:07:01] landscapes for being the project manager on this. Um, we have so many great community members
[2:07:05] in this town that do great things, and this is just another shining example, so I'm
[2:07:09] happy to support it. And, um, thank you council
[2:07:14] member. Now, um, thank you to the rotary club. Thank you members for being
[2:07:18] here. Thank you to david best and royce van bber.
[2:07:22] um, my love for partnerships
[2:07:27] with the city and nonprofits goes way back.
[2:07:31] little do people know that the painting of the coca-cola sign
[2:07:36] for years, that funds came from our heritage home's
[2:07:40] annual home tours that we had in the christmas parlor tours,
[2:07:44] and I'm not sure who funds it now. And then there was also,
[2:07:49] uh, the bashaw bridge lights were paid for by river festival
[2:07:53] funds that were collected during the river festival years. So
[2:07:58] I am wondering, and I'm gonna throw it out there to staff and the public
[2:08:02] and rotary, after five years, there
[2:08:06] is no funding. But could we put together something that the public could
[2:08:11] add to it? Um, right now, the beautify petaluma nonprofit
[2:08:16] partnership with the city downtown hanging baskets in the solar lights
[2:08:21] is all funded by, uh, the public. Public
[2:08:25] is sending in money. So I didn't know if the rotary thought, you know, in
[2:08:29] six years, could we have like a little fund already established
[2:08:34] so we could put money into it and it would, you know, when people
[2:08:38] pass away, they like to, you know, give to the city that they lived
[2:08:42] in. So I support this project in any other partnerships, and I
[2:08:46] love public art. If you go up and down 1 0 1 north, you
[2:08:50] can see lots of public art, and this will really stand out for our community. Thank
[2:08:55] you. Thank you. Uh, council member cater thompson.
[2:09:00] uh, yeah, thank you. I just think this is fantastic because that area,
[2:09:04] this is the gateway into our city, one of the gateways, and this is
[2:09:08] gonna be, um, you know, a great piece of art. I wanna thank dave the best
[2:09:13] and royce van be for their collaboration. Um, and I wanna
[2:09:17] thank the rotary for their collaboration with the, the city of petaluma. And
[2:09:21] I think this is a great project, and the new president
[2:09:25] I, I think is fantastic. And with that, I'd love to move
[2:09:29] this. Thank you very much, council, uh, member di carly.
[2:09:34] I just wanna say I appreciate all the rotarians coming in, the effort they put in royce
[2:09:38] and david, and, um, that's about all I have to say about it. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:09:42] um, yeah, I appreciate the idea and bringing it here tonight. I appreciate the patience of
[2:09:46] waiting to, to till your item gets called in the evening.
[2:09:50] not sure that, uh, lighting with fire would be anything other than triggering
[2:09:54] in sonoma county. So , um, um, but, uh,
[2:09:59] could be the last, but, but I, I really appreciate that, uh, this is
[2:10:03] our happy item for the evening. You know, there's a lot of tense goes on and you brought us something fun.
[2:10:07] so thanks to all who are involved in thank you, melissa. And I think
[2:10:11] with that, we have a motion from council member cater thompson. Do we
[2:10:15] have a second? I'll second. A second from now. And a, uh,
[2:10:20] roll call. Vote please. Barnacle. Aye. Cater thompson?
[2:10:25] yes. Di carly? Yes. Yes.
[2:10:30] now? Yes. Quint? Yes. Shrives?
[2:10:34] yes. Mcdonald? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Oh,
[2:10:38] thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here and advocating
[2:10:43] the issue. And that moves us to our, uh, next issue of
[2:10:47] the evening,
[2:10:52] which is,
[2:10:59] uh, item 12, uh, resolution of approving the city council's response
[2:11:03] to the 2025 2026 sonoma county
[2:11:08] grand civil grand jury report entitled animal service revisited
[2:11:13] a city asleep at the wheel. And, uh, to help us with,
[2:11:17] uh, this presentation, this item we have, assistant city manager brian cochran.
[2:11:22] brian, it's yours. Okay, thank you.
[2:11:26] good evening, mayor and city council members and members of the
[2:11:31] community. This presentation tonight, uh,
[2:11:35] summarizes the city of petaluma's formal response to the
[2:11:39] 20 25, 20 26 sonoma county civil grand jury report. Uh, as
[2:11:43] the mayor just stated, we, uh, do have a resolution for
[2:11:47] the council to formally approve the response and then transmit that
[2:11:52] response over to the grand jury. The report, uh, this, this
[2:11:56] new report is a follow up to the report that the civil grand
[2:12:00] jury did last year, which looked at animal services
[2:12:05] throughout sonoma county. And, uh, many of those recommendations
[2:12:09] that they made a year ago we are working on and working
[2:12:13] toward implementing. Purpose of tonight's presentation
[2:12:17] is to review the grand jury findings and recommendations, explain
[2:12:22] the city's responses, and highlight the actions that are already underway
[2:12:26] to strengthen animal services in petaluma.
[2:12:30] while the city does disagree with, uh, several of the
[2:12:34] factual legal and policy conclusions that are contained in the report,
[2:12:39] we recognize the importance of public accountability and continuous improvement,
[2:12:43] and we acknowledge the grand jury's role within son county to contribute
[2:12:48] to those objectives. Our goal tonight is to respond
[2:12:52] to the grand jury's most recent report, but also, and importantly, chart a path
[2:12:56] forward for petaluma's animal services program. Together with
[2:13:01] the council and our service providers and our community, we want
[2:13:05] high quality, humane, and responsive animal services that petaluma
[2:13:09] can rely on. We're very fortunate to have a shelter here locally, which is a benefit
[2:13:13] to the community, and we want to ensure that we can continue providing those
[2:13:18] services into the future and a sustainable and accountable way.
[2:13:22] so throughout the presentation tonight, we will discuss both areas where
[2:13:26] we agree that improvements are warranted and where they're underway,
[2:13:30] and where the city believes the report, uh, mischaracterized or
[2:13:34] misunderstood the city's actions, responsibilities, or
[2:13:39] legal authorities involved. Next slide, caitlin.
[2:13:47] so first wanted to touch on some of the actions that have been happening,
[2:13:52] uh, since the grand jury report from a year ago.
[2:13:56] and some of these we mentioned in that prior report, or there have been updates, uh, to
[2:14:00] the council and community over the last year on some of these activities. So
[2:14:04] we did invest in some shelter capital improvements, uh, roofing,
[2:14:09] hvac, fixing water leaks painting, and
[2:14:13] a variety of other improvements to, uh, make sure the shelter could, uh,
[2:14:18] properly handle the animals in its care. We retained a consultant
[2:14:22] to assist nba, uh, sorry, north bay animal services, nbas
[2:14:27] with compliance. And as we documented last year, they
[2:14:31] declined to take us up on those consultant services or
[2:14:35] participate with the consultant. We have worked on
[2:14:39] strengthening oversight and planning, um, per council's discussion and request.
[2:14:44] at your march 2nd meeting. We are in, we have hired
[2:14:48] a firm and are in the process of conducting a fraud risk and compliance
[2:14:52] review that's underway of the nbas financial records.
[2:14:57] and additionally, as you know, at the march 2nd meeting, counsel directed termination
[2:15:01] of the nbas contract, and that was effective march 31st
[2:15:06] of this year. At that same time, we
[2:15:10] transitioned to marin humane, uh, who stepped up as our interim
[2:15:14] service provider operating our shelter, doing licensing and animal
[2:15:18] patrol or animal control duties for the city of petaluma.
[2:15:23] we also, around that same time, were developing and issued an rfp
[2:15:28] for a longer term provider, uh, to take over from marin humane.
[2:15:32] and we are currently in those discussions and we'll return to council for
[2:15:36] approval of those agreements in the coming months. And then finally,
[2:15:40] and we'll, we'll talk through this a few times tonight, uh, later in the presentation, but
[2:15:45] the council has initiated, and the city is actively
[2:15:49] participating in collaboration around a jpa joint powers agreement, or
[2:15:53] a consortium or another regional service delivery model to
[2:15:57] improve and, uh, standardize and stabilize services throughout the county.
[2:16:02] next slide please.
[2:16:08] so, just a few summary points to, to hit here at the top. The city remains
[2:16:12] committed to providing humane, transparent, and accountable animal services.
[2:16:17] we support continuous improvement, and we recognize and have been
[2:16:21] working towards strengthening reporting records management and contract oversight.
[2:16:26] we welcome constructive recommendations while respectfully
[2:16:30] disagreeing with many of the, this current reports, factual
[2:16:35] and legal conclusions, we, uh, we had
[2:16:39] many significant improvements already underway at the time, uh, and
[2:16:43] actually prior to the issuance of this latest, uh, civil grand jury
[2:16:48] report. Uh, and one of the, the challenges that, uh, is
[2:16:52] not really touched on much in this report, but really more, uh, in the
[2:16:56] last report from a year ago, is that the challenges faced by animal services
[2:17:00] are more regional in nature, and they require regional collaboration.
[2:17:05] we can't fix this issue by, uh, by solutions that
[2:17:09] are being born by one jurisdiction. I think it's
[2:17:13] safe to say that fu our future and upcoming animal services contract
[2:17:17] will serve as the primary mechanism for implementing operational improvements
[2:17:22] and accountability measures. And we'll talk through some of those tonight. And
[2:17:26] again, the city, um, is working with regional partners to develop a
[2:17:30] sustainable and high quality model for sonoma county moving forward.
[2:17:35] next slide. Please.
[2:17:40] just wanted to touch on the structure of the report a little bit because, um,
[2:17:44] these are, these responses are mandated by law, and
[2:17:48] we do, we, we are required to respond in these very
[2:17:52] specific languages. So on the findings for each finding
[2:17:56] that the grand jury assigns to petaluma, we must respond. Either we agree,
[2:18:01] we disagree in part, or we wholly disagree. I would
[2:18:05] say in many of these, we, we wanted to say we agree in part, but we're
[2:18:09] required to say we disagree in part, and then explain what we agree with or what we
[2:18:13] disagree with. On the recommendations side, there are
[2:18:18] four different choices that we can, uh, we can,
[2:18:22] uh, put forward in terms of what we are doing with each of the recommendations. So
[2:18:26] we can say either the recommendation has already been implemented, the recommendation
[2:18:30] has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future with a timeline.
[2:18:35] the recommendation requires further analysis and, uh, the grand
[2:18:39] jury states that we're supposed to have the analysis completed within six months,
[2:18:44] or the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or not warranted.
[2:18:48] and again, those are the descriptions in the law that govern our responses.
[2:18:53] wanted to mention just a little bit about how we've structured this, because it is different than the report
[2:18:57] itself, uh, because many of the findings also have
[2:19:01] a corresponding recommendation. We tried to group those together in the presentation
[2:19:06] so that we can talk about similar findings and recommendations together,
[2:19:10] rather than having to repeat, uh, ourselves multiple times as we move through all of these.
[2:19:15] so I think we can go to the first one here.
[2:19:24] so, finding f uh, finding one and recommendation one. These really deal
[2:19:28] with, uh, council authority and a thought from the grand jury that
[2:19:32] the council, excuse me, has ceded much of its authority
[2:19:37] and governance over animal services to staff and to the city
[2:19:41] manager. Uh, we wholly disagree with this finding.
[2:19:45] we think that the governance is consistent with the charter. Uh,
[2:19:49] the council retains its legislative and oversight authority,
[2:19:54] and it, it appears that the reason for that this finding, uh,
[2:19:58] came about in the report, is really a misunderstanding of the
[2:20:02] council manager form of government that we have in petaluma and in much of
[2:20:06] california. And a misunderstanding of some of the charter provisions and
[2:20:10] how authorities or, um, tasks and administrative
[2:20:15] tasks are delegated down to the city manager. Uh, we feel, and,
[2:20:19] uh, that staff fully acted within charter defined administrative
[2:20:23] procedures and the budget, authority and council direction.
[2:20:27] there's a specific action that the grand jury cites in this particular
[2:20:31] finding, uh, and in, in the body of the report and some of the background materials.
[2:20:36] and that was the council's decision on march 2nd to provide direction to staff,
[2:20:40] uh, to terminate the agreement and to generate and, uh, execute a
[2:20:44] new agreement with an interim service provider. The council direction was
[2:20:48] very explicit and very clear, and that's what the city council does all of
[2:20:53] the time. You all provide direction to staff and the city manager and the rest
[2:20:57] of the city staff implement that direction. So we feel that that,
[2:21:01] uh, that structure and the way that those decisions and implementation
[2:21:06] occurred were fully within the law and fully within the, the regular course
[2:21:10] of how the council and the city staff, uh, do the public's
[2:21:14] business. The recommendation one is related to, uh,
[2:21:18] purchasing limits and signature limits, and, uh,
[2:21:23] we did not choose or propose to implement that there is
[2:21:27] a significant, uh, existing governance framework for purchasing
[2:21:31] within the city. There are multiple controls in place and oversight
[2:21:35] in place. Uh, there are some purchasing provisions in the charter and purchasing
[2:21:39] provisions in, uh, the municipal code that govern those overall
[2:21:44] procedures. And this, uh, this particular action fit within that. So we
[2:21:48] did not feel that that needed to be implemented. Uh, if we were going to look at
[2:21:52] that, it is a much bigger discussion than just animal services. This really implicates
[2:21:57] our entire purchasing structure, and that would be a much longer conversation and
[2:22:01] more involved conversation. Next slide, please.
[2:22:11] so, finding two, uh, dealt with the reporting of nbas,
[2:22:15] the lack thereof, or the, uh, very slow and, uh,
[2:22:20] untimely nature of their reporting. They were required to report,
[2:22:24] uh, at least once or twice per year, as well as provide an annual audit, et cetera.
[2:22:29] um, so the city disagreed in part because we, we,
[2:22:33] well, let me first address what we do. Agree. Uh, we definitely agree that their reporting
[2:22:38] was, was lacking. It needed to be strengthened, and we look forward to
[2:22:42] strengthening reporting of our future provider. Uh, it will improve,
[2:22:46] and we, we absolutely agree that it can improve. But the, the finding
[2:22:50] goes further to say that because of the slow reporting, the city or the, uh,
[2:22:54] city management was unable to assess the performance of north bay
[2:22:58] animal services. I, I don't think that's fully correct. We had inputs
[2:23:02] not just from their reporting, but from members of the community, from city council members,
[2:23:07] from talking directly with north bay animal services about some of their challenges.
[2:23:11] so there were many inputs into our ability to oversee them. Uh, the
[2:23:15] reporting was one of them, but it didn't fully impact our ability
[2:23:19] to oversee them. The recommendation two, we do plan
[2:23:24] on implementing, uh, we will implement a more robust regular,
[2:23:28] we're looking right now at a quarterly reporting framework with our new service provider,
[2:23:33] uh, with metrics that will be regularly, uh, reported out. Uh,
[2:23:37] and they'll be standardized. So you can follow from quarter to quarter, uh, how the performance
[2:23:41] is tracking. Next slide.
[2:23:48] so finding three, uh, links up well with recommendation
[2:23:53] six. So talking about both of those on this slide. This is related to,
[2:23:57] uh, animal licensing performance and monitoring. Uh,
[2:24:01] we said that we disagreed in part on this one. And really the, the focus
[2:24:05] here, uh, was basically almost a repeat finding from a year ago
[2:24:09] that talked about needing stronger, better licensing performance,
[2:24:13] uh, and enforcement. But the finding here said that this
[2:24:17] was neglected by, uh, city management and the city of petaluma.
[2:24:22] w we, we take took issue with that because we don't think it
[2:24:27] was neglected. There's a fully abil there's a full ability for any members of the public
[2:24:31] to get their dogs licensed. That is the, uh, the obligation of
[2:24:35] the animal owner. Uh, and that was
[2:24:39] always and continuously available, even under the north bay animal services
[2:24:44] contract. So while, yes, it needs to be better, and I think we can do better,
[2:24:48] and that is one of our goals in our new contract, uh, I, we, we don't
[2:24:52] agree that this was neglected. The new service contract will
[2:24:56] address this. And in recommendation six, that
[2:25:00] is a recommendation from the grand jury to, uh, select
[2:25:05] purchase and implement a new licensing software platform. They named
[2:25:10] a particular one that is used throughout sonoma county. This is,
[2:25:14] I, I think, essentially redundant because once we select and contract with our new
[2:25:18] provider, they will then implement that new software package for our residents,
[2:25:22] uh, to be able to, to get their dogs licensed. And then part of our reporting
[2:25:26] will include licensing data with those quarterly reports moving forward so
[2:25:30] that we can see what that performance looks like. Next slide.
[2:25:38] all right, f four, uh, finding number four in the report, uh, in conjunction with
[2:25:42] recommendation nine, these addressed resident complaint tracking. So if you have
[2:25:46] a problem with the service or you think something wasn't handled correctly, how do
[2:25:50] you make a complaint about it? We disagree in part with this, and the reason
[2:25:55] for saying that is we do agree that the complaint procedure,
[2:25:59] the, the clarity of it, how do you make a complaint? How do you track whether that's
[2:26:04] been responded to or not? That can absolutely be improved, and we feel confident
[2:26:08] that that will be improved, um, in our new agreement. Where we disagree on
[2:26:12] this one is that the finding, uh, says something like that we were,
[2:26:16] uh, unable or un un yeah, un unable to receive
[2:26:20] complaints. And I think we would disagree with that because clearly we did receive
[2:26:25] complaints, counsel received complaints, staff received complaints,
[2:26:29] uh, usually through email, through phone, et cetera. And when appropriate,
[2:26:34] we researched those and responded, uh, to, to those complaints. So
[2:26:38] I don't think it was, we, we were fully unable to, but the tracking
[2:26:42] and the documentation could be better. So we do look forward to implementing
[2:26:46] that, uh, improvement in the future with the, uh, upcoming agreement.
[2:26:52] next slide, please. Finding number
[2:26:56] five, we, we don't have a, a, a recommendation that directly corresponds
[2:27:01] to this one, but this one related to the financial stability and
[2:27:05] oversight of north bay animal services itself, and then
[2:27:09] it also wrapped in how that impacted other cities. So this
[2:27:13] one, this was a bit of a head scratcher, I think for staff.
[2:27:17] we wholly disagreed with this one because the finding, uh,
[2:27:21] implies that the city has some sort of fiduciary duty to
[2:27:25] the nonprofit or over the nonprofit, and we do not agree with that.
[2:27:30] uh, the, the city doesn't owe the nonprofit,
[2:27:34] uh, a fiduciary duty. It's actually the nonprofit board that needed to be
[2:27:39] ensuring that they were fiscally sustainable, that they could provide the services
[2:27:43] that they were contracted for, and to monitor their sustainability
[2:27:47] and potentially communicate with us if they were seeing challenges on the horizon.
[2:27:52] the second half of this finding essentially states that because
[2:27:57] they're saying that we didn't properly monitor their financial stability,
[2:28:01] that that somehow, uh, caused insecurity or
[2:28:06] risk to the other cities that were contracting with north bay animal services.
[2:28:10] uh, and, and again, we do not agree with that the city is
[2:28:14] not and cannot be responsible for the contracts that other cities have
[2:28:19] with their animal services providers. So, um, this, yeah,
[2:28:23] this one, uh, we, we couldn't quite make that connection as to how petaluma
[2:28:27] itself could have, uh, caused or otherwise been responsible for those
[2:28:31] types of risks in other cities. With that said, this
[2:28:35] is one where we agree that financial reporting overall
[2:28:39] for the service provider can be improved, and we do look forward to that
[2:28:43] being improved and are confident that that will happen with our, uh, upcoming
[2:28:47] provider contract. Next slide, please.
[2:28:54] finding number six, related to, uh, statewide shelter
[2:28:58] oversight, and whether the lack of statewide shelter standards
[2:29:02] and shelter oversight provisions, uh, could have contributed to
[2:29:07] nbas, uh, taking on multiple contracts that maybe they didn't have the staffing or
[2:29:11] the financial wherewithal to handle. Uh, we did agree, or, I guess
[2:29:15] disagree in part, and also agree in part, and it is true there, there are not
[2:29:19] statewide shelter standards, uh, or shelter oversight. So
[2:29:24] all of these shelters are able to kind of operate a little bit differently than
[2:29:28] one, uh, from, from one another. But we do, uh, as we've mentioned, support
[2:29:32] regional coordination and think that some shared standards, uh, do make sense
[2:29:36] and could help, but we, again, don't necessarily see the connection
[2:29:41] between the statewide oversight or lack thereof,
[2:29:45] and n nba's financial stability or their ability to provide
[2:29:49] the, uh, the, the services that they had contracted for. And so, moving
[2:29:53] forward, uh, again, we will participate in that countywide process that is, uh,
[2:29:57] kicking off here. Next slide, please.
[2:30:07] so, finding seven is closely related to recommendations three and five
[2:30:11] in the report. And these all deal with the dangerous animal
[2:30:16] hearing process. So in the event that a,
[2:30:20] there is a, uh, significant bite that occurs, and an animal control officer
[2:30:24] determines that an animal may be potentially or is a dangerously, uh, dangers
[2:30:29] declared animal, there is a process for the animal owner to
[2:30:33] go through a hearing, uh, to ensure that they have
[2:30:37] received a due process in the restrictions that are going to be placed on their
[2:30:41] animal, whether it's muzzling or confinement at home, or posting of signs at
[2:30:45] their home. And there are a variety of potential mitigation measures that an
[2:30:50] animal owner can be subjected to if their animal is declared
[2:30:54] potentially dangerous or dangerous. The specific finding
[2:30:58] in f seven is that, uh, the grand jury didn't
[2:31:02] feel that our code and the definitions of how the hearing is
[2:31:06] conducted and who is the hearing officer, that those hearing officers
[2:31:10] were not truly independent, and that that could have compromised the,
[2:31:15] the due process rights of the, uh, the, the participants in
[2:31:19] the hearing. We did not agree with that finding. Uh, we think it's clear
[2:31:24] when you read the various provisions in chapter nine of the municipal
[2:31:28] code, that there is the ability and there is the, um, the obligation
[2:31:33] to appoint independent hearing officers and the city manager and the appointing
[2:31:37] authority of the hearing officers has that ability. So, and that is also our
[2:31:41] practice and our procedure, uh, that we would always appoint an independent hearing officer.
[2:31:46] so we feel like this is already kind of taken care of in our code, and there's
[2:31:50] not a change that's needed. Um, the, the recommendations,
[2:31:54] or one, or recommendation three basically said, change your code
[2:31:59] to allow independent hearing officers. So again, we think that's, that's taken care
[2:32:03] of. Another one, uh, recommendation five that I, I feel like
[2:32:08] resulted from a bit of a misconstruction or misunderstanding of our title
[2:32:12] ix regulations is, uh, that it wanted, uh,
[2:32:16] uh, bite victims basically to be a party to the hearing.
[2:32:21] and that's, you know, unfortunately that's not how the code is constructed.
[2:32:25] the, the purpose and the intent of the hearing and the hearing officer
[2:32:29] is actually to allow the, uh, animal control officer to
[2:32:33] present the evidence of the case, the incident, what happened, and this is why we
[2:32:38] are putting these restrictions on the animal. And then for,
[2:32:42] uh, the animal owner to present contrary evidence if they would like some
[2:32:46] of those, uh, restrictions to, to not be implemented. So the, the victims,
[2:32:50] while they, they provide absolutely critical evidence and testimony,
[2:32:55] uh, in those hearings, and they, the input I think is really critical in,
[2:32:59] uh, what the hearing officer ultimately decides. The victims themselves are
[2:33:03] not actually parties to that hearing. So that's, um, again,
[2:33:07] just a difference of interpretation or understanding of our code.
[2:33:12] yet, uh, bite victims in these cases do have other avenues
[2:33:16] to seek redress, uh, whether it's filing a claim with the animal owner's
[2:33:20] insurance company, uh, seeking civil litigation, et cetera. So,
[2:33:25] uh, yet in spite of that, in spite of some of the, the differences or
[2:33:29] disagreements we have on this particular topic with the grand jury, we do think it's
[2:33:34] relevant to review the title ix regulations. And so we can absolutely do that.
[2:33:38] there are likely some ways we can clarify some of these regulations make them
[2:33:42] stronger. Uh, so that's something that, that staff can engage in when the timing
[2:33:46] is right. Next slide, please.
[2:33:54] okay. Finding eight. And, uh, in conjunction with recommendation four related
[2:33:58] to records management and records retention. Um,
[2:34:02] this is actually more specifically related to records around bike cases
[2:34:07] and victim's ability to receive records, to request records.
[2:34:11] and we, we said disagree. In part, we do agree with much of
[2:34:15] the finding that the records management needs to be strengthened there.
[2:34:19] uh, there were instances where the records were very slow or they were incomplete
[2:34:24] or, uh, o other issues. And we, we fully agree
[2:34:28] that that will be, uh, strengthened in a new future provider
[2:34:33] contract. But the way, uh, finding aid is worded in the report, it
[2:34:37] also could be read with the assertion that no records
[2:34:41] existed and no records were ever provided. And so we, we didn't think that was
[2:34:46] accurate. I mean, we, we know that's not accurate. Um, so we disagreed with part
[2:34:50] of that finding. Uh, from a practicality standpoint,
[2:34:54] we are in a different position with these types of records than we are with regular
[2:34:59] city created records. So in animal services, most, if not
[2:35:03] all of the records that somebody would be requesting or needing, uh, they're
[2:35:07] created by the provider and they're maintained in a provider database,
[2:35:11] whether they're paper files or electronic files. So the city is really
[2:35:16] reliant on the provider to keep the records, manage the records,
[2:35:20] and inventory them properly, uh, as well as timely and accurately
[2:35:24] provide the records when requested. So, again, and I'm start, I know I sound like a
[2:35:28] broken record, but as we're moving to the new contract, this will be a piece of it. It
[2:35:33] was included in our rfp, uh, for services that we wanna make sure that
[2:35:37] the provider we, we select and contract with is fully
[2:35:41] equipped to, uh, implement this recommendation
[2:35:45] in accordance with the public records act, uh, and with, with victims or other
[2:35:50] folks' rights to request records. Next slide, caitlin.
[2:35:58] okay. Recommendation seven. Um, again, this is
[2:36:03] kind of a repeat from the report a year ago, uh, advocating for and,
[2:36:07] and, and wanting the city to participate in a regional governance
[2:36:11] model. Uh, we said that we would partially implement this, uh, not because
[2:36:15] we don't want to implement it because, but because there are plenty of questions around,
[2:36:20] uh, timing around what the agreement and the collaboration will look like, what
[2:36:24] the costs will be. Uh, and then ultimately, clearly the city
[2:36:28] council still needs to approve and analyze that and tell us to move forward
[2:36:32] with the, uh, the consortium concept. So, again, timing is up
[2:36:36] in the air, but we're actively participating in the county as started those discussions.
[2:36:41] next slide. So, just a few high level themes,
[2:36:45] and we're, we're wrapping up here. So I think one thing that we saw from the grand jury
[2:36:49] is concerns about governance, which we, we did not agree with most of
[2:36:54] those conclusions. Improper delegation of authority or,
[2:36:58] uh, issues or problematic regulations that needed to be, uh, corrected
[2:37:02] in a, in a significant way. Definite themes around oversight.
[2:37:07] and, and we've mentioned those multiple times. So stronger reporting, stronger records management
[2:37:11] and, and records retention, complaint procedures
[2:37:16] for, uh, for folks who are not happy with the services. And then monitoring
[2:37:20] all of those things to be able to see, are we, are we meeting expectations
[2:37:25] or are we falling short? Um, really it's the, the new service agreement,
[2:37:29] because we are currently in an interim agreement with marin humane. The
[2:37:33] new service agreement will be central to all of the corrective actions
[2:37:38] that we're talking about tonight. And then the collaboration with our
[2:37:42] regional city partners and county partners, uh, is a key to long-term
[2:37:46] sustainability with our animal services in son county.
[2:37:51] next slide. I think we all wrap up on this one. So
[2:37:55] we just wanted to conclude by acknowledging that there are opportunities for improvement.
[2:37:59] there absolutely are. We acknowledged that a year ago we've been working diligently on some
[2:38:03] of those corrections, yet we did not agree with many of the findings
[2:38:07] that were in this new report, uh, from the grand jury this year,
[2:38:11] we've got contractual, um, improvements, procedural and operational
[2:38:16] reforms, uh, underway. And our future focus areas will
[2:38:20] include, uh, really all of the above service delivery, reporting, transparency,
[2:38:25] records management, and regional coordination. And just
[2:38:29] in, uh, three or so short months, we are already experiencing a new
[2:38:33] level of service with marin humane, and we look forward to continuing
[2:38:38] the discussions with the county and sonoma humane about our long-term service
[2:38:42] model moving forward. And I think that's all we have for the
[2:38:46] presentation, and staff are, uh, happy to answer questions. Thank you.
[2:38:51] thank you very much. Um, big, big topic
[2:38:55] tonight. Um, any, this is a question period for, for council.
[2:38:59] do we have any questions of, uh, council member sch?
[2:39:05] yeah. Um, some of the main, uh, a couple questions in here, but the main one,
[2:39:09] uh, breaks down to the, um, some of the legal language. I said,
[2:39:13] uh, our response had a lot of nice really legal language in and how,
[2:39:17] how it described both what we agreed with and what we disagree with. So I
[2:39:21] just wanna find out a little bit about what are the legal consequences, like we've disagreed
[2:39:26] with some of the findings. Um, are, are there any, um,
[2:39:30] or what we agreed with, what are the legal consequences now that it's been reported?
[2:39:34] we, we have report back. Um, is it, is this,
[2:39:38] could people take us to court as, as whether or not is this truthful or not?
[2:39:42] things like that. So what are the, some of the legal consequences to the a after
[2:39:46] that we make this report back. So,
[2:39:50] um, the grand jury, the civil grand jury is a, is a
[2:39:54] recommending body and investigating and recommending body. Um,
[2:39:58] but the counsel is the, is the, um,
[2:40:03] is the petaluma electorates, um, elected representatives
[2:40:07] and the legislative body of the city. So the decision whether
[2:40:11] or not to implement the grand jury's recommendations is solely the councils.
[2:40:16] um, there was, were no, as, as, as this assistant
[2:40:21] city manager pointed out, we had some strong disagreements and that
[2:40:25] we explained those in detail with the grand jury's,
[2:40:30] we believe misunderstandings about our charter authorities,
[2:40:34] um, the significance and lawfulness of the council's action
[2:40:38] in directing staff and staff's action in implementing that. Um,
[2:40:42] so those are legal matters, but, um, the council, or
[2:40:47] I'm sorry, the grand jury, um,
[2:40:51] is, as I said, uh, investigating and recommending body. They're, they're, they're not
[2:40:55] a court. Um, they're overseen by the presiding judge
[2:41:00] and they're advised by county counsel that is assigned to them. But that's it. So
[2:41:04] it's really up to the council to conclude, you know, with staff
[2:41:08] input and community input, um, what direction
[2:41:12] the council has going forward as to these issues.
[2:41:16] and what we've provided is our recommended draft based on the analysis and the explanations
[2:41:21] we've given, um, to be the legally
[2:41:26] compliant response. You saw, um, brian talked about
[2:41:30] the pretty formulaic, um, way we need to structure our responses.
[2:41:35] um, that's prescribed in the penal code statutes that govern these reports.
[2:41:40] so, so there's no direct legal, um,
[2:41:44] you know, consequences. We, with respect to our animal services program, like anything else
[2:41:48] we do, we have to follow the law, we have to follow our charter, we have to follow the municipal
[2:41:52] code. Um, and there's potential legal exposure if we don't. Um,
[2:41:57] but we don't believe there are any instances, um, of that kind of exposure.
[2:42:01] if, if there were, we, you know, we'd be identifying those, right? So I'm looking at,
[2:42:05] at possible exposures on things, um, because I found the language to,
[2:42:09] um, be avoiding of a lot of details that were very generic,
[2:42:14] vague, and, um, um, inconsequential and,
[2:42:18] and hard to measure as goals and hard to really see what is
[2:42:22] actually going to happen. It was very, very, we're going to improve, we will make it better.
[2:42:26] uh, I didn't find a lot of did was that, uh, on purpose? Uh, what
[2:42:30] did we exactly, we said we agree in part, but you never listed what
[2:42:35] we actually agreed to and what was the evidence that we agreed to that was found.
[2:42:40] and even in the results, we're going to improve. We're not really listing,
[2:42:44] we're gonna do this, we're gonna have a database, we're gonna do, have a city control of this. We're,
[2:42:48] so what you described on your screen seemed to be a little bit more detailed about
[2:42:52] what we're actually going to do, not just improve. I was wondering why,
[2:42:56] why that, uh, language was avoided or intentionally, or do we really need to add
[2:43:00] in the language of what do we actually agree with? What parts exactly?
[2:43:06] well, well, as brian explained, we, I mean the, and I don't know if you wanna,
[2:43:10] maybe we should bring back up that slide that has those formulaic responses
[2:43:15] that the penal code dictates that we use. So
[2:43:19] we, we really, we used the language that the law requires that we use,
[2:43:24] as brian said, if, um, it would've seemed, I
[2:43:28] think, I don't know, maybe,
[2:43:33] you know, we would've preferred to use language about agreeing in part instead of disagreeing in
[2:43:37] part, for example, 'cause it's just more negative. But that's what we use. The, the,
[2:43:41] the language that's required on the penal code. Um,
[2:43:46] I, you know, I I leave it to staff or to,
[2:43:50] you know, if there's, um, there's certainly no desire on our
[2:43:54] part to not be clear in the responses. Um,
[2:43:58] it's, it's a rather detailed draft that we provided to the council. We've
[2:44:02] been pretty clear about the process that's underway. Um, we've
[2:44:06] also been clear that, um, the real nitty
[2:44:11] gritty of the, the running of the program and the obligations
[2:44:15] of the contract service provider is, is, is gonna be in the scope of work of the
[2:44:19] services contract. Um, and that's what we'll be, um,
[2:44:23] using to hold the contract service provider a, a accountable.
[2:44:28] and that's, and I would suggest that that's what the council
[2:44:32] should use to hold the service provider and staff accountable
[2:44:37] in terms of the administration of that contract. Um, so
[2:44:42] I don't know, I, I don't know what I'm missing in the response, but that, that's, well,
[2:44:46] I mean, maybe an example is helpful. So for example, finding
[2:44:50] number four, and I'll just read it, uh, verbatim, by failing
[2:44:55] to develop a system to document and respond to citizen complaints,
[2:44:59] the city manager's office lost opportunities to receive and respond to
[2:45:03] community input. So that's pretty
[2:45:07] vague in terms of what the grand jury is recommending for implementation. Now, there
[2:45:11] is a corresponding recommendation, but basically all, all of the recommendation
[2:45:15] says is the city council should adopt a system to receive and
[2:45:20] follow up on, uh, citizen complaints. I mean, the recommendation is
[2:45:24] also very, uh, very vague and it leaves a lot of the detail
[2:45:28] to be filled in by the city. Um, so again, like eric
[2:45:32] said there, at the end of his comments, we'll be looking to work with our service
[2:45:36] provider, and we included specific language in the rfp that said,
[2:45:41] please outline. And, uh, it's a requirement to
[2:45:45] have a clear reporting and complaint procedure,
[2:45:49] uh, as well as we required in the rfp, that the, um,
[2:45:54] with the quarterly reporting, all of the complaints that are filed,
[2:45:59] uh, with the service provider need to be provided to the city manager's office. So
[2:46:03] we're starting to outline what that looks like. But again, depending on the
[2:46:07] provider's own systems, what they already have in place, um, how their
[2:46:12] routing and, um, and, uh, oversight already
[2:46:16] looks, the, the pro the specific details of the process,
[2:46:21] uh, may still need to be worked out and finalized. So that's kind of part of
[2:46:25] what we're going through now in developing the agreement and the scope of work with the, uh,
[2:46:29] the future provider, but other, other ones in this report. And
[2:46:33] in some of the city's, um, you know, declarations that we are
[2:46:37] going to make, you know, improvements here or improvements there, those are going
[2:46:41] to happen once the new provider is already on board, they're up and running.
[2:46:46] we can see, you know, what does their data look like? How are their, uh, procedures
[2:46:50] and flow within the shelter? What are the specific procedures about bite
[2:46:54] reporting, um, or animal control calls? So some
[2:46:58] of these things, again, are gonna have to wait. Other ones, I think we can
[2:47:02] have a little bit more clear idea of, of what they're going to look like
[2:47:07] with input, again from the provider, um, as we move forward.
[2:47:12] and, uh, I guess the last question we might have is, is, um, if we
[2:47:16] wanted, do we need to accept this, like right at this point in time, do we need to
[2:47:20] accept this report pretty much as written? Are we allowed to tweak it? Do we,
[2:47:24] can we advise you to go back and look at some of the language that's in there? 'cause, um,
[2:47:28] the way it's written in some ways, not very, um,
[2:47:33] uh, natural, it's has some legal languages, as you said,
[2:47:37] it's very tight as document is what, what we can
[2:47:41] say in there. So is there any, um, how much effort would it take
[2:47:45] and are we required to actually review in more detail or in detail
[2:47:50] how to take it to the next step? Do we do that or just go with
[2:47:54] what you've got at this point? So the, the agenda item
[2:47:58] is structured with the resolution for the council to approve the report as written.
[2:48:02] the council also would have the option to amend it here tonight. If, if somebody wanted to
[2:48:06] propose and, uh, approve specific language, uh, changes,
[2:48:11] that's, that's fine. Um, the report,
[2:48:15] I, I think I've, I've done them. The, uh, the, the 90 day
[2:48:19] calculus. So we have 90 days, um, after the issuance of the report, I believe that would mean we
[2:48:24] would need to have the report to the grand jury and approved by something like august 9th.
[2:48:29] um, so if the counsel wanted us to come back on august 3rd, that is theoretically
[2:48:34] possible. Um, lemme put this depending on this differently. Yeah.
[2:48:38] did you have a particular area or paragraph that you, uh, wanted to well, the only one, like
[2:48:42] up reading through it in, in general, as, as I'm reading it, uh, being, having been in
[2:48:46] the corporate world, looking at documents of complaints and, and, and revisions and, and recommendations,
[2:48:50] um, from the corporate world, this would be very dissatisfactory because it's not de, there's no
[2:48:55] details in it. It's a very vague language, and we expect measurable goals to be
[2:48:59] listed down a little bit more in detail. Okay. To fleshed out. So, uh, that
[2:49:03] was, I, I was, that's not a question, that was a question, but it was a, um,
[2:49:07] uh, a request sort of like thinking about what opportunity do we have to, to revise
[2:49:11] some of that. Um, and, um, how much effort is it
[2:49:15] really worth putting in at this point in time? Yeah, I'm kind of with you on that. I hear, I hear you on this. Um,
[2:49:20] I, I think the grand jury report requires us to do certain things,
[2:49:24] address certain things, but, um, it doesn't, um,
[2:49:28] you know, many of the things that we're saying we're addressing aren't available on the timeline to reply
[2:49:32] to the grand jury. They're to develop more metrics and,
[2:49:36] and more specifics for our benefit for the community's benefit and things like that. So
[2:49:41] I like the idea having more detail in when the, um, rfp
[2:49:45] comes out or when the negotiated, uh, proposal comes out. But for
[2:49:49] the timeline of getting it in august, uh, date,
[2:49:54] I think this is the kind of data that the grand jury's looking for. You're treating this problem we addressed.
[2:49:58] right? I, I generally agree with the, um, the overall perspective
[2:50:02] on, on it. I'm just missing, um, the length of the agreements was
[2:50:07] very vague and small, and the disagreements was very long and a little more detailed,
[2:50:11] and I was expecting a little more balance between the two. But, uh, that's, that's,
[2:50:15] that's just me if, if I would rewrite it. But again, I, uh, this is a legal
[2:50:19] document. I just wanna be careful around the legalities, what could be used
[2:50:23] for down the road if we say, if we try to be too tight, do things. Good point.
[2:50:28] thank you. Council member, quint, any, uh, questions? We're still in questions.
[2:50:33] yeah. Um, my mine is just more kind of, um,
[2:50:38] I, I, I think pretty basic. You, you talked about a software,
[2:50:42] um, solution. Was that for licensing only
[2:50:47] the specific software that the grand jury referenced was specifically for licensing?
[2:50:51] yes. Got it. Uh, so
[2:50:57] where I was kinda where my head was at with the whole, um,
[2:51:01] challenge around reporting, um, you know, most organizations
[2:51:06] use some kind of, you know, erp to run their
[2:51:10] operation, and I would think that reporting,
[2:51:15] you know, ought to be able to, you know, come out of that. So I
[2:51:19] wasn't sure if that, um, if that software license,
[2:51:23] you know, if that, if that, uh, platform, um, was something that would
[2:51:27] solve for that. But just kind of looking online, it seems like the
[2:51:31] major, uh, animal service players that are in the,
[2:51:36] you know, in this area, aside from north bay animal services,
[2:51:40] have robust systems. Um, so one would think that reporting,
[2:51:45] they ought to be able that, like, that's kinda like standard stuff. Um,
[2:51:49] one would hope. Um, that was my only question on that.
[2:51:53] in terms of the, uh, again,
[2:51:57] this is just kind of an immediate thing on the whole, you know, having a procedure
[2:52:02] for dog bites, um, or animal bites,
[2:52:06] um, you know, both, uh, sonoma
[2:52:10] humane and marin humane have, you know,
[2:52:14] uh, their portals have a place for dog bite reports.
[2:52:19] so whoever the responsible party is, maybe it's something as simple
[2:52:23] as, um, the city's website has a link to that.
[2:52:27] um, you know, right at this point
[2:52:31] in our current setup, it might be confusing as to who to go to.
[2:52:36] so just a suggestion. That was it. Okay. Council
[2:52:40] member now, um, thank you, um, on the findings,
[2:52:45] um, one, there is no mention of, um,
[2:52:50] the now, um, we don't have the animal services committee,
[2:52:54] but is that something that we could say that we're going to bring
[2:52:59] back? Because that has, um, the public sitting
[2:53:03] on the committee with a council liaison, um,
[2:53:07] I remember being on it in 2007, and it
[2:53:12] helps bring these things to the attention
[2:53:16] that it, if it slips through the cracks like this, um,
[2:53:21] you know, the grand jury found that things slipped through the cracks, and I am
[2:53:26] embarrassed that it happened in that element, but I'd like to know how we
[2:53:30] can bring an animal services committee back so that there is some
[2:53:34] more attention given. And that's what our committees
[2:53:38] do, is they look into it and investigate and bring things to
[2:53:42] the, um, attention of staff and the council. So
[2:53:47] that's one of my, um, questions. The other one
[2:53:51] is the dog licensing. Um, I know that
[2:53:55] the findings f three, it's ultimate their responsibility
[2:54:00] of the owner that many of the owners are not
[2:54:04] computer literate. And, you know, they're gonna depend on
[2:54:08] a paper bill, just like their water bill, just like their pg e bill, because
[2:54:13] not all don dog owners know, oh, I need to
[2:54:18] remember to pay my dog license. Um, you know, they may not know when
[2:54:22] it, um, it needs to be renewed. So
[2:54:27] that was one thing I wanted to ask that maybe we think about
[2:54:31] those people that aren't on computers, um, who
[2:54:35] depend on paper bills for, um, renewing
[2:54:39] licensing, et cetera, and paying bills. Um, the other one
[2:54:44] was, um, the finding of
[2:54:49] f five, and I have to find it real fast, um,
[2:54:54] explain how our partnerships with
[2:54:58] nonprofits work. Um, they
[2:55:02] accuse us, of course, of not having responsibility to review financial
[2:55:07] stability of nbas. We have many nonprofits
[2:55:11] that we contract with to do services in our community. Um,
[2:55:15] maybe you can explain what, um,
[2:55:20] what is in the contract that we can see
[2:55:24] their financial, um, obligation to the
[2:55:28] city because sure. We, we don't have, we didn't have anything to
[2:55:32] do with the, um, other things that nbas was doing
[2:55:36] other than what our city contract. So maybe you could explain that.
[2:55:40] and I think that's all my questions. The other
[2:55:44] ones were on our afternoon questions, our council
[2:55:49] questions, so sure. So specifically on the financial oversight,
[2:55:53] um, you're right, we do have many nonprofits that we work with providing services.
[2:55:58] um, there are typically standard, you know, pretty, pretty vanilla provisions
[2:56:03] within the contracts that talk about, uh, you know, we have the ability to inspect books
[2:56:07] and records and we can, uh, audit in a, you know,
[2:56:11] ledgers and invoices, et cetera, if, if we want, um,
[2:56:15] I, I don't know of a time that we have needed or, or, uh, chosen
[2:56:20] to exercise those provisions. I mean, the reality is, at the end of the day,
[2:56:24] the obligation for the service provider is to provide the scope of
[2:56:28] services that is in the agreement, right? And how they do that, that's really on
[2:56:32] them, and that they're a third party nonprofit that is not affiliated
[2:56:37] with the city other than the fact that we are in a contract with
[2:56:41] 'em. So that's why in the body of our response, and, and I think in my
[2:56:45] comments tonight, we mentioned that, uh, there, the, the duty is really on the
[2:56:49] board of directors of the nonprofit to ensure that they have
[2:56:53] the stability, uh, the financial wherewithal to provide the, the level
[2:56:58] of service that they're, that they're committing to. Um, or
[2:57:02] we need to have a follow up conversation right about, uh, you know, do we need, is
[2:57:06] there some help that the city can provide? Do we need to change the scope, amend the,
[2:57:10] uh, the contract, et cetera? Um, but I can't think of another
[2:57:14] time when we have needed or, or elected to, uh, essentially
[2:57:19] audit the financials of another third party nonprofit entity that we
[2:57:23] contract with. Yeah. Uh, I, my
[2:57:27] comment is kind of going along that same line, uh, not so much critique of, uh, what we've
[2:57:31] written in the grand jury, but what the lessons learned and how are we adopting them here.
[2:57:36] um, like in, in our, um, in our new proposal that
[2:57:40] we, our new contract with nonprofit, um, more on that,
[2:57:44] uh, council member now's point, um, you know, we require insurance
[2:57:48] from each of them. We require the insurance to be updated per e every year,
[2:57:52] and we require that somebody check that they sent in the insurance and they're still under
[2:57:56] contract. And one differentiation between most contracts in
[2:58:00] this contract is this is an enduring contract, a multi-year
[2:58:04] contract. It's not, uh, you know, put in, uh, paving from this corner to that corner.
[2:58:08] so it requires us to monitor on a longer range basis.
[2:58:13] um, while we wouldn't want to audit firm,
[2:58:19] you know, there should be triggers to show that a board is weakening
[2:58:23] or not fulfilling their obligation, and yet they're providing us a
[2:58:27] critical service. Can we, uh, have things in like, um, they
[2:58:31] must submit their annual financials and we won't judge,
[2:58:36] but they just, the fact that they did them and submitted them is
[2:58:40] a sign of robustness. Uh, similarly, um, their, their, uh,
[2:58:44] tax responsibility, even the nonprofits have to file a tax. And in many of
[2:58:49] 'em you see that that's the burden they don't actually get to because they're too busy chasing
[2:58:53] animals or, you know, or whatever their primary function is, is they've lost
[2:58:57] organizational strength. So I would love to see us have
[2:59:01] that. I'm seeing head nodding. So that was a question. The answer is yes. Great.
[2:59:05] um, uh, then the second question, um, so in the bite victim
[2:59:09] at hearing, um, is it typical or
[2:59:13] have we examined yet whether that is a typical process for say, marin or sonoma?
[2:59:20] yeah, in looking at some other city's, um, procedures, it's, it's pretty
[2:59:24] typical. Yes. So I would love to see that recommendation
[2:59:28] agreed to, um, down the road. And, uh, those,
[2:59:32] those were two, my two primary questions. Council member di carly,
[2:59:39] what happens if the city refutes the grand jury's report?
[2:59:44] which I think in this case, I mean, a lot of it is refuted. I mean, what,
[2:59:48] what, um, you know, what happens then? Well,
[2:59:53] I think that's, that was reflected, um, in eric's answer to, uh, council
[2:59:57] member schwab's question a bit. There, there's no sort of legal weight
[3:00:01] behind the recommendations necessarily. It is a recommending body.
[3:00:06] um, our obligation is to, uh, file a response
[3:00:10] and state whether we agree or disagree with the findings and why, and then,
[3:00:14] uh, report on the recommendations and whether or not we are electing to implement
[3:00:18] them or maybe they've already been implemented. So that's really the extent of the city's
[3:00:23] legal obligation in this, uh, grand jury process.
[3:00:28] and then what, uh, tools or methods do we have to get some of
[3:00:32] the answers people are seeking out of nbas,
[3:00:36] you know, for people in the public and people affected by this?
[3:00:41] I'm sorry, could you elaborate on that? The answers to
[3:00:45] what, I mean, people have lots of questions and answers and have for eight years now.
[3:00:50] and so what, you know, people are kind of demanding accountability.
[3:00:54] what, what sort of tools do we have, you know, as somebody who's contractually
[3:00:58] obligated to us, probably considered a partner, um, and a nonprofit, like
[3:01:04] how do we get those answers? Well, we've started that process
[3:01:08] a little bit. Um, the council on, at the march 2nd meeting requested
[3:01:13] a forensic audit of nbas. We have kicked off
[3:01:17] with a, uh, auditing firm, and it's, uh, it's not a full
[3:01:22] forensic audit at this point, um, but it's a, uh,
[3:01:26] a risk review and a, a fraud risk review and a contract compliance
[3:01:31] review, basically. And so that is what we view. That's sort of like step
[3:01:35] one. We'll see what that comes back with, and if we need to follow up
[3:01:39] on any of the findings from that report, then we'll go ahead and do that. Um, but that's,
[3:01:43] I think, I think where you're, where you're headed and, uh, we look forward to working
[3:01:48] with our, uh, the accounting firm to, to see if they come back with anything substantive.
[3:01:53] what does the risk review mean? Well, they're, they're performing
[3:01:57] a variety of procedures, looking at, uh, their detailed, uh, uh,
[3:02:01] general ledger data. So we have that and looking at what,
[3:02:06] um, you know, are there any irregularities in the payments, any, um, things
[3:02:10] that might trigger or, um, think that there could be some fraud that had
[3:02:14] occurred. Uh, so they're, they're doing a variety of reviews of their
[3:02:18] financials to, um, to see if anything kind of pops
[3:02:22] or like rises to the top that, hey, we think there might be a problem here. We should look further.
[3:02:27] um, and they, they may or may not find anything. And so we're
[3:02:31] kind of waiting for that review to, to be concluded. And then we'll
[3:02:36] see if there are any next steps that come from that. Are we receiving compliance
[3:02:40] on that? I'm sorry, from nbas? Are we
[3:02:44] receiving compliance thus far? Yes.
[3:02:49] and then, um, you know, one response in the letter
[3:02:53] refutes that authority was not taken from the council. So how frequently over
[3:02:58] the past eight years were serious issues, regular reporting oversight
[3:03:02] or matters, you know, of concern brought to the council?
[3:03:08] how often were those issues brought to the council? Is
[3:03:12] that the question? Right, because the, you know, the whole
[3:03:16] question in that part of the report is about, you know, it questions whether
[3:03:21] city manager's office is making all the decisions or the council, the response
[3:03:25] has been, this is the council's authority. Mm-hmm . How often over that eight
[3:03:29] year period were issues brought to the council
[3:03:34] and reports? Well, there were multiple touch points during that time. So
[3:03:38] the city council through a public process, um, you know, a rfp
[3:03:42] process and publicly noticed meetings issued the original contract
[3:03:47] back in 2018, there, um, there was
[3:03:51] an amendment to that con, so the initial agreement was a three year agreement. There
[3:03:55] was an amendment to that agreement that the council deliberated on, I believe, in
[3:03:59] 2020, uh, to do a contract extension.
[3:04:03] and so that came to council at a public meeting and was approved by
[3:04:07] council. Uh, we did have the discussion about, as council member now alluded
[3:04:11] to the animal services committee, I believe that was in 2022.
[3:04:15] uh, so that was another touch point. And then we've had the grand jury reports
[3:04:20] for the last two years. So that's at least, you know, four or five times we've
[3:04:24] reviewed it. Uh, additionally, the, the council approves the budget every year,
[3:04:28] ultimately. And that's, you know, just one piece of authority that the council
[3:04:33] exercises, uh, if there were concerns that the council felt needed
[3:04:37] to be addressed, uh, you obviously all have, uh,
[3:04:41] the ability to speak to staff, speak to the city manager, and, uh, and request,
[3:04:46] you know, new analysis, different analysis, um, or, or bring
[3:04:50] an item back. And, and actually, I'm sorry, I failed to mention one. Uh, the march 2nd
[3:04:54] meeting I think is another good example where we, we recognize the issues, brought
[3:04:59] it to you all for a decision, uh, and you made the decision that you made that night.
[3:05:03] so anyway, there have been a number of them. Yeah.
[3:05:07] and then what, I have a couple more questions. What action was the city
[3:05:12] supposed to take if contractual obligations were not fulfilled?
[3:05:18] essentially, there are two ways that we can enforce the contract or
[3:05:22] enforce non-compliance in the contract. One way is that we can withhold
[3:05:27] payment. So if there's a portion of the services that we didn't receive,
[3:05:31] we can withhold payment. The second way we can enforce the contract is
[3:05:35] to terminate the contract for non-compliance. So those are essentially the two enforcement
[3:05:39] mechanisms that we have. Mm-hmm . No, thank you. 'cause I did pull up the contract
[3:05:44] and it is stated several times, and the first being in the standard of
[3:05:48] performance that, you know, contractors failure to comply with any laws or regulations
[3:05:52] applicable to the performance of the services shall constitute a default subject
[3:05:57] determination of this agreement in accordance with section 25 b, the agreement.
[3:06:01] so, you know, I, I mean, I'll talk more about that in comment, but
[3:06:06] it seems like there were several years where they violated this. And again, it's mentioned
[3:06:10] throughout the contract more and more times. Um,
[3:06:14] kinda the last question I have is, excuse me, uh, vice mayor, I, I'd like
[3:06:18] to just briefly add, there are those formal remedies in the contract,
[3:06:23] but, um, there are other,
[3:06:27] um, steps that can be taken. We took some of them. One of them was when the
[3:06:31] consultant was retained to try to improve the performance that we knew was lacking.
[3:06:36] and that's not something the contract spells out, but, um,
[3:06:40] it's an option. Another option is amending the contract. If there, if it's
[3:06:44] thought that the scope isn't clear or there's some other kind of change in the
[3:06:48] contract or, um, requirements that need to be added to ensure compliance,
[3:06:52] that's, that's an option. And I think we would've anticipated
[3:06:56] and did anticipate that it, we might be seeing those results as
[3:07:01] a result of the consultant, um, engagement. But we know that wasn't successful
[3:07:05] because nbas wouldn't, wouldn't cooperate. So, um,
[3:07:09] there are the express remedies stated in the contract and
[3:07:14] as the awarding agency and, and with
[3:07:18] remedies in the contract that include termination for convenience, it doesn't have to be for default,
[3:07:22] and we can always propose amendments. So, so there's quite a range of,
[3:07:26] of, of things. And those were some of the additional steps that were, that were taken regarding
[3:07:31] the performance issues. Thanks. Mm-hmm .
[3:07:35] and then, uh, you know, this grand jury reports largely based around
[3:07:39] the city's response to everything. And so, you know,
[3:07:43] one of the things that would help me understand this better is who were the city employees
[3:07:48] that were involved in the nbas contract and oversight of it?
[3:07:54] well, the city manager's office is ultimately the administrator of the contract. So,
[3:07:59] I mean, I think that's the answer to that question. Um, in conjunction, you know, the
[3:08:03] police department has a role at times. Uh, if there are enforcement cases, occasionally,
[3:08:07] um, you know, many calls for service occur
[3:08:11] in our parks department or in our city parks. So that's another department that has a
[3:08:15] interface with our animal services provider. But ultimately, um,
[3:08:19] the administration of the contract is with the city manager's office, but
[3:08:23] we have other involved departments too. Um, invoices are approved
[3:08:27] and payments made through finance. The legal department, obviously
[3:08:32] we played a direct role in the implementing the council's direction to
[3:08:36] terminate. But, um, also played, you know, played
[3:08:40] the role in reviewing, um, and, um,
[3:08:45] recommending approval of the, of the initial contract and amendments, et cetera. So it's a,
[3:08:49] a, so under the oversight of the city manager's office, um,
[3:08:53] there are a number of involved departments, including legal and finance.
[3:08:59] right. But then who, I mean, who were those main employees, I suppose that were constantly
[3:09:04] daily involved in this. Mm-hmm.
[3:09:09] that, that was myself. Yeah. Uh, in conjunction with peggy. Yeah.
[3:09:15] all right. Thank you. And let's bring in, uh,
[3:09:20] uh, council member cater thompson.
[3:09:25] I'll wait for the next. Okay. Um, councilman
[3:09:29] barnicle. Yeah, a couple questions. Um,
[3:09:34] considering how much I would say we largely agree with
[3:09:38] the sort of qualitative reporting was inadequate, things like that, that we are
[3:09:43] very much aware of the, the legal, like discrepancies,
[3:09:47] the fact that county council was involved in this. Have we talked to county council about
[3:09:52] any of these things and found out, you know, what's going on? 'cause I agree that some
[3:09:56] of this stuff just doesn't make sense. No, we've not. And,
[3:10:00] um, um, I don't know that, you know, we have a great relationship
[3:10:04] with our colleagues in county council, including with, um, josh meyers,
[3:10:08] the new county council. Um, I don't know that
[3:10:13] they'd talk with us about that nonetheless, because, you
[3:10:17] know, that's their client communications. We, um, I
[3:10:21] don't know how much time we spent with the grand jury, but it was a lot of time to
[3:10:25] try to, you know, provide as much clear information as we could in response to their
[3:10:29] questions. I personally spent at least a couple hours with the
[3:10:33] full, um, grand jury to respond to their
[3:10:37] questions. And I, and the, the information that we included in our
[3:10:42] response was information I shared with them both then. And also I sent them a subsequent
[3:10:46] follow up. 'cause it seemed like they still had some, there were still some
[3:10:50] things they weren't grasping so well. So I don't know. I, we, you know,
[3:10:55] if, if they wanted to have dialogue with us, we'd be happy to have dialogue about that.
[3:11:00] okay. Um, so mayor asked my
[3:11:04] question about, um, the hearing process. Um,
[3:11:09] have we looked at other cities in the, in their hearing process? And if victims
[3:11:13] are able to be party to those hearings and things like that? We've
[3:11:17] looked at some, I think the analogy, um, you know, it's
[3:11:22] not a, um, municipal courts
[3:11:26] have been absorbed in the superior court system. So that kind of victim redress is,
[3:11:30] is there in the civil system. Um, if there were criminal,
[3:11:34] um, you know, liability or charges related to,
[3:11:38] um, animals, then, then our police department would handle that,
[3:11:42] the da's office. But as, as we explained, the, um,
[3:11:48] um, the, the most important role victims play is coming forward
[3:11:53] with complaints and concerns, and then as witnesses and like
[3:11:57] in a criminal trial, um, it's the prosecuting agency that controls
[3:12:01] the proceedings. It's, it's not, it's not the involved parties and the witnesses
[3:12:06] and, and the redress they, that they receive in the criminal context,
[3:12:11] like in the animal services context, is in the, um,
[3:12:16] sanctions and the safety protections, um, with
[3:12:20] respect to, you know, whether someone's incarcerated in this case, it's whether, um,
[3:12:24] uh, safety conditions are imposed on the animal owner. Um,
[3:12:28] so it's a pretty parallel parallel, pretty
[3:12:33] parallel process. And, and we gave that information too, and we met with the grand jury.
[3:12:37] yeah, I'll say that's one of my concerns because of the specific dog
[3:12:41] bite case that we had that where it was just really mishandled. And so, um,
[3:12:46] I don't know how that applies to our hearing process or, or whatnot, but, um,
[3:12:51] just, I guess my, my question, or I don't think there's a question there, but that's
[3:12:55] where my question's coming from. All right. Um, so
[3:13:00] the finding f five about financial oversight, um,
[3:13:05] you know, we're not their board, but we did ask them for a budget update. Correct.
[3:13:10] can, I would say regularly. Um, and to ask if they
[3:13:14] had any needs. Um, do we need to tweak things? Do you need better administrative
[3:13:19] support? How are, how are the status of your vehicles? Et cetera, et cetera.
[3:13:23] so we were continually meeting with 'em and asking if they needed additional support,
[3:13:28] uh, from the city to be able to effectively do their job. Right. 'cause we didn't, and
[3:13:32] they never, never gave us an updated budget from the initial
[3:13:36] contract. Right. We never saw an installation. Correct. Is that accurate? Other than in the 2020
[3:13:40] extension, uh, amendment we did, uh, we did change the
[3:13:44] contract. The, the original contract had a certain, uh, percentage of the license fees actually
[3:13:48] coming to the city. We tweaked it so that nbis would be able to keep all of the
[3:13:52] license fees to be able to e elevate their overall funding. Okay.
[3:13:57] um, I would add that to the report, like we multiple
[3:14:01] times, like we aren't their board, but we did ask them multiple times for a budget update. So,
[3:14:05] um, uh, and then,
[3:14:11] you know, one of the other things that it sort of catches me off guard with this is that we committed
[3:14:15] to an rfp by the end of their, the nbas contract, which was july 31st, 2026.
[3:14:22] and this came out before that whole process.
[3:14:26] so a lot of the, the responses of what we were doing,
[3:14:31] um, or the, the, the main response of what we were doing
[3:14:35] was rebidding the contract and they issued this. Where did that come
[3:14:39] from?
[3:14:44] I'm not sure that we fully know, but it is clear that they were working
[3:14:48] on a follow up, uh, as far back as january of this year.
[3:14:53] uh, and so I think there, again, this is me surmising, so this is all
[3:14:57] speculation, but I think they had a certain direction that they, they
[3:15:01] were looking at with the report. And then when the march 2nd council meeting happened, and,
[3:15:06] uh, the council gave us direction to terminate the agreement, I think that
[3:15:10] kind of shifted the direction of the report. In fact, I think in the report
[3:15:14] it says the scope of the investigation significantly narrowed
[3:15:18] after the jan, uh, the, the march 2nd meeting. So
[3:15:23] it changed some of their findings and the direction that they were headed. Um,
[3:15:27] but it was, I think it was clear even in, in march that we
[3:15:31] were, we were clearly headed toward doing a new rfp for services because we had
[3:15:35] that checkpoint with the nbs agreement, july 31.
[3:15:39] got you. So reading between the lines, we were headed for a different report. They were
[3:15:44] probably gonna scold us for not taking corrective action on nbas,
[3:15:48] and then we fired them abruptly. And the, the scope of their
[3:15:53] findings in, in report narrowed, that's, that's how the
[3:15:57] report reads. Uh, again, sort of reading between the lines there, there
[3:16:01] also was the, um, the, I, I don't know if you call it news, but the,
[3:16:06] uh, the information that nbas was not cooperating with the
[3:16:10] consultant. And so, since I think that in the, in last year's report,
[3:16:15] that was a, a piece of our corrective action that we were taking since
[3:16:19] that, uh, process did not succeed, that was sort of a new,
[3:16:23] you know, um, instigation to, to look back at things.
[3:16:28] okay. And then, um, the other one that
[3:16:32] I had a question on was, um,
[3:16:37] the, when we were on the reporting in the last report,
[3:16:42] my sense is that part of this, you know, part of it was the news that they weren't working with
[3:16:46] the, the consultant. The other part we committed to was quarterly reports
[3:16:50] from nbas. And I can't remember getting quarterly reports from
[3:16:55] nbas after we submitted the, the last grand jury report. Did we get
[3:17:00] no, I think the intent of that was with a new provider that we would be insisting
[3:17:04] on quarterly reports. And in, um, speaking with the provider,
[3:17:09] we, that is already, their standard practice is to do quarterly
[3:17:13] reports. So it will fully, um, be in line with
[3:17:17] the, um, the reporting frequency that we requested and we said to the grand jury.
[3:17:22] okay. I will be digging into that during my public comment or during my comment.
[3:17:26] um, and then, um, so
[3:17:30] there's two more questions that I have about the status of the audit and where we stand
[3:17:34] with that, when that will be complete. And we'll see that back. And then
[3:17:40] the process of getting data we're well past the, the, the period where they should have furnished
[3:17:44] all of the results and all of that stuff. Can you talk about how cooperative they've
[3:17:48] been, and do we have literally everything right now that we are supposed to have? Because some
[3:17:53] of the public comments are saying that we don't, and I'm, um, uh, wondering
[3:17:57] where we stand on the audit and capturing data from nbis?
[3:18:02] yeah. So one of the provisions of the agreement was that,
[3:18:07] um, after it's terminated, they have 60 days to
[3:18:11] furnish us with all of the data. So with a march 31,
[3:18:15] um, termination date, that basically would've meant the end of may.
[3:18:19] um, we received significant amount of data from 'em
[3:18:23] by the end of may. We received even more after the end of may.
[3:18:28] um, there were two major, um, things
[3:18:32] that we received after, which were, uh, some of the database stuff that they
[3:18:36] had, they had to work with their software provider to be able to get that data.
[3:18:40] so it was, it extended out significantly past may 31st.
[3:18:44] and then, um, we, prior to may 31st, we
[3:18:49] did receive a large, um, drop of many,
[3:18:53] uh, of multiple dozens of boxes of paper records. But it has taken
[3:18:57] us up till now, and we are still not totally complete, uh,
[3:19:02] going through all of those records, uh, categorizing them, cataloging them,
[3:19:06] et cetera. So that's still ongoing. But I would say generally they
[3:19:10] did comply with the, um, the procedures, uh,
[3:19:14] to be it, to turn over all of the data to the city. And I, I think I
[3:19:18] can say that we have everything that we were expecting to have, um,
[3:19:23] when the contract terminated. Thank you. Oh, oh, and then
[3:19:27] your question on the, the audit itself. Timing of it. Yeah. So
[3:19:31] timing is a, is a little bit up in the air. Um, I would say we should have some,
[3:19:35] uh, at least preliminary things back from the consultant within one to two months.
[3:19:39] it is a significant amount of data that they're looking through, uh, came
[3:19:44] over in kind of a not very convenient format. So they're having to kind of reconstruct
[3:19:48] some of the, the pieces. Um, so once that process is completed,
[3:19:53] I think they should be able to have some initial analysis done within maybe
[3:19:57] one month or, or max two months. Great. And then council member di
[3:20:01] carly and I received, um, sort of a trove of data from a member of the public.
[3:20:05] can you confirm that that's been passed on to the auditor? Yes,
[3:20:09] it was. Thank you. Thank you. Council
[3:20:13] member quinn . Okay. Council member di carly,
[3:20:20] when, uh, brian, when you were talking about all the data that was received, how, I
[3:20:24] mean, was that months, years, I mean, about how much data,
[3:20:28] if you can even say, I don't know what kind of mess it was when it came in, but about how much data was
[3:20:32] that? Uh, the full eight years that they were the provider?
[3:20:37] yeah. And was it all encompassing of everything
[3:20:42] the city was asking of them? As far as we know, yes. It was quite all encompassing,
[3:20:47] yes. Okay. Um, let's
[3:20:51] move to public comment, and I'd like to ask the, uh, clerk to invite the public in.
[3:20:56] yes. We received, uh, five comments ahead of the meeting. Um,
[3:21:00] and those were posted online. And we have 12 people in the zoom
[3:21:05] meeting. And at this time, I will start a 32nd clock. Whoops.
[3:21:09] all right. Well, that's three minutes, but we'll watch for 30 seconds. Um, members
[3:21:13] of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to my desk if they have not
[3:21:17] already done so. And members of the public attending online should raise their
[3:21:21] virtual hand. And those attending via phone should press star nine to
[3:21:25] raise their hand. Speaker request received after these 30 seconds may not be
[3:21:29] accommodated.
[3:21:38] okay.
[3:21:51] we have five cards from the public in the house, and we have 2, 2 2
[3:21:56] zoom participants, uh, for a total of seven. So, uh, let's start
[3:22:00] with sierra morantz and be followed by, uh, derek childs.
[3:22:15] you all have copies of these.
[3:22:20] okay. Um, I find some of the draft responses to
[3:22:24] the grand jury's report a bit disingenuous, especially the pieces about prompt
[3:22:28] a action. Your position about ab bite victim's rights is just ridiculous.
[3:22:33] I first came to mike city council member, mayor, city manager and attorney
[3:22:37] in october, 2024. After four months of unresponsiveness from
[3:22:41] nbas following a vicious dog attack. Brian and kevin, you
[3:22:45] acknowledge the nbas wasn't getting the job done as it should, but even then, it
[3:22:50] took a month to get a summary response from nbas via the city
[3:22:54] manager's office. As time went on, you saw the sava unfold from lack of
[3:22:58] action to excuses around why documentation was taking so long.
[3:23:02] for a documentation example, city staff said the abatement reports that
[3:23:06] I requested were taking mbas so long because of extensive redacting
[3:23:10] required. When we got them after four months, it was only seven documents with
[3:23:14] three pages each, and very little content redacted or otherwise.
[3:23:19] by december, 2025, kevin, you even noted that nbas had
[3:23:23] not been the partner that the city would desire. That efforts were in place to change
[3:23:27] that, but you couldn't share more. And you asked me to wait until june, 2026
[3:23:32] after nbas was terminated. I asked for a review of my case. The officer
[3:23:36] assigned is one of the new marin humane officers that worked on my case while she was
[3:23:40] employed by nbas. She and her supervisor told me they do not have all the
[3:23:45] documents and asked me to send them over. However, while I was compiling those, I
[3:23:49] got an email from brian cochrane telling me that marin humane had determined too much
[3:23:53] time had passed, and they wouldn't be taking further action unless new incidents were
[3:23:57] reported. It's ethically questionable to put a person on a case when they worked on
[3:24:01] it as a prior employee of an entity that was terminated for cause.
[3:24:05] if marin humane wasn't able to truly assign a neutral a person due
[3:24:09] to whatever reason, the city should have made that clear and asked me to wait for a
[3:24:14] permanent provider. Or if you knew nothing would be done, you should have taken ownership
[3:24:18] and you should have told me. So it also brings into question how other
[3:24:22] existing cases are being addressed and the need for a fully funded long-term solution.
[3:24:26] I'm far from the only bite victim in the city of petaluma. There have been some big cases
[3:24:31] recently with that. Here's what I'd ask you to do. First, make
[3:24:35] sure you're being forthright in your response to the grand jury. Next, move
[3:24:39] to a fully funded long-term animal solution surfaces solution that completely
[3:24:43] moves away from nbas and bring back the animal services committee.
[3:24:47] finally, listen to your constituents when they bring evidence of city
[3:24:52] and contractor issues, and continue your full investigation of nbas.
[3:24:57] by the way, the dog that attacked me has been unlicensed since january. It's rabies vaccine
[3:25:01] is up in less than a year. Thank you.
[3:25:05] thank you, dara child. I'm gonna give and tom to
[3:25:09] mark, kimberly, please. Thank you. And, uh, let's
[3:25:14] go to mark kimberly then. Um, but I don't
[3:25:18] have a card for mark kimberly,
[3:25:28] so I'm gonna assume you turned in a card. And why don't you just go ahead and have the, uh, card and
[3:25:32] go ahead. So
[3:25:37] you disagree with the grand jury report again, right?
[3:25:43] how many times? You know, it just, it reminds me, I disagreed
[3:25:47] with every traffic cop that ever gave me a speeding ticket. I disagree with the
[3:25:51] irs every single year when they tell me I gotta pay 'em some money, but it doesn't matter
[3:25:55] because I know they're right. And I stand up and do the right thing.
[3:26:00] and I think it's about time you people do the same. You are
[3:26:04] in such denial. And
[3:26:09] I just have to say, look at all the trouble you brought on yourselves
[3:26:13] and on this city by hiring a known criminal
[3:26:18] in a private contract, and then covering for him and lying for
[3:26:22] him for eight long years. Look at where you're at.
[3:26:26] peggy flynn. Look at where you're at. Brian cochrane. People are organizing
[3:26:31] right now to get you outta office. Do you know that? And I wouldn't be a bit surprised
[3:26:35] if that happens. They're also organizing for about half of this council
[3:26:39] to do recalls on you. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that happens, because first, they're
[3:26:43] gonna ask for your resignations. And we know that won't happen. And when that doesn't
[3:26:47] happen, they're gonna try to pressure the council and d terminate your employment. And I know that
[3:26:51] won't happen. So then they're going to recalls and then they're going to the ballot box.
[3:26:56] there's only two or three people here that, that are trusted whatsoever. And you brought
[3:27:00] it all on yourselves. But
[3:27:04] I didn't even come here to talk to you people.
[3:27:08] I came to talk through you, to the people of petaluma.
[3:27:12] 'cause you stopped listening to us years ago. You've had your back turned to us, and we know it
[3:27:17] for eight years. You stood by, you watched while a criminal and a thief
[3:27:22] dismantled the animal sheltering system system in petaluma. You watched
[3:27:26] as they stopped providing reports, cash only thrift stores popped up,
[3:27:30] services to the public, went into the toilet, concerned citizens came here
[3:27:34] to this podium and begged you for your help. And you did nothing. You
[3:27:38] lied for that people, those people, and you covered for them. Your
[3:27:43] response to this report makes it clear. You see nothing wrong with starving dogs
[3:27:47] while selling donated food in their thrift stores, people being mauled
[3:27:51] by dogs in the streets and then being ignored, failing to investigate
[3:27:55] bite cases, rabies protocols being ignored. Or with
[3:27:59] the criminal director's salary climbing to the highest in the county for any shelter
[3:28:04] director while simultaneously taking loans from his board of directors to stay afloat.
[3:28:08] to you. That was all oaky fine. How foolish.
[3:28:13] we've had multiple jury grand jury reports criticizing your lack of oversight.
[3:28:17] but your response shows you still claim that you've done nothing wrong.
[3:28:23] you're supposed to be our leaders. Leaders have ethics. They have honor,
[3:28:27] they have honesty and integrity, and all those things are in very short supply
[3:28:31] around here. Stay tuned. A lot more is gonna happen.
[3:28:38] thank you very much. Uh, tom chamberlain should be followed by nicholas harris.
[3:28:48] tom chamberlain. There we are. Hi.
[3:28:53] hang on. Ready? Ready,
[3:28:58] set, go. Good evening. After reading
[3:29:02] the city's draft response to animal services, revisited a city asleep
[3:29:07] at the wheel. I feel compelled to speak before the council on this
[3:29:11] document. The sonoma county civil grand jury, which is composed of 18 fellow
[3:29:16] citizens, spent a year investigating fellow citizens complaints
[3:29:20] about ongoing operations of our local animal shelter. They issued
[3:29:24] their report, which I have read, and which this citizen found clear and
[3:29:28] well supported. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for
[3:29:33] the city's draft response, which is now before the council this evening
[3:29:37] for their approval. Quite frankly, I am at a complete loss in
[3:29:41] trying to understand it. For example, regarding finding number one,
[3:29:45] which I consider one of the most substantive matters, raised the allegation
[3:29:50] the city manager exceeded her authority to uniformly terminate
[3:29:54] and execute contracts. The grand jury clearly stated
[3:29:59] that actions of this nature required council approval. And that, uh,
[3:30:03] and that quote, no vote was taken unquote, after reading
[3:30:07] the city draft response several times I struggled. But I believe
[3:30:11] that the following is a city's position terminating north
[3:30:15] bay animal services contract approving a replacement contract
[3:30:19] to marin humane and committing funds to cover this transition
[3:30:23] are just administrative actions only needing direction from the council
[3:30:28] and are well within the city manager's authority.
[3:30:32] at least this is my, a citizen of petaluma understanding.
[3:30:37] if correct somehow I don't see how approving contracts and committing
[3:30:41] funds is just an administrative action as I see it.
[3:30:45] the overriding question here is, did this action require a vote
[3:30:50] by the council? A simple yes or no answer was all that was
[3:30:54] required. Yet I see no evidence in the city's draft
[3:30:58] that this was ever addressed. In conclusion, this citizen
[3:31:03] believes that a redrafting of the city's response is mandated
[3:31:07] in simple, clear language, specifically identifying
[3:31:11] those areas which the city perceives as quote shortcomings.
[3:31:17] and the grand jury report, the citizens of petaluma need this.
[3:31:22] thank you for hearing me and for your representing our city. And I'm
[3:31:26] looking forward to the council's discussion on this matter. Thank you. Thank you
[3:31:31] nicholas harris to be followed by nina nato.
[3:31:41] good evening mayor and council. Um, council member
[3:31:45] di carly asked a question earlier. It was, it was actually the wrong question.
[3:31:50] you asked what happens if the city refutes the report?
[3:31:54] the correct question is, what happens if the city council
[3:31:59] of petaluma refutes the report?
[3:32:03] the report by the grand jury is made to the council. The council is
[3:32:07] replying. You are being asked to reply for six
[3:32:12] of the eight recommendations.
[3:32:16] what you need to ask is what happens to the city council? If you
[3:32:20] refute this report, it's not a legal
[3:32:24] question. 'cause the answer is, it's a loss of public trust.
[3:32:30] many of you, through your questions, have intimated the report as
[3:32:34] it's written does not really make sense. It's confusing.
[3:32:39] there's not plain language. I appreciate your comments. Uh, council member
[3:32:43] barnacle. Clearly this report
[3:32:48] needs to be rewritten.
[3:32:55] sort of summarizing what I heard from, uh, mr. Cochrane's presentation.
[3:33:00] staff says the provider didn't perform per the agreement
[3:33:06] and then says, staff, staff says the
[3:33:10] solution will be to make a new agreement better. It's gonna incorporate
[3:33:14] better parts to the agreement.
[3:33:19] a better agreement doesn't solve performance and contract management.
[3:33:25] the overall message from the civil grand jury is that the
[3:33:29] council needs to take control and ensure staff can and will
[3:33:33] manage the service. It's really
[3:33:37] the core of management. Management cannot
[3:33:42] blame a lying employee or a vendor for
[3:33:46] failure to execute. Under some circumstances,
[3:33:51] yes, but given the record of what this report and just by nature, that the
[3:33:55] issue is a result of a civil grand jury investigation and a follow-up,
[3:34:00] it's not appropriate to be putting the onus of
[3:34:04] contract performance, uh, financial stability,
[3:34:08] um, everything back on the, uh, contractor. It just
[3:34:12] doesn't fly. And, and I really want each and every one
[3:34:16] of you, um, and janice, you two, hi, uh, to, to
[3:34:20] take that message to heart. What I think is appropriate is an ad hoc,
[3:34:25] uh, subcommittee to draft a response to this with independent
[3:34:29] legal counsel guiding that ad ad hoc committee,
[3:34:35] what the, the clarifications that the city attorney gave to
[3:34:39] the grand jury and their repeated conclusions that defy,
[3:34:43] that's concerning. Thank you. Nina
[3:34:47] zito,
[3:34:56] thank you. I appreciate
[3:35:00] the renewed attention to
[3:35:04] animal issues in the city of petaluma. And I'm, I'm struck how
[3:35:09] we're awash in, in a lot of detail and
[3:35:13] minutiae contractual, um, discussion.
[3:35:17] I, I feel like we need to really step
[3:35:22] back and consider, uh, this city's
[3:35:28] position on how animals fit into our community here.
[3:35:33] it, um, evidence of our lack of attention, we, well, we've grown
[3:35:37] terribly quickly, um, is, is found just in our, uh,
[3:35:41] city parks. I've, I've, um, been treated, uh,
[3:35:46] council people to walk with me at our designated
[3:35:51] dog run at oak hill park, which is unfenced,
[3:35:55] where broken glass continues to bubble up from landfill,
[3:36:00] broken glass. And where the much valley who grazing program
[3:36:04] leaves behind foxtails, which are documented
[3:36:08] menace for dogs. Now, in a city that does this at a
[3:36:12] doc, at a designated dog park, should we be surprised that we
[3:36:16] have humane concerns? Because people aren't paying attention. We've
[3:36:20] grown too quickly. We really need to step back. I appreciate council
[3:36:25] member, uh, now is, um,
[3:36:29] remarked that an animal services committee needs to be, uh, reestablished.
[3:36:34] I think we should include our, our police department. And thank you for,
[3:36:38] uh, rescuing a dog from an overheated car, 98 degrees
[3:36:42] inside. Uh, we, uh, should have
[3:36:47] a veterinarian. We need, uh, behaviorists, uh, we need
[3:36:51] our parks department. And I've been treated our, uh,
[3:36:55] director of parks to walk with me and look for example, at oak hill park or
[3:37:00] mcnair where there's no water. Uh, the, these deficits
[3:37:05] show that despite the pretty pictures on the library, and I will
[3:37:10] admit it's a gorgeous mural. Uh,
[3:37:14] we we're, we're, there's just an awful lot, an awful lot of fluffery and
[3:37:18] puffery around how much we, you know, we're committed to dogs and whatnot
[3:37:23] and, and feral cats. But, uh, putting the rubber to the road,
[3:37:27] no, we're not doing it. And we we're
[3:37:31] not, we're lying to ourselves. And, uh, the member of the public who
[3:37:35] spoke about lack of public trust emerging is,
[3:37:39] um, sadly right. We, we can't let that happen. Uh,
[3:37:43] thank you for rejecting this resolution as it stands now.
[3:37:49] thank you. Let's go to zoom audience now.
[3:37:56] yes. The first speaker will be amy taylor,
[3:38:02] if you would unmute yourself and make your comment.
[3:38:09] can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay.
[3:38:13] good evening. This city council has allowed themselves
[3:38:17] to be bullied by city manager peggy flynn, and assistant city manager brian cochran.
[3:38:22] instead of supervising them, that's backwards. Your job
[3:38:27] is to oversee cities.
[3:38:32] it appears. Staff sets the narrative, sets the agenda,
[3:38:37] and this council just falls in line time after time when the public
[3:38:41] brings evidence, staff says everything is fine. And instead
[3:38:45] of challenging them, you just repeat it. For the last eight
[3:38:49] years, the city's animal service control operator with
[3:38:53] documented oversight failures, the grand jury found those failures.
[3:38:57] the contract was ultimately terminated, yet we're still
[3:39:01] being told one failed. No one is accountable
[3:39:06] and someone, and somehow everything is just fine. Enough is enough.
[3:39:11] brian cochran, you brought up findings number six. The connection to
[3:39:15] that is that you let mark scott use your shelter
[3:39:19] for other cities animal control. With that being said,
[3:39:23] uninvestigated and uncharged crimes are still crimes.
[3:39:27] mark scott and north bay animal services did 114 cruelty
[3:39:31] cases, broke public public health laws on
[3:39:36] rabies for years, and sold, donated
[3:39:40] dog food in their cash only thrift store.
[3:39:44] but yet, there's no forensic audit. Yeah, you said you're starting an audit, but
[3:39:48] it's not a forensic audit, and you're not holding them accountable.
[3:39:53] if you have a fraud case, I would like somebody to email that to me. A fraud
[3:39:57] case number. Stop telling us that because someone
[3:40:02] said that they care about animals. Oversight doesn't matter. Stop defending
[3:40:06] failures instead of investigating them. Stop asking the public
[3:40:10] to ignore what happened and accept a story that doesn't match
[3:40:14] the facts. The council answers to the people of petaluma, not
[3:40:18] the city manager and not the assistant city manager. If you are unwilling
[3:40:22] to exercise independent oversight, unwilling to hold staff accountable and
[3:40:27] unwilling to tell the public the truth about what happened, then do
[3:40:31] us all a favor and resign, step aside, and
[3:40:35] let voters elect representation who allows the city to
[3:40:39] do their job, not to protect the city council or city hall.
[3:40:44] thank you. Thank you very much.
[3:40:48] that concludes, um, public comment on the, sorry. We have one
[3:40:52] more. We have one more. Yes. Thank you very much. My ben sail white,
[3:40:57] if you would unmute yourself.
[3:41:01] hi. Um, I, I hope you can hear me. I'm on, on my headset. Um, first of
[3:41:05] all, I just have to point out that an earlier speaker in general pub,
[3:41:10] sorry, that was my fault. Sorry. That was my fault.
[3:41:16] mute. One more time. Um, an earlier speaker in general, public comment
[3:41:21] came forward with a license plate belonging to a trust that belongs to
[3:41:25] the city of petaluma, which is currently parked in front of mark scott's
[3:41:29] house in santa rosa. Um, I am really curious about what the city's gonna do
[3:41:33] to follow up on that, and whether the city gave mark scott this truck, or loaned
[3:41:37] mark scott this truck, or was not aware that mark scott stole this truck. And
[3:41:42] I'm bringing this up because that's kind of illustrative of, of the amount of oversight
[3:41:46] that the city of petaluma has been doing all along. And this is, this is happening
[3:41:50] right now. Um, your, I don't know how much time I have left, but your staff's
[3:41:55] response to the grand jury report is downright f*****g, sorry. Dishonest, much like your
[3:41:59] staff's interactions with the public regarding animal services for the past eight years,
[3:42:03] staff assert in its response to the grand jury report that throughout the contract term
[3:42:08] city staff worked extensively with nbas quote, to
[3:42:12] strengthen its operations, improve management practices, forecast staffing
[3:42:16] and capital needs, and enhance organizational systems and processes. That was a quote.
[3:42:20] okay. So, great. So despite this unprecedented handholding of
[3:42:24] a city contractor by staff, the performance of nbas
[3:42:28] declined precipitously over the nearly eight years that it held a contract to the
[3:42:32] point that numerous unaltered, unvaccinated and even diseased animals
[3:42:36] were released to the public under the pre pretense of foster to adopt, leaving
[3:42:41] members of the public potentially exposed to rabies from unvaccinated animals.
[3:42:45] many people paid for spay neuter and vaccination services that nbas
[3:42:50] was con contractually obligated to provide. Meanwhile,
[3:42:54] dog bites were ignored or minimized, leaving the public exposed unknowingly
[3:42:58] to dogs with serious bite history. Council and staff were aware
[3:43:02] of these issues for many years. The city of petaluma spent eight
[3:43:06] years making excuses for the sad operation while playing rabies through that with its
[3:43:11] citizens. This response, this draft response further states,
[3:43:16] however, despite substantial city support and ongoing oversight,
[3:43:21] ultimately became evident that nbas would not develop operations for capacity
[3:43:25] that has, sorry, I'm laughing, necessary to consistently
[3:43:29] meet its contractual obligations. When that conclusion became clear, the city council
[3:43:34] acted promptly directing termination of the contract at its march 2nd, 2026
[3:43:38] meeting. This statement is preposterous and dishonest. Nbas
[3:43:43] provided to fail minimally adequate pro failed to provide
[3:43:47] minimally adequate services for nearly eight years before the council acted
[3:43:51] promptly on march 2nd, 2026. The huge answer unanswered question
[3:43:55] is, why, why does city staff work so hard to protect this particular contractor?
[3:44:00] why does city council advocate its responsibility to the electorate by allowing staff
[3:44:04] to run interference for a contractor whose work was criminally incompetent at best,
[3:44:09] when city staff finally terminated the nbas contract with cause this, this past
[3:44:13] march, the reason cited were refusal to work with the city's animal animal
[3:44:17] services consultant, failure to timely provide annual reporting and failure
[3:44:21] to notify the city that it was utilizing city resources. Thank you very much. The sheltered
[3:44:25] facility three minutes has, uh, last, I just have to say, those things were ongoing
[3:44:30] and y'all never did anything. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:44:34] um, and that closes, uh, public comment on, um,
[3:44:38] the item for the evening. Um, I would like
[3:44:42] to bounce back to staff and ask, um, what's known about the truck
[3:44:46] in santa rosa and that situation? Do we, are
[3:44:50] we following that situation?
[3:44:56] one of the, oh, sorry, go ahead.
[3:45:01] so, prior to this meeting, there was, uh, I haven't had an opportunity to
[3:45:05] look too much into that license plate, but the information was forwarded to dispatch. We will take
[3:45:10] a case and do an investigation on what the status of the vehicle is, if the, if
[3:45:14] the plate belongs to a city of petaluma vehicle and as
[3:45:18] we normally would. So we'll follow up on that.
[3:45:22] thank you. And, and just to add onto that, part of the closeout procedure
[3:45:26] that we've been undergoing with n-b-a-s-s,
[3:45:31] excuse me, um, is to close out from
[3:45:35] a financial and from an asset perspective, there were a lot of assets in the shelter
[3:45:39] at the time of the termination that were n bss. There were also a lot of assets that were
[3:45:43] the cities. Um, most of that is complete. There were
[3:45:48] several vehicles and other pieces of equipment trailers,
[3:45:52] um, those three modular homes out to the side of the shelter
[3:45:57] that, um, you know, different entities owned different pieces of equipment.
[3:46:01] we went through a process of deciding which ones, um, needed to stay at the
[3:46:05] shelter and remain in city ownership, which ones were nbas owned
[3:46:09] and could go with them. And there were a couple of vehicles on
[3:46:13] each side where, you know, we said, yeah, we don't need this anymore.
[3:46:17] uh, let's look at a valuation. And then nbas can buy it from the city effectively,
[3:46:22] and also vice versa. Uh, there was at least one vehicle that we
[3:46:26] wanted to buy from nbas. So we are working through that process,
[3:46:31] um, now and have been to create that final accounting,
[3:46:35] uh, to close out everything from a financial perspective with, uh, the agreement
[3:46:40] is our fleet manager, patrick carter here to maybe give any light
[3:46:44] to that as to maybe the, the status of the truck. Does he
[3:46:48] know anything about it? Is your, is your answer complete? Well, again, I,
[3:46:53] I think what, what I'm saying is there was one truck, one vehicle that, um,
[3:46:57] nbas we agreed to sell to them because it was not in good
[3:47:01] shape. The city really couldn't use it, and marine inhumane was unable to use it.
[3:47:06] so we agreed on a value, and then nbas was able to, um,
[3:47:10] take that truck or buy that truck from the city effectively.
[3:47:14] patrick, I don't know if you wanna, I would say exactly
[3:47:18] what brian just said. Okay.
[3:47:23] so, uh, who would like to start the comments end of, um, tonight's discussion?
[3:47:31] no one has comments. Okay. Uh, council member shrives,
[3:47:35] um, yeah, it, it says overall is, is a, a sad
[3:47:39] situation. We have, um, animal services in several cities around us
[3:47:44] have failed several of these things. Um, lots of it has been hidden. Uh,
[3:47:48] it's not unique to us. Um, and so we are facing a, basically
[3:47:52] a, a failure in operations at this point. Now, what do you do?
[3:47:57] do we spend a lot of time writing a report, getting all the responses,
[3:48:01] or do we spend time fixing the problem? And I, I don't
[3:48:05] like the report. I, I would not write it myself that way, but
[3:48:09] it, it's a report. It's a recommendation, a report saying, we're going to do better. At this point,
[3:48:14] I don't wanna waste time having legal and, and us and just like,
[3:48:19] could the wordsmith a report that may or may not be adequate. Um,
[3:48:23] I don't wanna spend that much time on responding in a report. What I wanna do is I wanna fix
[3:48:27] the problem. So I'd much rather have staff spend the time to come
[3:48:31] up with the exact recommendations that we're looking for. Um,
[3:48:35] um, I'm not sure if we can legally just go ahead and say, oh, we, we agree
[3:48:39] with this, this, this, and this and this. We failed here and here and here and here. Um, that
[3:48:43] might be good for the public to hear about. I'm not sure how productive that was or how legal that might be.
[3:48:48] but, uh, I want to hear what are we gonna do? What are the positive
[3:48:52] recommendations? We heard several recommendations tonight. So brian, you did a good job of saying, hey, we're gonna do
[3:48:56] this, this, and this. You had a whole list there that do not appear in the report. Do we
[3:49:00] send it? Is, do we put that in the report and, and make it pardon in stone?
[3:49:05] or do we just make it happen? So at this point, uh, I'd rather just,
[3:49:09] just make it happen in reality and, and move forward. This is all one
[3:49:13] of the bridge. Just admit that it's been a screw up entirely on this whole thing.
[3:49:17] let's put it on the water of the bridge and let's make it right. That's, that's where I would like to go. Thank
[3:49:21] you very much. Council member barnacle. Yeah,
[3:49:26] let would say I'm largely in, uh, in council member, she's camp on this with a few,
[3:49:31] um, modifications. Um, so on r three
[3:49:35] and r five on the, uh, independent hearing officers and the victim participation and
[3:49:39] hearings, um, I would say not be implemented
[3:49:43] is written. Um, we say we're gonna review title ix. I'd like us to review
[3:49:47] what other cities in sonoma county are doing and bring that back for the council. When
[3:49:52] we are looking at the, the next, uh, the rfp, um,
[3:49:56] response or approving the contract whenever, like, whenever the next time that we're
[3:50:00] gonna, whether it's receiving the audit or whatever, um, I
[3:50:04] want to actually look at what the other cities are doing on that front and, um,
[3:50:09] edit this to, to say that that's what we're gonna do, is we're gonna look at the other cities and
[3:50:13] the council will direct staff to, um, take action. You
[3:50:17] know, following that. Um,
[3:50:22] the, uh, when we bring forward
[3:50:26] the, um, the reports, uh, and, and the rfp,
[3:50:31] uh, actually, when we bring forward the contract, there's gonna a few things that I'm gonna be interested in
[3:50:35] the, the sla for records, uh, furnishing that's,
[3:50:40] you know, absolutely a non-starter or important one. Um,
[3:50:46] uh, the, I want like a really, really clear complaints process
[3:50:50] and escalation process that, uh, does not
[3:50:55] create a cycle of sending someone who made a complaint back to the, the, the
[3:50:59] organization that they're complaining about. Um,
[3:51:03] uh, um,
[3:51:09] the, you know, the, and then the reporting. I think the,
[3:51:13] our, our police department, they do an annual report and they come in front of us and
[3:51:17] they report out on their metrics. Um, I'm fine with quarterly reporting. We can
[3:51:21] receive and file those on consent and people can ask him questions about him or what have
[3:51:26] you. But annually, I think I want to have like one time where someone comes in and
[3:51:30] sits in front of the council and, and presents it in the same way that our police department does.
[3:51:34] um, and then I, I note that, you know, a lot of the right metrics are in there, rabies vaccines,
[3:51:38] licensing, things like that. Um, I wanna make sure that we have trends in
[3:51:42] there of like, how are they doing relative to last year in the same way that,
[3:51:46] you know, we have that with our police department too, and that it's not just data with a point
[3:51:50] in time, but we're actually giving a context and we're looking at improvement in quality service.
[3:51:55] um, so,
[3:52:00] um, a few things. I think this, this
[3:52:04] grand jury report rehashes a lot of the things we already knew, which is that we
[3:52:08] didn't do a good job on contract oversight on this front. And the, and the, and the,
[3:52:13] and nvas was not performing adequately. I take responsibility for
[3:52:17] not demanding, um, doing my oversight job in a more forceful way.
[3:52:21] um, but I'll note that we submitted our grand jury response on september 8th,
[3:52:26] so it wasn't a year after we submitted the grand jury response. It was actually four months.
[3:52:30] and, um, when they started their new, like, you know,
[3:52:35] investigation into us. So, um, we were like, there was a
[3:52:39] lot of work that was underway that we were, we were taking to try and,
[3:52:43] you know, um, bringing on the
[3:52:47] consultant to try and fix the operation is the interim step of
[3:52:51] like, trying to make it better. Um, at the same time, when we had, when
[3:52:56] we brought the thing forward in march, we had a draft rfp with, uh, you
[3:53:00] know, that we were issuing. So it wasn't like we were asleep at the wheel. And I,
[3:53:04] um, I take issue with, uh, that piece of this report
[3:53:08] more than anything is that, um, we were absolutely looking to replace
[3:53:12] them, um, and, uh, and
[3:53:16] . Um, and that's, that's the piece that I take most issue with.
[3:53:21] uh, in terms of additional things, I think I'd like to add,
[3:53:25] align that we made requests for budget re, uh, budget increases
[3:53:29] and things like that to nbas into the financial oversight, um, response.
[3:53:34] and, um, you know, I I,
[3:53:39] I definitely agree with the, like the qualitative critiques
[3:53:43] of the city and, um, and
[3:53:48] the, and am bass, uh, and our, and our role in this. Um, but
[3:53:52] I think also the legal responses that we're provi, like,
[3:53:56] I think there's, like, they're capturing the, the issues properly
[3:54:01] and we're responding with the legal facts. And those are two separate things where we're
[3:54:05] just sort of talking past each other in this report that, um, kind
[3:54:09] of, that's what the grand jury process sort of like lends itself to that. It's, and it's
[3:54:13] not very satisfying. Um, but I would say overall, like
[3:54:17] we're, I think we're taking a lot of action to address
[3:54:21] a lot of these different things. And, um, I'm definitely with council member sheb that that's like where
[3:54:25] I wanna focus is getting a new provider in and making sure that we have all the right, um,
[3:54:31] the right, uh, checks and, and whatnot in place.
[3:54:38] council member di carley, um, before I jump into my comments,
[3:54:43] I have a question for the city attorney. Based on some of the public comment,
[3:54:47] is it possible to run the clock out on the statute of limitations for an
[3:54:51] open dog bite case?
[3:54:59] um, do you mean, do you mean, is it possible for it to run barring
[3:55:03] the case, or is it possible to extend it? Well, I'm saying if I understood
[3:55:08] correctly, they said her case was closed, you know, it was too,
[3:55:12] too far back, couldn't do anything about it. Um, so I mean,
[3:55:17] can you just allow the clock to run out on something like that and be like, didn't happen,
[3:55:21] you know, we're done. Well, when a statute of limitations runs the,
[3:55:26] I mean, it, it can have the effect of barring prosecution of,
[3:55:30] of what other, whatever alleged violation occurred. What, what
[3:55:34] I don't know is factually, if, if that was the case or if that determination was
[3:55:38] based on evidence or some other consideration, I don't know. I don't
[3:55:43] have that information, and I don't know if any of us do, but we, we
[3:55:47] can see to get it. Is that something we can provide more direct support to,
[3:55:54] um, to try and help an investigation in that case, given that
[3:55:58] there was, you know, years of nothing happening.
[3:56:04] so maybe a little more detail on this
[3:56:08] without going too down in the weeds, but, um, staff's
[3:56:12] understanding of this case is that the, the original
[3:56:17] incident occurred and the dog was declared a potentially
[3:56:21] dangerous dog, which is the level one of the different distinctions in our code.
[3:56:26] uh, the owner was served with a provisional abatement order, which
[3:56:31] is how the process works, specifying that they had to comply
[3:56:35] with certain regulations, putting a sign up, muzzling their dog, making sure their dog's leash
[3:56:39] get licensed, uh, s spared or neutered, et cetera.
[3:56:44] that order went into effect. It's, uh, still in effect,
[3:56:48] I believe, 'cause there's usually a three year, um, uh,
[3:56:52] runtime on those regulations. So
[3:56:57] there were a couple of other, so subsequent to that, there
[3:57:01] were a couple of other incidents that occurred not, uh, bite incidents,
[3:57:05] but other witness reports of seeing the dog, uh, lunging
[3:57:10] or d you know, d different, different behaviors. And, and I think
[3:57:14] the, um, the assumption or the conclusion
[3:57:19] may have been that, or actually let me step back. The
[3:57:23] question may have been were those behaviors that were witnessed,
[3:57:28] uh, and reported to I believe nbas at the time, were those
[3:57:32] sufficient to then upgrade the dog's designation from potentially
[3:57:38] dangerous to dangerous, which is the next level of designation comes with
[3:57:42] more restrictions, et cetera. Uh, I, I don't think
[3:57:46] that that happened in terms of finalizing any conclusions
[3:57:50] one way or the other. But the assumption would be if the upgrade
[3:57:54] to dangerous did not occur, that the animal control officer
[3:57:58] at the time did not feel that those rose to that level when nb
[3:58:02] or excuse me, when marin humane came on board, they went back and looked
[3:58:06] at the case again, just to look, look through the record. Uh, and
[3:58:11] essentially my understanding is the same conclusion occurred that
[3:58:15] the, um, the evidence that was presented by those witnesses was
[3:58:19] not sufficient to upgrade to a dangerous dog. Uh, and so that's
[3:58:23] why there was no further action taken. However, and this is
[3:58:27] really important, the potentially dangerous designation is still in effect.
[3:58:32] and one thing that marin humane has been hitting, um,
[3:58:36] quite, um, quite significantly in the three to four months that they've been on board,
[3:58:41] is ensuring that those items in the abatement order that must be, uh,
[3:58:45] a abided by, by the dog owner are in fact being,
[3:58:49] uh, being abided. So that's been the follow-up that they have been working
[3:58:53] on and trying to get in contact with the dog owner to make sure that everything is
[3:58:58] kosher on that front. So that's an ongoing process. And in
[3:59:02] speaking with them, anecdotally, their usual process is that every, at least every
[3:59:06] six months during that three year period, so essentially six touch points
[3:59:11] during the abatement orders, uh, effect, they're gonna be following
[3:59:15] back up with that owner to make sure that all of those provisions are in fact in place.
[3:59:20] so if marin humane were continuing, and I know they're currently our interim
[3:59:24] provider, they would continue to do those follow ups until the three year mark and the
[3:59:28] end of that abatement. So that's more of the history and background in
[3:59:32] terms of the investigation and the potentially dangerous designation
[3:59:36] on that case. Mm-hmm . Thank you. And so,
[3:59:41] you know, I feel like it would help public trust a lot in this, in, in
[3:59:45] this whole process. If, you know, staff, were able to,
[3:59:49] in cooperation with marin humane, go back and look at a lot of these,
[3:59:53] you know, cases that are unresolved and to try to give special attention
[3:59:58] to those, to resolve them, um, you know, so that those
[4:00:02] people can move on and with their lives and, and not have to
[4:00:06] continue to worry about these things or think about them and give them some kind of
[4:00:10] peace with it. So that said, um,
[4:00:16] I don't, I don't see the response to the grand jury as, as sufficient.
[4:00:21] it has a tone throughout the whole report that I feel lacks
[4:00:25] a lot of accountability. Um, it's,
[4:00:30] you know, and, and that's, that's what I feel like my job is, is, you
[4:00:34] know, to hold people accountable for things, you know, no
[4:00:38] matter the circumstances. Um, I mean, this is,
[4:00:42] this is eight years, you know, this isn't like two weeks or a day
[4:00:46] or a mistake here, there, this is eight years of,
[4:00:51] you know, oversight that didn't work, a contract that didn't
[4:00:55] work, a contractor that didn't work, and then staff that,
[4:00:59] you know, allowed this to happen for years. And
[4:01:05] a lot of, a lot of what's referenced in the response to the grand jury is, well,
[4:01:09] counsel made this decision on march 2nd. And it, you know, a lot of that centers around that.
[4:01:13] but again, there were years prior of not a whole lot done.
[4:01:18] and, you know, I can't help but wonder when that, when that came to us in
[4:01:22] march, that was all right around the time of everything that was going
[4:01:26] on up in clear lake. So I wonder if things would've continued as usual,
[4:01:31] had, had that not happened. And so,
[4:01:36] you know, there's, um, I dunno, I've had a lot to say
[4:01:41] about this, and I may come in bits and pieces here, but, um,
[4:01:46] I just, uh, I, I just don't find it acceptable to just simply move forward
[4:01:51] and say it's water under the bridge. I think, I think we need
[4:01:55] to go back and look at what happened, you know, because
[4:02:00] the public wants accountability. They've, they've lost trust over this.
[4:02:04] and I think we have to go back and analyze what went wrong
[4:02:09] and make sure that there is accountability. And
[4:02:13] so, you know, I think, I think we should, should almost have a
[4:02:17] special meeting over that, you know, not even just an agenda item, but we, we
[4:02:21] need to really look at that and see what happened in that time. Because it doesn't add
[4:02:25] up, it doesn't make sense. And every,
[4:02:29] everything around it is nobody can lay their hands on or really get into,
[4:02:34] you know, and everything's spoken about broadly and generally. So I think we should really be going
[4:02:38] back and having a hard look at things. Again, I don't think this
[4:02:42] response is satisfactory. Um,
[4:02:47] I think, you know, we should be now if, if, if it were still nbas,
[4:02:51] we'd be looking at, we should probably be looking at oversight almost every week.
[4:02:55] but being that it's marine humane, snow humane, whoever it's gonna be in the future,
[4:03:00] you know, probably a monthly report
[4:03:04] doesn't make as much sense because these are more trusted organizations,
[4:03:09] but we should absolutely still have oversight and reporting
[4:03:13] that's done. You know, it's, it's, um, it's necessary.
[4:03:17] and again, the city has a lot of work to do in rebuilding public trust on this process.
[4:03:22] everything has to be as transparent as possible.
[4:03:27] so let me see if anything else.
[4:03:43] no, I, I think that's, I think I've mostly said it all, so,
[4:03:48] but yeah, I I'm not going to, I'm not gonna support this, uh,
[4:03:52] response to the grand jury. Thank you. Um, I
[4:03:56] just, I, I think councilman di carly touched on something, um, um, very
[4:04:00] valuable in, in that, um, we have the potentially dangerous designation
[4:04:05] and it should remain current, is, I believe what we were saying. Um,
[4:04:10] what other conditions are in the potential? I mean, does it require continuous licensing,
[4:04:14] continuing continuous, uh, vaccinations, things like that. And it,
[4:04:18] is it within our ability now to look at that should be an open,
[4:04:23] um, potentially dangerous designation and
[4:04:27] ask for compliance on that. You know, ask the owner, is the dog still in license?
[4:04:31] is whatever else is in that conditions? Is, is that a path we can follow?
[4:04:36] you're talking on that specific case, on one specific case that is what, uh, is currently,
[4:04:41] uh, happening. Yes. So marine humane is contacting the dog owner,
[4:04:45] and they have, uh, to make sure that they're licensed. I, I know, uh, certain conditions
[4:04:49] have already been complied with, like the dog was neutered, uh, things like that.
[4:04:54] but, uh, the signs have been out at least to, to the, the, the last report that I got, the,
[4:04:58] uh, beware of dog signs. And there are a variety of other things that we need to ensure
[4:05:02] a hundred percent compliance, and that's what they're working on. Absolutely. Um,
[4:05:07] I, I think it would be warranted to provide, um, the, uh, victim some
[4:05:11] of the data and, and, uh, uh, or in cc to counsel,
[4:05:15] you know, the status of that, and especially if it's still open that it
[4:05:20] isn't a fully compliant, uh, designation at this time. So that's
[4:05:24] suggestion. We can find an update. Sure. Thank you, council member. Now,
[4:05:29] um, yes, um, I definitely agree that edits are needed
[4:05:33] in our response and take, um, more of the criticism
[4:05:38] and vow never to repeat it and show that
[4:05:42] we're putting, um, new policies in place. Um,
[4:05:47] bringing back animal services committee, I really like to see a staff report.
[4:05:51] I know it's more staff time and more expenses, but I think it's
[4:05:55] worth it to the community and, um, regaining their
[4:05:59] public trust. Um, thank you to the public that stayed this late. And on the zoom,
[4:06:04] um, to make, uh, comments. Um,
[4:06:09] ironically, uh, three years ago this last
[4:06:13] weekend, there, there was news in the argus
[4:06:17] courier and online social media that north bay animal services
[4:06:21] had gone to the city of stockton and helped their animal services
[4:06:26] out. And they even gave a shout out to the city of petaluma
[4:06:30] for lending, um, support for them to do it.
[4:06:34] so when our complaints started coming, um,
[4:06:39] just a year later, we give it back to staff,
[4:06:43] and that's what council does when we get a complaint from the community. It's usually
[4:06:47] you cc'd with numerous names, and we usually
[4:06:51] send it back to staff. We need to have more accountability when
[4:06:56] these, um, um, complaints come in so that
[4:07:00] this doesn't happen in the future. And we need to, um,
[4:07:04] like, thank you council member barnacle for saying we do, and council
[4:07:09] memberships. We, we do have a lot to, um,
[4:07:14] improve and we promise to improve, but we need to redraft the,
[4:07:19] the responses to show that commitment and add
[4:07:23] and edit with the council's, um, recommendations this evening and take
[4:07:27] more ownership to the errors that were pointed out in the grand jury's,
[4:07:31] um, findings. So those are my comments. Thank
[4:07:35] you, council member quint. Yeah.
[4:07:40] as I, as I kind of think back and, uh, you know,
[4:07:44] with my time on council and how this issue has unfolded,
[4:07:48] uh, you know, when I first got here, there was, um, uh,
[4:07:53] you know, there was dialogue around, um, you
[4:07:57] know, some, some concerns that
[4:08:01] were largely contributed by
[4:08:06] mbas being underfunded, and
[4:08:11] the city stepping in and having dialogue with mbas around
[4:08:15] how can we support you better, um, and that
[4:08:20] that really, you know, didn't take shape and, and, and, and start to correct
[4:08:24] any of the concerns. And then the grand jury report came out,
[4:08:28] and then we, if I'm remembering this correctly, uh,
[4:08:32] the city, um, in, in our attempt to
[4:08:37] comply with the grand jury report, hired the consultant. The consultant
[4:08:41] was trying to work with bas. And,
[4:08:46] uh, and, and, and, and at that point, my recollection is that,
[4:08:51] um, you know, there were growing concerns because of nbas
[4:08:55] being uncooperative and working with a consultant. And
[4:09:00] that really started to,
[4:09:04] um, you know, paint a picture that we need to do something
[4:09:08] and we need to, um, you know, submit an rfp. There was
[4:09:12] discussion around that and, um, and, and, and shortly
[4:09:16] after, um, the, the clear lake thing sort of, you know, blew
[4:09:20] up. Am I remembering that correctly?
[4:09:25] so, uh, you know, I don't feel like the city was
[4:09:29] asleep at the wheel. I feel like we were working to
[4:09:33] try to do something, and then we ultimately made the decision
[4:09:37] to, uh, when, when there was, uh, when it was evident
[4:09:41] that there was little to no cooperation, um, to make the change.
[4:09:46] um, and, um,
[4:09:50] you know, and, and, you know, and I'm concerned that this grand
[4:09:54] jury report came out like, right as
[4:09:58] you know, in the middle of us trying to respond to the
[4:10:02] first grand jury report. Um, so I don't see, you
[4:10:07] know, as I, you know, reflect on, on the
[4:10:11] responses that staff gave us tonight. I don't,
[4:10:15] I can't look at any one of those responses and say that's a bad
[4:10:19] response. So, um, I do think, I mean, I agree
[4:10:24] with, um, council member barel and, and the
[4:10:28] suggestions that he had. Um, so I'm, you know, on the same page with him
[4:10:32] and, and council member shrives, um, you know, I think we, you know,
[4:10:36] we're on a path to making this better and we're gonna continue to make it better.
[4:10:41] um, and so I support the,
[4:10:46] the reply. Thank you. Um, council member cater
[4:10:50] thompson, you wanna weigh in? Sure.
[4:10:54] um, you know, my big concern with all of this is really the,
[4:10:58] um, the dog bites and it was not handled well by nbas.
[4:11:04] it's gone on for a long time, and I really have concerns when we're talking about dogs of
[4:11:08] potential dangerous versus dangerous.
[4:11:12] um, I just think if there's a dangerous dog, we have to take action and
[4:11:17] we can't. Um, I just don't understand why we have all these different steps,
[4:11:21] um, to get from potentially dangerous to dangerous. Um,
[4:11:26] I wanna just talk about clear lake, real clear. I mean, the town of clear lake had
[4:11:30] responsibility also, but it seems as though all of this is on the
[4:11:34] city of petaluma and clear lake had an absolute responsibility
[4:11:40] to understand what was happening in their shelter. Um,
[4:11:44] I,
[4:11:48] I do agree with what council member, um, barnacle
[4:11:53] his comments, um, but I think we also need to move
[4:11:57] on and start making decisions of who's gonna be the next
[4:12:01] shelter, um, who's gonna take over the shelter. You know, I
[4:12:05] go back to when this nbas got the contract
[4:12:09] in the first place. It was a political move. It was a mess on both sides.
[4:12:13] we should have gone with marin humane at the time, but the council didn't. And I don't
[4:12:17] believe anybody on this council was there at the time. I know I was at those meetings
[4:12:22] though I chose not to participate 'cause I didn't like the way the politics
[4:12:26] was happening. And I feel like there's politics being played
[4:12:30] here by just this constant blame, blame, blame.
[4:12:35] and I think we need to, um, stop the blaming and actually
[4:12:39] take the action, move forward with, um, a new shelter
[4:12:44] provider and, and move forward because it's really about
[4:12:48] the animals. And this is becoming too political and
[4:12:52] people are forgetting that the animals are the most important. Um,
[4:12:56] I do wanna just mention that we do know that there was a leak in the grand jury
[4:13:01] well before the report came out. And I know the grand jury watches
[4:13:05] this, and I want them to know that that happened and that
[4:13:09] they should be, you know, they should address that within the grand jury itself.
[4:13:15] um, I agree with council
[4:13:19] member quint, that we do need to move on
[4:13:23] and, and I think this is about the animals and we need to get the personalities
[4:13:28] out of this, and we need to make sure monitor, um,
[4:13:32] and we need to get reports back on where we're at,
[4:13:36] um, with getting a new provider. And
[4:13:40] that's where I want to go is moving forward. It's about the animals
[4:13:44] and keep the politics out of it, and let's just move forward. Um,
[4:13:49] you know, the report, I mean, we could do some tweaks in the report, but at this point
[4:13:53] it's due at a certain timeframe. And what's
[4:13:57] the ramifications if the report is not, um, submitted in time,
[4:14:02] I'd like to know that. Um, and that's
[4:14:06] about it. Looking forward to a new provider and moving on, um, to protect
[4:14:10] the animals in our community. Thank you. Okay. Um,
[4:14:14] um, I am gonna ask staff to weigh in and say, what's the ramification to not, uh, complying
[4:14:19] with the timeline?
[4:14:24] um, I'm, I'm gonna look that up. I, I, I didn't contemplate
[4:14:28] that. We wouldn't . Okay. Well you do, you go ahead with that part. We'll continue
[4:14:32] with our part. I'll open it up while you're deliberating. Thanks. Okay. Um, council
[4:14:36] member shri. Okay. Now, after hearing the other, uh, council members
[4:14:40] and, um, the direction that we're sort of going in, uh, looks like the
[4:14:44] rule may need to be a little bit of a rewrite, but if we can just do a few tweaks here and there.
[4:14:49] um, yeah. The change in tone as it was mentioned. Yep.
[4:14:54] I'm gonna come back to that issue, uh, in a heartbeat. Can I ask it, hold that question or,
[4:14:58] uh, comment for a second? Sure. Thank you. So, um,
[4:15:02] as the council member who hasn't weighed in yet, um, I'm gonna weigh in. Okay.
[4:15:06] and, um, so, um, number one, um,
[4:15:11] uh, I appreciate all, um, all the actions the staff has taken
[4:15:16] to, to get us from where we were, to where we were, where we are. Um,
[4:15:20] I think, uh, more actions are going super necessary as we get the new
[4:15:25] provider. And that's what you're indicating in the grand jury report and in the
[4:15:29] rfp that we've been discussing here, which we have to sort out
[4:15:33] before marin leaves on us. Um, you know, we need to sort out the
[4:15:37] contract with the new, um, and, uh, when things go bad,
[4:15:42] as they have, change is needed. And you expect
[4:15:46] to take a lot of, um, criticism, significant criticism,
[4:15:50] uh, for the performance of things. I think the grand jury had many good ideas.
[4:15:54] I don't like that they, the do the, the, the way the state rules
[4:15:58] are written for grand juries, that they force you to say, I disagree rather than agree. So,
[4:16:03] uh, it looks like there's more disagreement, but I think on the whole, there's
[4:16:07] more agreement, uh, than many good ideas. Um, we,
[4:16:11] I went, uh, I've been over and toured, um, the, the facilities, uh, since
[4:16:15] in, in the last months. And, and, um, I see a lot of improvements. I
[4:16:19] know the, the thing you mentioned about some properties that are still there that are owned by other parties,
[4:16:24] we have a little lot of work to get to the finish line. Uh, but there's so
[4:16:28] many less animals there. And, and the, the cacophony,
[4:16:32] uh, is, is gone. The, uh, uh, you know, and, and,
[4:16:36] and that's horrible for animals to have that kind of, um, uh,
[4:16:41] you know, terror going on there. So I'm appreciating, um,
[4:16:45] what's been done by dropping north bay and, and getting
[4:16:49] competent help in. Um, I am very concerned that, um,
[4:16:54] we are now gonna have a, a significant cost. I, I can't identify where
[4:16:58] the cost is gonna come from yet, but, um, but
[4:17:03] apparently we weren't paying the real cost of doing animal service previously.
[4:17:07] and, and we're headed into that. Um, the jpa
[4:17:12] super critical, every, every city up here has a different, um, set of
[4:17:16] rules for how you treat animals. And, and it doesn't work like that in marin. All the cities
[4:17:20] have the same set of animal rules, and that would
[4:17:24] be what a jpa could, could, uh, bring for us.
[4:17:28] um, I appreciate with, um, uh, council member sri's original
[4:17:32] point that, that, um, there's lots we need
[4:17:37] to do, but we need to do that, we need to get on with doing the new thing.
[4:17:41] well, and, and that's kind of my bottom line is, you
[4:17:45] know, we better, we need to do better and we will. Um,
[4:17:49] so those, those are my thoughts on this. Uh, mr. Attorney, do you have,
[4:17:54] uh, the answer yet? Not, not quite yet, but, okay.
[4:17:58] uh, so will shortly, the, um, next thing I want to tackle is
[4:18:02] I did hear, um, two council members and two and two and a half maybe,
[4:18:06] um, before I cut you off there, um, that suggested, um,
[4:18:11] some, um, editing of the document. Um, I,
[4:18:15] I did hear, um, broad support for, um, completing the
[4:18:19] document this evening. So I'm gonna kind of ask, can the changes that we wish
[4:18:24] to have, um, be done in the document tonight?
[4:18:28] and since you haven't had a chance to express them, we'll go back to council member shrives now.
[4:18:32] okay. So I was gonna go through, um, hopefully some, um, smaller changes that
[4:18:37] could be done, uh, hopefully fairly quickly. Here's what I would like to see. There is just, um, there's
[4:18:41] like one statement in there that, uh, basically hit me hard and going, okay,
[4:18:45] um, it was a bit derogatory. The general, the jury counsel, uh,
[4:18:50] the, the grand jury doesn't understand how the, how the charter works. Can I, um,
[4:18:54] can I ask for a page reference? Um, I, I forget exactly where, where it
[4:18:58] appeared. It had to do with the administration can charter, I asked then
[4:19:02] also the staff, do we have a red line version of this is available to us?
[4:19:06] we don't, but I think the comment that council member schibs is referring to is
[4:19:11] an f1 in the response to f1. Yeah. I, I think, yeah.
[4:19:15] yeah. So, um, that's, that's where like sets a tone and I think was was
[4:19:19] it starts, was that at the very beginning of, of one of the, um, uh, statements of we
[4:19:23] disagree and that was sort of like ted. Um, so that was a bit of a, a
[4:19:27] negative, um, feedback to, to the, to the jury, grand jury.
[4:19:31] oh, you don't really understand. So that is what, that's the type of tone that was set
[4:19:36] and just like, it, it just hurt me a little bit when seeing that. So in
[4:19:40] that, in the, uh, we agree in part or we agree in
[4:19:44] those agreement statements, um, what is it we agree to, because
[4:19:48] it doesn't say, what are we agreeing to agree in part, well, what is it we're agreeing to? So I
[4:19:52] wanna see we agree that yes, your statement of this is correct, I want
[4:19:56] some admittance. Yes, we agree. Why do we agreeing to that?
[4:20:01] that should not be a vague oh, in part we agree in part, but now we are gonna disagree
[4:20:05] in detail. So the agreements need to be what do we agree with particularly
[4:20:09] detail. That's one thing. I'm, I I'm suggesting that you want editing that
[4:20:13] can't be done tonight. Tonight. That might be, well, if, if it could be done,
[4:20:18] if, if they understand it, I, I'd release 'em to just kinda work on it and then have review
[4:20:22] it. And can I say that you'll then any, any, uh, suggestion you make, you'll leave
[4:20:26] the discretion of staff and and pass the resolutionary? Yeah. Yes. I would be willing to
[4:20:30] do that, um, with a final reading by the mayor to, to, to just double check
[4:20:34] that it was done. Sure. Equity. So this is f1 you're talking about, which
[4:20:39] the finding is, apart from I proving the annual budget statement of goals and mergers, the council
[4:20:44] has largely delegated its governing authorities to the city manager.
[4:20:48] this allows the city manager to take actions that are not authorized. Um,
[4:20:52] that's the one you're talking about? Yeah. Well, and, and then the, the response is the city wholly
[4:20:56] disagrees, uh, not where we wholly disagree, it's where we say
[4:21:01] we agree or we agree in part. So this is not finding one is not the, the
[4:21:05] one you're worried about. No, I'm trying to figure out, it's whatever we, we say we agree
[4:21:09] or we agree in part I would like a a statement of what we
[4:21:13] agree. I understand. What are we agreeing to when before we disagree
[4:21:17] in part, so a a little bit more definitiveness, so
[4:21:21] little bit. So, so I, I got, I mean, if we're going to, if we're gonna
[4:21:26] ask staff to do this offline with an approval, and I a little bit of
[4:21:30] specificity. Okay. So, and, and, and not your clarity, but staff's
[4:21:34] clarity of what your thought is, right. And the rest of the council understanding what your thought
[4:21:38] is. So first the staff, you think you can do that? Yeah. So, uh, you
[4:21:42] know, overall I would say on the findings, we did try to do exactly
[4:21:47] what, what you're saying, council memberships, we, we could go back through and make it a little more
[4:21:51] explicit. I'm just looking at one, like finding f six that talks about there's
[4:21:55] no state or county authority that exists for periodic inspection of animal shelters.
[4:22:00] this enabled nbas to contract for services with multiple cities, et cetera, et
[4:22:04] cetera. So then the response is the city disagrees. In part, the very next
[4:22:08] paragraph starts, the city agrees that there is no comprehensive state
[4:22:12] or county system, et cetera. And the city also agrees that regional coordination
[4:22:17] could improve consistency, efficiency, compliance, and animal welfare
[4:22:22] outcomes. So again, we tried to state where we agreed and
[4:22:26] then the rest is why or what we disagreed with. But I'm happy to
[4:22:30] go back through if we need to do some cleanup to make it very explicit when
[4:22:34] the points of agreement, uh, versus the points of disagreement. Right. Okay.
[4:22:38] so I think we've got that. Is there another point you wanna make? Uh, yes. Uh, one more. Um,
[4:22:42] you made several recommendations tonight in, in the, in the powerpoint,
[4:22:46] but I don't remember reading some of those in the actual report. Could,
[4:22:51] and, and at the very end, even instead of stating, uh,
[4:22:55] f1 and r six and responding directly, um, either in
[4:22:59] this report or in a report back to us, I would like to see
[4:23:03] a full report. Here's what we were, this is the fix. I would see a whole list
[4:23:07] of this is our fix. So I'm gonna suggest that in the, so I'm not sure if we need
[4:23:11] it in this report, but I, I would like to see that fairly soon. I would, I would like to suggest
[4:23:15] the rfp is coming to us fairly soon. I think, uh, marin's, uh, contract
[4:23:19] expires end of august will, and the cover memo can have exactly
[4:23:24] the lessons learned that you're referencing. Yes, yes. So I'd be, I'd be happy with
[4:23:28] that. Uh, but I wanna make it clear that we want to see the, the, the rfp list
[4:23:33] in detail, the things that, that have been missed and what we need to fix and
[4:23:38] see. So we, we submitted the rfp and it's already been responded to,
[4:23:42] but the contract will show, actually we've listed that in
[4:23:46] the contract provisions for the new provider of what we are gonna do. Oh, that's great.
[4:23:50] good. Yeah. And, and, and, but, uh, councilman now also suggested,
[4:23:55] I think there's two or three of us thinking the same, that maybe we need to have a, a committee
[4:23:59] that actually oversees or looks at it, not just their own board of directors, but
[4:24:03] we need to have a little bit more citizen oversight. So, so that the only, that's not part of the grand
[4:24:07] jury, but, um, I guess it's a, something that could be brought in with the staff
[4:24:11] report at, um, correct. So we need to make that fix also.
[4:24:16] I, I would call, it may not be in the report, but somewhere at, we have to hear back, just trying to get clear what we're
[4:24:20] yes. In this document. I, I think for the responses, what
[4:24:24] I'm trying to get to is in general, but, uh, councilman
[4:24:28] quint said the responses were appropriate for the legal language that's required
[4:24:33] to win this type of report. Indeed, we, we, we sort of like yes, agree to all that,
[4:24:37] but uh, but we, we need to focus on the fix. Okay. So that
[4:24:41] point, that's where I'm going over to the city attorney, so there's no penalty
[4:24:45] if, if we're not timely. 'cause the, remember the grand and I just was doing,
[4:24:49] I looked at the statute, did a little bit more research, um, remember the grand
[4:24:54] jury's just a recommending and, uh, I'm sorry, and, and investigative
[4:24:58] and re and recommending body. It's not an enforcing body. Okay. So there's
[4:25:02] no thank you. Explicit penalty. And the other thing I wanted to just note is this,
[4:25:07] um, the structure of our responses that brian referred to
[4:25:11] in, in f six, they're all that way. They all say
[4:25:16] use the prescribed language and they say city agrees that
[4:25:20] city does not agree that city agrees that the city does not agree that. So
[4:25:25] we really did use that structure mm-hmm . Um, so I, I, if, if you
[4:25:29] look at it, I think that's, that's how that was intended to work, to be clear actually
[4:25:33] that um, right. To distinguish even, even, you know, working
[4:25:37] consistent with the, it's their language that leads with disagree. Right,
[4:25:42] right. Sets its own. So, but, but as to the question about what happens if we don't
[4:25:46] file it timely. Okay. Thank you. And that replies to, uh, council member
[4:25:50] cater thompson's question. So we're set on that front and council member.
[4:25:55] I'm, I'm sorry, I should clarify one other thing. And that's the legal implication.
[4:26:00] the practical implication is that it's, it, it would not reflect
[4:26:04] well in the city if we failed to be time. No, it would not, would it? Yeah. Thank
[4:26:08] you. Right. Okay. Let's not do that. Council member now you had,
[4:26:13] well only it's for the city attorney. What if we bring it back to the august 3rd?
[4:26:17] that still gives us time. Isn't august 9th the deadline
[4:26:21] for the response? It wouldn't give us enough time to quickly
[4:26:26] incorporate all this. Where I was going with this is if there's nothing that
[4:26:31] requires, um, substantive change, and we
[4:26:35] have the sentiment on the council that we're gonna resolve tonight, and I think
[4:26:39] we could do a straw poll on, on that. I, when I was listening, we have the
[4:26:43] broad support for moving on and getting on tonight, then,
[4:26:47] um, we wouldn't need to come back, even though, even though there was no penalty to taking
[4:26:51] it out september. And we have to, we have notes on council member
[4:26:56] barnacles suggested edits that at least, I dunno
[4:27:00] if I'm, I'm working my way across. Yeah. Okay. So, um, and council member, now
[4:27:04] you had a, a, you said errors. Was there a specific error you needed to
[4:27:09] comment on? Um,
[4:27:13] oh gosh. Um, the,
[4:27:18] I think it was on the, the, um, dog bite. I don't know what finding that
[4:27:23] was. There was definitely errors made
[4:27:27] by the city that, um, prevented
[4:27:31] it from, I mean, it became a, a situation.
[4:27:36] so you, you don't mean errors in the report, you mean errors in
[4:27:40] practice and what we did as a city protecting our citizens from
[4:27:45] dog bites and future dog bites. But I don't remember what finding it was.
[4:27:50] um, it's just how the formal complaints are made. And, and
[4:27:54] that should be the kinds of things that were clearing up in the rfp and correct.
[4:27:58] and in the metrics that we're using. Correct. Okay. No, added to the resolution. So policy policies going forward
[4:28:03] would, um, prevent that from happening again. A
[4:28:07] lot of that's really, really important. I mean, we all, we get, I think the,
[4:28:11] uh, council member, I, I think the change that we made
[4:28:15] with canceling the contract with mbas and going with,
[4:28:19] with, um, marin and, and, uh,
[4:28:24] sonoma. I mean, they have, they already have the procedures
[4:28:28] in place for capturing dog bite reports. And,
[4:28:32] and, uh, so I, to me, I think that's a, an
[4:28:36] issue that's been remedied. So I'm, I'm hearing no modification of
[4:28:41] the reply to the grand jury. No. I just wanted it to be really
[4:28:45] emphasized in the, in the response that we are doing this with
[4:28:49] future policies and future. I'm sorry.
[4:28:53] you do want a statement in no, I was just saying , I was backing
[4:28:57] up staff in their findings. Yes. Okay. Um,
[4:29:01] I'm sorry about that. It's okay. Okay. It's late. Um, and then the other, um,
[4:29:06] editorial, uh, offering was from councilor barnacle.
[4:29:11] yeah. Page eight. Um, there's a paragraph on page eight where
[4:29:15] we, uh, sort of dive into,
[4:29:19] um, it is the second from the bottom. So
[4:29:23] it says, the agreement also required nbas to notify the city if additional funding or
[4:29:27] other contractor related issues arose that could affect performance.
[4:29:32] I think right after that sentence, you could add a sentence that says, the city also made
[4:29:36] multiple, uh, inquiries to nbas, um, about
[4:29:40] the need for additional funding. Um, and then I
[4:29:44] think that would play, that would be fine there. And council member barla also mentioned that
[4:29:49] regarding the, uh, review of our regulations, we should indicate that we're
[4:29:53] reviewing those of neighboring jurisdictions. Yeah. So on
[4:29:57] the r three and r five, I don't see, I think there's gonna need to be more
[4:30:02] considerable rewrites than we have time for tonight. I'm comfortable with you
[4:30:06] taking my guidance, but I would say that instead of the city will review title
[4:30:10] ix procedures, I would say the city will review title ix procedures as well as
[4:30:14] the practices of other sonoma county cities and return to council
[4:30:19] with, um, an analysis. And I would put
[4:30:23] that for, there's, uh, the response, the first sentence
[4:30:27] says, will not be implemented 'cause not warranted, not reasonable. I would say
[4:30:31] this, like, this recommendation may be implemented,
[4:30:35] um, following a review of, uh,
[4:30:40] of title ix procedures and, um, other city
[4:30:44] practices from, uh, sonoma county cities. And I would
[4:30:48] just make that the, and then I'm comfortable with everything following that as long as that's the first
[4:30:53] sentence. Um, yeah, I think, uh, sorry. Council member, the, the issue with
[4:30:57] changing the first sentence is that, that first sentence is the, the mandated
[4:31:01] phrasing. It, it literally says you, if you're going to say it will not
[4:31:05] be implemented, it, it's because it is not warranted or not reasonable. But I
[4:31:09] think your edits on the second part of that sentence are valid, and we can absolutely make
[4:31:13] those okay. To reflect what the city is actually going to be working on in the future. Great.
[4:31:17] yeah. Okay. Do, that's, that's fine. And then on r five,
[4:31:21] similarly there's the first sentence, uh, page number please. Uh, 16.
[4:31:26] um, the first response sec sentence says, the recommendation will
[4:31:30] not be implemented because it is not warranted or, or is not reasonable. I would say,
[4:31:34] um, related procedures from other sonoma county cities will
[4:31:38] be pre, will be reviewed and ana, like a summary of analysis
[4:31:42] and potential changes will be presented to council. Um, so
[4:31:47] given that thank you staff is clear on that, is that an acceptable,
[4:31:51] I'm, I'm straw polling the council right now. If anyone has a problem with
[4:31:56] basically allowing that to pass through tonight, to vote the resolution and,
[4:32:00] and have staff make that fix behind the scenes, um,
[4:32:04] if you have a problem with it, raise your hand. Seeing no hands looking
[4:32:09] even into the zoom, um, then that's gonna
[4:32:13] be an element that'll say, as amended in our, in our motion. We'll have to say
[4:32:17] as amended. Okay. So, um, do you want, do you want
[4:32:21] me to make a motion or you got amendments to, or you, if we're, if we're set.
[4:32:25] I think, I think we're set. And it's, it's is motion time. Are are you council member
[4:32:29] shri, are you saying, uh, to pass it tonight? Uh, as a pass through or
[4:32:34] we, it's gonna come back to us in the rewritten document on the third. No, this is the pass.
[4:32:38] this is, yeah. I'm asking if you're comfortable, uh, having
[4:32:43] the, that amendment that was proposed and discussed there, um,
[4:32:47] a verbal direction and we passed the, um, we passed the
[4:32:52] resolution with the modifications suggested at counsel.
[4:32:57] the alternative is we wait for them to make the modifications. Say it again. And I don't,
[4:33:01] I don't want to, I don't wanna bring being made. And then will
[4:33:05] you do the final reviewer? I'm so, um, so question. So que yeah. Uh,
[4:33:09] 'cause otherwise, um, at this point, uh, I would like, I want to go through it
[4:33:14] in, in, uh, council member barnacles,
[4:33:18] uh, went through it and, and make any suggestions. I did not do the fine tooth
[4:33:22] comb. Now I wanna do the fine tooth comb. So, uh, I
[4:33:26] wanna go through it in detail now and, and, and actually, uh, pick
[4:33:30] out sentence by sentence. 'cause that's what's needed. Uh, so I wanna go through an edit.
[4:33:35] I'm famous for red line to, to a larger extent that can be accommodated. Yeah.
[4:33:39] I may do a larger edit. Now, since we're doing this,
[4:33:43] uh, can I call for a vote if that, that's
[4:33:48] what making a motion means. Yes. Yep. Are you, are you I that barnico made a
[4:33:52] motion? I have not yet. Oh. Then I would like to
[4:33:56] make a motion that we, uh, that
[4:34:00] we accept it, that we pass it, uh, with the suggested
[4:34:04] edits that, uh, council member offered
[4:34:10] friendly amendment for council member schibs is amendments as well.
[4:34:16] okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.
[4:34:21] second by barnacle. Um, and are
[4:34:25] we clear on what the,
[4:34:33] could you quickly recap what the modifications are, just kind of for the record?
[4:34:38] um, to, uh, the, the, the edits we have
[4:34:42] are to, uh, mention that, um,
[4:34:47] that we requested budgets from npas. That's in what section do you remember? Janet?
[4:34:52] um, that's an f five. Thank you. And also, um,
[4:34:58] to note that our review of the, the, the review of the regulations
[4:35:02] will include, um, comparisons with those of the other sonoma county
[4:35:06] cities for analysis and report back to council.
[4:35:11] and those are in, uh, recommendations three and five.
[4:35:15] and then I also, I thought, uh, council member roves, at the beginning of
[4:35:19] your comments, you had mentioned potentially softening the language in f1
[4:35:23] regarding the misunderstanding of the, I would
[4:35:27] say that there's a few references to not understanding the
[4:35:31] municipal code. And I, if I'm characterizing you like that was the, the
[4:35:35] sort of thing that made you bristle. So yeah, look for references to the grand
[4:35:39] jury, not understanding the ref municipal code would be maybe a, a
[4:35:44] more sweeping way than just f1. 'cause there's multiple instances where we
[4:35:48] say that. Yes. Yes. And also restating, um, what
[4:35:52] we are gonna do versus we disagree. Yes. And, and what
[4:35:56] we agree with. Yeah. Yeah. To make it clear. And
[4:36:00] I would also maybe if we, if we could, uh, council member
[4:36:04] quint, um, direct the mayor to have a final review before submission,
[4:36:10] if you would accept that oh yeah. Since you're signing that, he's gotta sign it. So yeah, I
[4:36:14] would expect that . Okay. So I'm, um,
[4:36:18] we have a motion, um, and we have a second
[4:36:23] and we're ready for roll call. Vote. Thank you. Barnacle. Aye.
[4:36:27] gator thompson to carly.
[4:36:32] aye. Can't sweep this under the rug and move on some a no.
[4:36:38] now yes. Quint, yes.
[4:36:42] shrives, uh, no. Mcdonald? Yes.
[4:36:46] motion carries with two no votes. Thank you very much. Uh,
[4:36:51] thank you everybody who stayed. Um, we're looking, all looking forward
[4:36:55] to a new and better day for animal services in petaluma.
[4:36:59] and with that, we come to the end of the meeting and I'd like to remind everyone we're
[4:37:03] adjourning in, uh, the memory of bernie album. So thank you very much
[4:37:08] everybody. Good night.