City Council
City Council
lun, 5 de diciembre de 2022
Puntos de agenda
Registros de votación
Resumen del debate
Transcripción
RESUMEN DE REUNIÓNGenerado por IA
Concejo Municipal de Petaluma — 5 de diciembre de 2022
Esta fue una sesión ordinaria del Concejo Municipal de Petaluma y de la Agencia Sucesora de Desarrollo Comunitario de Petaluma. La sesión se abrió con una evaluación de desempeño en sesión cerrada del City Attorney y del City Manager, seguida de la reunión pública ordinaria. El concejo hizo una pausa para honrar dos pérdidas recientes en la comunidad: Josh Bocce, operador de tratamiento de agua de la ciudad en la instalación Ellis desde 2010, y Lucy Cordum, una transformadora defensora del medio ambiente y los espacios abiertos en el condado de Sonoma.
Sesión Cerrada: Evaluaciones de Desempeño
El concejo se reunió en sesión cerrada desde aproximadamente las 5:30 p.m. para revisar el desempeño del City Attorney y del City Manager. Se recibió un comentario público antes de la sesión cerrada de parte de un miembro del público llamado Paul G., quien alegó que el City Attorney Eric Danley había hecho declaraciones falsas en una carta de febrero de 2022 sobre los derechos de un residente, y sugirió que el Concejal Healy debería abstenerse de participar en la revisión debido a una conducta personal no relacionada. No se emitió ningún informe de la sesión cerrada cuando se reanudó la reunión ordinaria.
Comentario Público General
Once miembros del público hablaron sobre temas que no estaban en la agenda. Los temas incluyeron:
Protecciones para inquilinos: Dos oradores — Diana Kingsbury de la Sonoma County Tenants Union y Chad Bola del North Bay Organizing Project — solicitaron urgentemente que la Ordenanza de Protección de Arrendamientos Residenciales (Residential Tenancy Protection Ordinance), programada para expirar el 1 de marzo de 2023, fuera incluida en la agenda a más tardar el 9 de enero de 2023, para que el concejo recién posesionado tenga tiempo de ampliarla o reemplazarla. Describieron abusos continuos contra inquilinos, incluyendo negligencia de propietarios, especulación de precios y temor a represalias.
Condiciones en parques de casas móviles: Dos residentes describieron presuntos actos de narcotráfico, condiciones inseguras y una administración que no respondía en un parque de casas móviles local, y pidieron al concejo que ayudara a presionar al propietario del inmueble.
Sopladores de hojas a gasolina: Michael Shapiro, residente de Petaluma desde hace 14 años, pidió al concejo que considerara restringir los sopladores de hojas a gasolina, citando preocupaciones sobre el ruido, la salud pública y la calidad del aire, y señalando que Washington D.C. y Palo Alto ya han tomado medidas al respecto.
Torres de telefonía celular y ordenanza inalámbrica: Dos oradores expresaron preocupaciones sobre dos nuevas torres de telefonía celular aprobadas recientemente de manera administrativa por personal de la ciudad sin participación pública ni revisión por parte de la Comisión de Planificación, y pidieron que el concejo restableciera la supervisión pública. Un tercer orador, Darren (apellido no claro en la transcripción), pidió al concejo que se comprometiera con la fibra óptica en lugar del 5G para la entrega de banda ancha de última milla, citando preocupaciones ambientales y de salud sin resolver.
Calendario de la ordenanza de arrendamiento para inquilinos: El Concejal Barnacle confirmó que la ordenanza de arrendamiento ya está en la agenda tentativa para el 9 de enero de 2023. El City Attorney Danley señaló que el personal podría recomendar una breve prórroga de la ordenanza vigente si el proceso con las partes interesadas requiere más tiempo, pero enfatizó que el objetivo es que no haya ninguna interrupción en las protecciones.
Otros comentarios incluyeron observaciones sobre la integridad electoral, preocupaciones sobre vacunas y otros temas políticos no relacionados.
La City Manager Flynn respondió a las preocupaciones sobre las torres de telefonía celular, aclarando que las modificaciones realizadas por el concejo en 2022 a la Implementing Zoning Ordinance no ampliaron la autoridad discrecional del personal sobre las instalaciones inalámbricas — los distintos niveles de permisos han desencadenado durante mucho tiempo distintos niveles de revisión, y todas las aprobaciones administrativas pueden ser apeladas. Reconoció que la actualización de la ordenanza inalámbrica sigue pendiente en la lista de trabajo del personal y será coordinada con las prioridades del concejo durante el próximo año.
Calendario de Consentimiento
Los siguientes temas fueron aprobados en conjunto sin discusión, con los Concejales King y Healy absteniéndose en el Tema 6 (evaluación del BID del centro) por tener oficinas dentro del distrito:
Agenda tentativa para la reunión del 19 de diciembre
Reautorización de reuniones públicas por teleconferencia bajo AB 361
Segunda lectura de las ordenanzas de enmienda presupuestaria para el año fiscal 2022–23
Arrendamiento con opción de compra de una podadora Toro Groundsmaster 5910 por $163,541.06 de Turf Star Western
Resolución aprobando la solicitud actualizada de subvención del Water Recycling Funding Program y la enmienda al acuerdo de servicios profesionales
Resolución aceptando la finalización de los proyectos SRJC 12-inch Water Main y Maria-Leghorn Recycled Water Main Extension Projects
Resolución autorizando un acuerdo de servicios profesionales con Grindline Skateparks, Inc. para el diseño del parque de patinaje y el análisis del sitio
Resolución aceptando el Informe Anual de Tarifas de Impacto al Desarrollo del año fiscal 2022 (AB 1600)
Votación (Calendario de Consentimiento excluyendo los Temas 5 y 6): Propuesto por McDonald, secundado por Fisher. Aprobado 7–0.
#### Tema 5: Acuerdo de Empleo Enmendado — City Clerk
El Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran informó sobre los cambios principales según lo exige la Brown Act: el salario anual de la City Clerk aumenta a $164,883, la licencia administrativa aumenta de 80 a 96 horas por año fiscal, y el lenguaje sobre beneficios varios fue actualizado. El Concejal Healy retiró este tema de la votación en bloque, indicando que no podía apoyar un aumento salarial de aproximadamente el 22% para un puesto de subordinado directo cuando aumentos comparables no están disponibles para los empleados de las unidades de negociación colectiva.
Votación: Propuesto por la Vicealcaldesa Pocasangre, secundado por Barnacle. Aprobado 6–1, con Healy votando en contra.
#### Tema 6: Informe Anual y Evaluación 2023 del Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District
Se señaló una corrección menor de fecha en el informe del personal (24 de enero de 2022 debería haber leído 19 de diciembre de 2022). King y Healy se abstuvieron por pagar la evaluación del BID.
Votación: Propuesto por McDonald, secundado por Barnacle. Aprobado 5–0 (Healy y King se abstuvieron).
Audiencia Pública: Enmienda al Texto de Zonificación — Reducciones de Estacionamiento (IZO Sección 11.040)
El personal de planificación presentó una enmienda al texto de zonificación a nivel de toda la ciudad que crearía un nuevo proceso formal que permitiría a los solicitantes pedir reducciones en los requisitos mínimos de estacionamiento. La enmienda fue iniciada por un propietario (Perry Patel) que busca expandir el Hampton Inn cerca de la estación del tren SMART de 75 a 93 habitaciones utilizando el estacionamiento existente (77 espacios en lugar de los 94 que de otro modo serían requeridos).
Bajo la enmienda propuesta, estarían disponibles dos niveles de reducción de estacionamiento:
Ajuste menor (reducción del 20% o menos): Aprobado administrativamente por el Director de Planificación, requiriendo un análisis de demanda de estacionamiento y determinaciones específicas.
Ajuste mayor (reducción superior al 20%): Requiere un Permiso de Uso Condicional revisado por la Comisión de Planificación, más un estudio completo de demanda de estacionamiento preparado por un ingeniero de transporte con licencia.
Las determinaciones requeridas para cualquiera de los dos niveles incluyen demostrar que el estacionamiento restante es suficiente para una operación segura (excluyendo los espacios en la vía pública), y que las características del proyecto — ubicación, acceso al transporte público, programas de transporte alternativo — justifican la reducción de estacionamiento en consonancia con los objetivos climáticos y del Plan General de la ciudad. La Comisión de Planificación recomendó la adopción por unanimidad (7–0) el 15 de noviembre, con dos modificaciones: reducir el umbral menor/mayor del 25% al 20%, y excluir explícitamente los espacios de estacionamiento en la vía pública de los cálculos de demanda de estacionamiento.
Puntos clave de la discusión:
Notificación pública: El Concejal Healy presionó para obtener requisitos de notificación más estrictos, incluyendo señalización en el lugar incluso para los ajustes menores revisados administrativamente. El personal y el City Attorney indicaron que los requisitos de notificación se abordan mejor de manera integral para todos los tipos de permisos, pero acordaron que todas las solicitudes de reducción de estacionamiento — menores o mayores — serían notificadas públicamente.
Seguimiento y revisión retrospectiva: Healy planteó preocupaciones sobre si las decisiones podrían revisarse si un proyecto no cumplía con las expectativas en materia de estacionamiento. El personal reconoció que no existe un mecanismo formal de seguimiento, pero señaló que la actualización en curso del plan general brindará una oportunidad para reevaluar. El personal acordó mapear todos los ajustes aprobados para rastrear los impactos acumulativos, según lo solicitado por la Comisión de Planificación.
Mínimos de estacionamiento frente a este enfoque: El Concejal Barnacle expresó frustración por el hecho de que el concejo había dado una dirección clara hacia la eliminación total de los mínimos de estacionamiento, y sin embargo el personal presentaba un enfoque escalonado e incremental. La City Manager Flynn y el personal de planificación aclararon que el esfuerzo integral de reforma del estacionamiento está en curso pero requiere más trabajo de base (ordenanza de TDM, coordinación del estacionamiento público, alineación con el Plan General), y que esta enmienda fue una respuesta a una solicitud específica iniciada por un solicitante en el ínterin. Barnacle apoyó el tema pero pidió una acción más rápida y audaz.
Condiciones de aprobación: El Concejal Fisher preguntó si se podrían requerir condiciones como estaciones de carga para vehículos eléctricos o estacionamiento para bicicletas como parte de la concesión de una reducción. El personal y el City Attorney confirmaron que sí — el proceso de determinaciones discrecionales permite que la autoridad de revisión imponga tales condiciones con el nexo causal apropiado.
Estacionamiento con permiso para residentes: El Concejal Barnacle planteó preocupaciones sobre la complejidad de establecer zonas de estacionamiento con permiso residencial cerca de los hoteles afectados. El personal confirmó que existe un programa en el código de la ciudad, pero reconoció que es de carácter general y requeriría diseño caso por caso. El personal sugirió incorporar mejoras al programa de estacionamiento con permiso en el estudio de estacionamiento más amplio que está en curso.
Se recibieron cuatro comentarios públicos escritos antes de la reunión, expresando preocupación por el hecho de que las reducciones de estacionamiento beneficiarían a los desarrolladores en lugar de a los residentes existentes, y cuestionando la legitimidad de los análisis de estacionamiento financiados por los solicitantes. Dos oradores virtuales en la audiencia pública se mostraron en términos generales a favor, con uno solicitando un mecanismo formal de seguimiento de impactos acumulativos (que el personal confirmó que se implementaría administrativamente) y otro preguntando cómo la política podría beneficiar a los negocios del centro y si el estacionamiento para vehículos eléctricos y bicicletas podría integrarse.
Votación: Propuesto por Barnacle, secundado por Fisher. Aprobado 7–0.
Puntos Clave
Aprobada la reforma de estacionamiento: El concejo aprobó por unanimidad un nuevo proceso a nivel de toda la ciudad que permite a los desarrolladores solicitar reducciones en los requisitos mínimos de estacionamiento, con revisión escalonada según el tamaño de la reducción. Esto crea una nueva herramienta significativa para proyectos cerca del transporte público, incluyendo la expansión del Hampton Inn que dio origen a la enmienda.
Protecciones para inquilinos contra el tiempo: La Residential Tenancy Protection Ordinance expira el 1 de marzo de 2023. El personal confirmó que está prevista para la agenda del concejo del 9 de enero; podría ser necesaria una prórroga para permitir la participación plena de las partes interesadas antes de que la ordenanza expire.
La City Clerk recibe un aumento con un voto en contra: El salario de la City Clerk fue elevado a $164,883 anuales — aproximadamente el 22% — a pesar de la objeción del Concejal Healy, quien señaló que aumentos comparables no están disponibles para los empleados municipales sindicalizados.
La supervisión de torres de telefonía celular sigue siendo un tema vigente: Varios residentes plantearon preocupaciones sobre dos torres de telefonía celular recientemente aprobadas procesadas administrativamente sin audiencias públicas. El personal aclaró las normas existentes pero reconoció que aún se necesita la actualización de la ordenanza inalámbrica, la cual se abordará durante el próximo año.
La eliminación de los mínimos de estacionamiento aún está por venir: Los miembros del concejo señalaron un fuerte interés en eliminar los mínimos de estacionamiento en toda la ciudad; el personal enmarcó la enmienda de esta noche como un paso intermedio mientras se desarrollan un estudio integral de estacionamiento y una ordenanza de TDM, probablemente en conjunto con la actualización del Plan General.
Resumen generado por IA a partir de una transcripción de voz a texto. No es el registro oficial. Verifique los detalles importantes con los documentos fuente vinculados arriba.
Qué ocurrió en esta reunión
Resolución que Establece los Hallazgos Requeridos y Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Implementar Reuniones Públicas por Teleconferencia para el Concejo Municipal y Todos los Organismos Subordinados de la Ciudad de conformidad con Assembly Bill 361, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a CEQA
Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran provided an oral report on the resolution authorizing teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. The item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.
Adopción (Segunda Lectura) de Ordenanzas que Modifican las Ordenanzas 2812, 2813, 2816, 2817 N.C.S. para Cambiar Ciertas Apropiaciones para las Operaciones de la Ciudad de Petaluma del 1 de julio de 2022 al 30 de junio de 2023, y que Determina que el Análisis Ambiental para el Cumplimiento de CEQA Ya Fue Completado con Cada Ajuste, Transferencia y Compromiso, y que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a la Sección 15378(b)(5) de las Directrices de CEQA
The adoption (second reading) of ordinances amending appropriations for fiscal year 2022-2023 was presented as part of the Consent Calendar. The item was adopted with no public comment or member discussion noted.
Resolución que Aprueba el Arrendamiento con Opción a Compra de (1) Nueva Toro Groundsmaster 5910 por un Monto de $163,541.06 de Turf Star Western, Hayward, CA, y Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Firmar Todos los Documentos Necesarios para Completar el Arrendamiento, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a las Secciones 15061(b)(3) y 15301 de las Directrices de CEQA
The resolution approving the lease to own of one new Toro Groundsmaster 5910 from Turf Star Western was presented as part of the Consent Calendar. The item was adopted with no public comment.
Resolución que Aprueba un Acuerdo Modificado y Reestablecido de Empleo a Voluntad del Secretario Municipal, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a las Directrices de CEQA
Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran provided an oral report on the amended employment agreement for the City Clerk, detailing salary changes to $164,883, increased administrative leave from 80 to 96 hours, and benefit language clean-up. Councilmember Healy expressed opposition to the compensation changes; the motion carried 6-1 with Councilmember Healy voting no.
Resolución para Aprobar el Informe Anual 2023 del Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District y el Presupuesto Relacionado; Declarar la Intención de Imponer la Contribución Anual 2023; y Establecer una Audiencia Pública sobre la Propuesta de Contribución Anual 2023; y que Determina que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a la Sección 15378(b)(5) de las Directrices de CEQA – REVISADO 12/5/2022
The resolution approving the 2023 Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District Annual Report and related budget was adopted; Councilmembers King and Healy recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. The motion carried 5-0.
Puntos de agenda (11)
Consent Calendar
1Consent CalendarAgenda Tentativa para la Sesión Ordinaria del Concejo Municipal/PCDSA del 19 de diciembre de 2022 –
2Consent CalendarResolución que Establece los Hallazgos Requeridos y Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Implementar Reuniones Públicas por Teleconferencia para el Concejo Municipal y Todos los Organismos Subordinados de la Ciudad de conformidad con Assembly Bill 361, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a CEQA
Qué ocurrió
Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran provided an oral report on the resolution authorizing teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. The item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.3Consent CalendarAdopción (Segunda Lectura) de Ordenanzas que Modifican las Ordenanzas 2812, 2813, 2816, 2817 N.C.S. para Cambiar Ciertas Apropiaciones para las Operaciones de la Ciudad de Petaluma del 1 de julio de 2022 al 30 de junio de 2023, y que Determina que el Análisis Ambiental para el Cumplimiento de CEQA Ya Fue Completado con Cada Ajuste, Transferencia y Compromiso, y que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a la Sección 15378(b)(5) de las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
The adoption (second reading) of ordinances amending appropriations for fiscal year 2022-2023 was presented as part of the Consent Calendar. The item was adopted with no public comment or member discussion noted.4Consent CalendarResolución que Aprueba el Arrendamiento con Opción a Compra de (1) Nueva Toro Groundsmaster 5910 por un Monto de $163,541.06 de Turf Star Western, Hayward, CA, y Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Firmar Todos los Documentos Necesarios para Completar el Arrendamiento, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a las Secciones 15061(b)(3) y 15301 de las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
The resolution approving the lease to own of one new Toro Groundsmaster 5910 from Turf Star Western was presented as part of the Consent Calendar. The item was adopted with no public comment.5Consent CalendarResolución que Aprueba un Acuerdo Modificado y Reestablecido de Empleo a Voluntad del Secretario Municipal, y que Determina que Este Asunto No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran provided an oral report on the amended employment agreement for the City Clerk, detailing salary changes to $164,883, increased administrative leave from 80 to 96 hours, and benefit language clean-up. Councilmember Healy expressed opposition to the compensation changes; the motion carried 6-1 with Councilmember Healy voting no.6Consent CalendarResolución para Aprobar el Informe Anual 2023 del Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District y el Presupuesto Relacionado; Declarar la Intención de Imponer la Contribución Anual 2023; y Establecer una Audiencia Pública sobre la Propuesta de Contribución Anual 2023; y que Determina que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a la Sección 15378(b)(5) de las Directrices de CEQA – REVISADO 12/5/2022
Qué ocurrió
The resolution approving the 2023 Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District Annual Report and related budget was adopted; Councilmembers King and Healy recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. The motion carried 5-0.7Consent CalendarResolución que Autoriza la Solicitud de Subvención Actualizada del Water Recycling Funding Program y Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Firmar la Enmienda No. 1 al Acuerdo de Servicios Profesionales para los Estudios de Planificación del Integrated Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Facilities, y a Firmar Solicitudes de Asistencia Financiera y Acuerdos de Subvención con el Water Recycling Funding Program de la California State Resources Control Board, y que Determina que Esta Acción Está Exenta de conformidad con CEQA
Qué ocurrió
The resolution authorizing the Updated Water Recycling Funding Program grant application and amendment to the Professional Services Agreement was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.8Consent CalendarResolución que Acepta la Finalización de los Proyectos SRJC 12-Inch Water Main y Maria – Leghorn Recycled Water Main Extension por Michael Paul Company, y que Determina que Esta Acción Se Encuentra Dentro del Estado del EIR del Petaluma Water Recycling Expansion Program
Qué ocurrió
The resolution accepting completion of the SRJC 12-inch water main and Maria-Leghorn Recycled Water Main Extension projects was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.9Consent CalendarResolución que Autoriza al Administrador Municipal a Celebrar un Acuerdo de Servicios Profesionales con Grindline Skateparks, Inc. para el Skate Park Design and Site Analysis Project, y que Determina que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a la Sección 15378(b)(5) de las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
The resolution authorizing a professional services agreement with Grindline Skateparks, Inc. for skate park design and site analysis was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.10Consent CalendarResolución que Acepta el Informe Anual de Tarifas de Impacto al Desarrollo del Año Fiscal 2022 conforme a Assembly Bill 1600, y que Determina que Esta Acción No Constituye un "Proyecto" conforme a las Secciones 21065 y 21080 del Public Resources Code y las Secciones 15378 y 15061(b)(3) de las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
The resolution accepting the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Development Impact Fee Report was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar with no public comment.Public Hearing
11Public HearingAudiencia Pública e Introducción de una Ordenanza que Aprueba una Enmienda de Texto de Zonificación a la Sección 11.040 (Alternatives to On-Site Parking) de la Implementing Zoning Ordinance y las referencias asociadas en la Sección 11.030 (Off-Street Parking – General Regulations) y la Sección 11.065 (Power of the Zoning Administrator (Director) to Modify Requirements), y que Determina que Esta Acción Está Exenta de CEQA conforme a las Directrices de CEQA
Qué ocurrió
Planning Manager Andrew Trippel presented the staff report on the zoning text amendment to Section 11.040 regarding alternatives to on-site parking. Public commenters Darren Racusen and John Shribbs spoke during the public hearing; Councilmembers asked questions of staff. The ordinance was introduced on first reading with a 7-0 vote.Transcripción literal disponible
102 segmentos de transcripción indexados
Madame mayor are you ready to begin the meeting hi okay recording in progress good evening and welcome to the uh Petaluma city council and the Petaluma Community Development successor agency regular meeting of Monday December 5th may we have roll call please Barrett here barnacle here Fisher here Healy here King here McDonald here that's okay here all members are present oh thank you and um the closed session item is public employee performance evaluation pursuant to paragraph one of subdivision B of California government code section 54957 the title is our City attorney and city manager and it's scheduled to go from 5 30 to 6 30 but I expect this will run over and we will return to the regular meeting at the end of our closed session meeting or 6 30 whichever comes last okay so with that is there any public comment on the closed session item [Music] we are now taking public comment for the closed session item if there's anyone in the virtual audience who would like to speak please raise your virtual hand or press star 9.
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL & PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (PCDSA) City Hall Council Chambers 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 MINUTES Monday, December 05, 2022 CLOSED SESSION 5:30 P.M.
/ REGULAR SESSION 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barrett called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember Healy, Councilmember King, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay ABSENT: None CLOSED SESSION • PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (b) of California Government Code Section 54957.
and I do see one attendee Paul G I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and address the council yes thank you very much Council for giving me these three minutes it's very important that we address these issues because they involve both of the people that you're reviewing they involve Mr Danley and they involve Ms Flynn you're reviewing the Personnel now that you have to actually judge it by their record and so what we are going to do is we're going to give you more evidence so you can judge the record accurately so what do we have we have a letter from Mr Danley written to me on February 28 2022 and it was actually copied to The Honorable mayor of Petaluma City Council Members Peggy Flynn Heather Hines and Ken Savannah we have reviewed this letter in detail and have proof of the false statements made by Mr Danley in this letter this is a problem when your City attorney makes provably false statements in a letter intended to try to take away rights away from a resident of Petaluma who pays their taxes and has every right to participate in their government in any way shape or form this is all about a protection racket in order to try to cover their own tracks but the evidence will prove to you that what is in this letter is not true and that should have direct impact on his ongoing Personnel review as well as that to city manager Flynn because this is happening on her watch as well so the evidence will come forward in the way of recordings from
Title: City Attorney, City Manager Mayor Barrett announced the Closed Session item. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Prior to adjournment into Closed Session, the public may speak up to three minutes on items to be addressed in Closed Session.
the Petaluma Police and so we have reviewed them and we know exactly what went down and how it disproves what Mr Danley has written and so we're going to present all of this evidence in the public record to ensure that the names are cleared when they need to be and the party's perpetrating lies will actually then have to account for them now this is so assuming that we have a system that cares about the truth and cares about not actually bullying and beating up people and so we want to make sure that this incoming city council takes a look at this matter very seriously now one other person that maybe should recuse himself from this would be uh ah Mr Healy who we understand has taken some signs that were not his in the last election and somehow got some kind of special treatment by the district attorney so there's no matter coming forward on this at the end of the day we all have to be looking at the same laws and we all have to do the right thing mayor glass did the right thing back in 2018 by recusing himself on a particular matter because he had a conflict of interest or walked out the door he was not asking for special treatment all of our public Representatives who were voted in should have the same kinds of morals and same kinds of principles Mr Danley I would and Mr Healy I would invite you to please step down from your office you've served long enough and I think perhaps maybe you should give someone else a chance to serve thank you uh there's no is there's no one else
on the um virtual that's our last public comment okay thank you and there's no one in the council chamber so with that we'll close public comment on this item and the council will adjourn to uh the closed session thank you the Galvez and Monica aparicio to provide information for those who want to listen in Spanish thank you uh good evening everybody um foreign [Music] a continuation we're ready thank you very much and now we will do the Roll Call Barrett present Barnacle here Fisher here Healy here King here McDonald's here here all members are present thank you and now we will stand for the Pledge of Allegiance we will now have a moment of silence in memory of two people we have lost this past week as a city we are grieving the loss of one of our staff Josh Bachi a water treatment operator at our Ellis facility who has been part of the city staff since 2010.
Mayor Barrett opened public comment on the Closed Session item. Paul G. Mayor Barrett closed public comment. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Barrett adjourned the meeting to closed session at 5:35 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barrett called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember Healy, Councilmember King, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay ABSENT: None • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • MOMENT OF SILENCE, held in memory of Josh Baccei and Lucy Kortum AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (TO CURRENT AGENDA ONLY) Mayor Barrett confirmed there were no changes or deletions to the current agenda.
we're sending us our love and support to his family and co-workers in addition our we're joining our entire Community here in Petaluma and in Sonoma County and probably around much of California in the recent death of Lucy cordum who was a very transformative in terms of the environmental Consciousness in our County along with her husband the late bill cordum and the fundamental work they have done for public access to open space and the coastal areas of our state so we will be closing our meeting in memory of both of those people and we'll now have a moment of silence Thank You There Are No Agenda changes or deletions to the current agenda and there is no report out of closed session so now we're going to General Public comment and this is a comment on items that are not on today's agenda and um I have several for general public comment from people who are at the city council meeting and attending in in the city hall Chambers I will ask our um moderator to see if there's anybody in the virtual audience who would also like to speak on a general public comment at this time I will start a 30-second clock for general public comment members of the public attending in person should bring their speaker cards to the clerk's desk if they have not already done so members of the public attending online or by phone should raise their virtual hand or press star 9 if participating by phone Madame mayor we have five virtual hands raised okay five people okay one two so that's 11 people so
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION Mayor Barrett announced there was no reportable action taken at Closed Session. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda.
that's two minutes per person okay so I'm gonna start with the people in the in the uh council chambers each person has two minutes and then we will go to the people on on the zoom audience thank you so starting with Peter chernif followed by Peter Howley another beautiful day in Petaluma Green Beret surgeon Dr Jeffrey McDonald still in prison after 50 years for whistleblowing Bush's heroinops Leonard Peltier 47 years down and then not and and and a prophecy from the ultimate code talker from 2000 years back Yeshua whose Spirit be alive and Almighty be present here and now a prophecy a prophecy that sets the world free by freeing Leonard Peltier via the 40-day strike begins this full moon cspoa president Sheriff Richard Max States corruption is killing America meanwhile in a government overtaken by Bar Association lawyers already urinating on the Constitution you also have Trump now calling for suspension of the Constitution what health official has accepted the one million dollars to debate Robert Kennedy of the children's defense fund what health official speaks at all about the common use of euthanized pets including all their vaccines and human cadavers into the grinder mix becoming meat filler fed to cows chickens cats dogs and people delivering disease and cancer to people and pets Santa Rosa's police dog Colt just died of cancer at the age of seven meanwhile usad USDA USDA inspectors are paid to hide all the pus-filled tumors cancer-filled animals at the slaughterhouse
and in Sonoma County how many cancer clinics and monies between insurance companies and bar lawyers are going on to Peter we're given the keys so to the law to push the world to its knees I am Commander Peter Alexander I am commanding my military of soldiers veterans Warriors students and angels to shut down every asset every facet of the god agreed Mammon by the prophecies 40-day Freedom strike freeing all Innocents all Leonard Peltier our U.S Constitution and US beginning thank you Peter Howley followed by Bob homsen good evening I'm not nearly as exciting as that Peter Alexander though my name is also Peter Alexander I'm not related to him I just want to thank you for serving our City that my wife and I love we want to become part of it if any of you think I can be helpful ask the answer is yes and keep up doing the good work and of course do but better good work but thank you for being Where You Are thank you Bob Thompson followed by Michael Shapiro good evening everybody to everybody I wish the very best in health and spirit my name is Robert Hansen vet retired Carpenter Grandpa our country is under global Assault on all fronts what was 22 months ago a question is now a fact the vote count and the 2020 election was massively amid manipulated that carried it through the 2022 election the result of that is we have an ungodly unlawful president and administration that is aggressively and with intent destroying the prosperity security and integrity of the United States of
Public comments are limited up to three minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Council, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than twenty minutes, subject to the Council’s discretion (Cal.
America we have a governor that wants to turn the state of California into the national destination for abortion if we learned anything from the abortion from the uh AIDS epidemic safe sex is the only moral answer to unwanted pregnancy and disease yet that's not even in the conversation we have a governor that wants to turn the state of California into the national destination for child gender mutilation these are children I'm going to cut right to the chase if my city council will draft formal charges treason against the United States of America on three counts Joe Biden and his administration have committed treason against the United States Michael Shapiro followed by Laurie Schroeder hi uh I'm Michael Shapiro 14-year Petaluma resident um I've been working with neighbors for the past year or two uh discussing the issue of leaf blowers gas powered leaf blowers in our town and what we can do about it there are Myriad reasons to follow this the lead of other cities such as Washington DC Palo Alto Larchmont New York that have restricted or curtailed the use of gas-powered leaf blowers most obvious is the noise issue it's also a social justice issue these are people very often who have very few other employment opportunities they're suffering from damaged hearing they are suffering from um higher incidences of lung cancer according to the California air resources board leaf blowers and what they call sores which are also uh lawn mowers are producing as much pollution in our
Gov’t. Code §54954.3(a), Petaluma City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures, III). Tony Lee Taryn Obaid Darren Racusen Laurie Schroeder Michael Shapiro Peter Tscherneff Mayor Barrett opened public comment.
state as all the cars in our state that's California air resources board Washington DC started Banning them as of January 1st this year my colleague James Fallows who was a former speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter has said the change in the city is tremendous there's so much more Peace Quiet the the feeling that we have a better standard of living is enhanced and I just wanted to mention a couple of other things I thought I had three minutes so I'll try to keep it to two um you know those of us who work remotely have a much harder time working on Zoom when there's blaring leaf blowers it can uh it can wake people up who work all night people who work in grocery stores people who work in hospitals such as nurses and doctors so there's Myriad reasons I've spoken with council member Fisher and Council remember McDonald about this and um Lori Schroeder followed by Catherine babowski and uh the other members of the public who were here in the city council if you could keep the voice level down please thank you go ahead Ms shorter no okay you have letters about Captain Broski's Mobile Home Park it all went to all of you plus it went plus you got pictures of it so what I'm trying to do is to get her manager out completely that's doing drugs in there and everything else dogs are not a leash everything is really messed up but everything's in my letters though that you all have so that really explains it all as much as I can so I'm asking you and everybody else to let that
Peter Tscherneff Peter Howley Bob Hansen Michael Shapiro Laurie Schroeder Katherine Bobrowski Diana Kingsbury Paul G Darren Racusen Chad Bolla Taryn Obaid Mayor Barrett closed public comment. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilmember King Councilmember McDonnell Vice Mayor Pocekay Councilmember Healy Councilmember Barnacle Mayor Barrett CITY MANAGER COMMENT City Manager Peggy Flynn CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Barrett invited Assistant City Manager, Brian Cochran, to provide an oral report of the salary and benefits included in the employment agreement for Item 5 on the Consent Calendar, as required by the Brown Act and note a revision to Page 3 of the BID item (Item 6).
manager go along with her family her friends get a real manager in there that can fix everything so that's all I'm just trying to say but the letters explain it all plus we have the pictures so is her attorney Evan levinstone because right now I came and stayed there for three days if I had to because her manager is going to be knocking on her door to get me out right away along with the other two with her pastor and everything so I don't know with my autism I was trying to help her out with all this being a witness for it so things are that bad so that's what we're asking for to see if you have a way of getting to the owners and have them evict all those people out there I'll start over that's all I have to say so my layers will explain that to you thank you thank you thank you and uh Catherine brabowski yes I left the Lewis mobile the other night I caught the managers friends space 14 you live parked against my mobile home with legalized by eight eight j4 and 9014 and goes over the 14.
Assistant City Manager, Brian Cochran, announced, Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), part of the Brown Act, provides that prior to taking final action on an employment agreement, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of the salary, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken.
comes back to my mobile at 31 dealing his illegal drugs right up against my mobile I took a picture of it and I sent it to my attorney and yesterday too he came back and starts doing the same thing again and this manager has been uh the cups the police bar say they're not going to respond and they're going to allow this major and her family and her friends be breaking the law they park on the far Lanes they do vandalism in there they trespass and like I said 14 was dealing drugs in there right up against my mobile the other night I took a picture and I I sent to my attorney and this is the owner's address and phone number this has been gone way too long that Park is not being maintained at all so I'm dropping this off and also too the pillow transit system is not uh there and they stopped their buses earlier than they're supposed to and again the pillow Police Department doesn't want to go out there because they're friends with this manager and her friends and family do something about this thank you thank you very much and now we will go to the people who are on the uh virtual are in the virtual queue for general public comment Diana Kingsbury I will now allow you to speak you can address the council thank you good evening council members and staff my name is Diana Kingsbury and I am a staff member with the Sonoma County Tenants Union and North Bay organizing project I'm here to request that the residential tenancy protection ordinance which is subject to expire March 1st
Accordingly, key changes contained in the amended agreement are as follows: Salary: The annual salary is $164,883; Administrative Leave: An increase to Ms. Sawyer’s administrative leave allowance from 80 hours per fiscal year to 96 hours; Miscellaneous Benefit Language Clean-Up: The amended agreement trues up various portions of the benefits document with current City policy and practice, such as modifications to the holiday schedule, updating the City’s health insurance contribution, etc.
2023 the agenda is no later than January 9 2023 this is really critical so that the new city council has enough time to consider a replacement ordinance or continue the existing ordinance before it sunsets the Sunset date was inserted to ensure that this ordinance be amended with urgency rather than to let it expire as a council that passed these crucial tenancy protections I urge you to ensure that this comes up in time for the new city council to consider it we have heard from many many Petaluma tenants about really terrible abuses by landlords from price gouging to not making repairs that really demonstrates the unfair power Dynamic at play between landlords and tenants and this makes all the more necessary these Common Sense protections um from the beginning when you know tenants are having to obviously pay extremely high rents they're often being charged for things they don't want or need really being nickeled and dimed at every turn and then with what little is left in their paychecks often they're having to pay for their own repairs that the landlords are neglecting to make we hear about month-long waits for repairs I'm dealing with mice rats no response from their landlords and yet the rent and all these other charges on top of that keep piling up every month and tenants have to pay the consequences if anything goes wrong on their end but on the other hand they can't often challenge their landlord's mistreatment um for fear of eviction and so you have this opportunity
He further announced that a typo was found on Page 3 of the staff report for Item 6. The hearing date should read December 19, 2022, as noted elsewhere throughout the report and associated resolution, and that the revision was posted online with the agenda report.
Councilmember King and Councilmember Healy announced their recusals from Item 6 due to conflicts of interest. Councilmember Healy asked for Item 5 to be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 1. Tentative Agenda for the City Council/PCDSA Regular Meeting of December 19, 2022 – REVISED 11/30/22 2.
to continue this progress to make sure that you know your Workforce families and really the most vulnerable citizens in Petaluma don't have to suffer this uh really unfair power Dynamic any further thank you Paul G I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and address the council good evening Council thank you for the time two topics in two minutes first one I invite everybody to go to a very important website and take a look at a couple of videos the website is prevent genocide2030.org that's prevent genocide2030.org and you will see two videos feature right up front one is from Australian Senator Garrick Gerard renick his speech about the hypocrisy of the covid-19 so-called vaccines the next one is a documentary released on November 21st called died suddenly it has over 12 and a half million views and was reported by Children's Health defense now everybody has to face the facts where we are here we have about 43 000 plus excess deaths per month in the United States compared to say a period from four years ago and a lot of this is tied directly to the numbers of shots and boosters that are being recommended to people it's very important that everyone wrap their minds to what's going on we need to stop the shots we need to say no to any digital control ID such as a vaccine passport and we need to exit The Who and the UN because the who right now today is meeting to amend the international Health regulations to take away U.S sovereignty and to be
Resolution Making Required Findings and Authorizing the City Manager to Implement Teleconferenced Public Meetings for the City Council and All City Subordinate Bodies Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 and Finding This Item is Not a “Project” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) 3.
able to declare pandemics anytime they wish based on one man's opinion and it doesn't matter because all member states have to go along topic number two about uh April of this year you you pass some kind of ordinance that allowed the city staff to start handling very important decisions with regards to cell tile Replacements that's very unfortunate because they're not trained to do it I'm lacking you some very incomplete applications by dish that are missing complete important things from the applications yet the city is approving these they are not properly trained to actually manage these applications which is why the public needs to get involved to put them on the straight and narrow please fix this broken process thank you Darren recusing I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to mute yourself and address the council thank you and this evening I'm going to speak about deciding our strategy strategy definitively on last mile delivery of broadband service with those two options being either fiber optic delivery or Wireless 5G delivery back in may we reviewed the fiscal but the fiscal year budget for the upcoming year and it showed for the one item that made my eyebrows raise the city's attorney's office top priority listed in that budgetary document was rewriting petaluma's Wireless ordinance uh also to point out what the last speaker mentioned uh cell towers are being approved through conditional use permit being processed ministerially by the planning
Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinances Amending Ordinances 2812, 2813, 2816, 2817 N.C.S. to Change Certain Appropriations for the Operations of the City of Petaluma from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 and Finding the Environmental Analysis for Compliance with CEQA Was Already Completed With Each Adjustment, Transfer, and Encumbrance and This Action is Not a “Project” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) 4.
department there are two new cell towers put up in the past year I just learned about that I don't think receives much fanfare or a public input so alongside these pieces of information that seem to indicate the city wants to pursue a wireless or 5G Broadband delivery strategy we also have the 18 million Ami Grant the Public Works received and they initially planned to deploy 5G transmitters on water meters throughout the city and speaking with Christopher bolt I was hoping to push us toward at least exploring a fiber optic option use those funds to deploy fiber optic infrastructure to you for these Advanced metering infrastructure for the water meters so Wireless delivery of Last Man Last Mile broadband service and the Specter of 5G Towers is a contentious issue for a reason the impact for humans and maybe more importantly for the flora fauna and fungi in our ecosystem are definitively underexplored you can't say that we know the effects the technology hasn't been around long enough so given the massive ecological impacts this technology could have I don't see how we can reconcile wanting to be an environmentally friendly City and still committing to 5G technology so we need counsel and staff to openly State the strategy for our last mile Broadband deployment and I'm asking us to commit to fiber optic and not 5G Chad Bola I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and address the council hey thank you good evening council members and staff my name
Resolution Approving the Lease to Own (1) New Toro Groundsmaster 5910 Amount of $163,541.06 from Turf Star Western, Hayward, CA and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute all Documents Necessary to Complete the Lease and Finding This Item is Not a “Project” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15301 7.
is Chad Bola and I'm a renter and a tenant organizer with the North Bay organizing project over this last weekend I joined Sonoma County acts of kindness volunteers on their delivery route to offer food and water to unsheltered folks many of whom were in vehicles even met a family of eight who had to do rotations regarding who could sleep in the vehicle and who had to sleep outside in the cold and rain that evening while doing their best to maintain some degree of dignity despite their vulnerability many people offer deep gratitude for the small and temporary gesture of a sandwich and water myself I myself struggled to hold back tears of anger and sadness the whole time thinking about the many hard-working and socially responsible tenants I'm organizing with whose greatest fear is their landlord banishing them and their families to the streets we can and should do much better to keep our neighbor's house if we truly believe that housing is a human right as I've heard publicly from certain Sonoma County decision makers then we must commit to putting that belief into policy this is why I request that the residential tenancy protection ordinance which is subject to expire March 1st 2023 the agenda is no later than January 9th 2023 this is critical so that the new city council has enough time to consider a replacement ordinance or continue the existing ordinance before it sunsets to the council members that championed the passing of the ordinance back in September I just I want
Resolution Authorizing the Updated Water Recycling Funding Program Grant Application and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement for Integrated Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Facilities Planning Studies and to Execute Financial Assistance Applications and Grant Agreements with the California State Resources Control Board’s Water Recycling Funding Program, and Finding This Action is Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 8.
to remind you that this is part of your legacy and it demonstrates that you are on the side of working people families and our most vulnerable community members I urge you to ensure that this comes up in time for the new city council to consider it thank you very much lastly Taryn obeyed I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and address the council hi thank you um thank you for the two commenters about the two brand new cell towers that are being in um erected up in Petaluma um is it the city council will you please um put on the very next agenda and izo edit that makes cell towers have to go through the Planning Commission in the city council when you moved the conditional use permit decision making to staff that moved all of the cell tower approvals except for something that might be proposed for a historic property to the staff and the staff has um that was in June I think that they got that and um it wasn't until a couple of weeks ago when I asked what are the projects that are being ministerially approved that these two cell towers were published on the city website one of them was a project months before the staff got this new Authority so why did they keep it quiet for months a brand new cell tower they didn't do a drive test for these they didn't do drop call logs um it's a very complicated complex issue cell towers we need to commit to track the cumulative electric draw as well as EMF radiation which uh m-group staff promised to our
Resolution Accepting Completion of the SRJC 12-Inch Water Main and Maria – Leghorn Recycled Water Main Extension Projects by Michael Paul Company, and Finding This Action is Within the Petaluma Water Recycling Expansion Program EIR State Clearinghouse #2007052146 9.
city council that they had about two years ago but they still haven't delivered it we have no cumulative tracking of what's going on yet we're telling people they can't put in gas stoves but they have to go electric um it seems like we're really overlooking uh wasting a lot of energy and it's not doesn't quite work with our climate goals regardless of what the issue is please don't let staff make decisions the public need thank you your time has expired and Madame mayor that concludes the general public comment during the 30 seconds that their hands were raised thank you very much and with that we will close general public comment and we will go to council comment and I will start with council member King thank you madam mayor um since our last meeting Sonoma clean Power Authority board met there are a number of items on our agenda but one of interest to the public I think are of of larger interest of the public is that the board approved new customer rates to be implemented in the new year after the PG e changes to the pcia which is their charge to our customers from contracts that they exit that existed pre the Advent of cca's community aggregate choices so the customer bills are set to be five percent below PG E's bundled service total bills um all rate classes and there are many are to be reset so that Sonoma clean Power customer total bills have an equal percentage difference from PG E's bundle service total bills so that will be implemented um at some point either in
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Grindline Skateparks, Inc. for the Skate Park Design and Site Analysis Project, and Finding This Action is Not a “Project” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) 10.
January or February depending on the timing of approval of PG E's new rates for the puc in front of the puc so that was the main thing and that is it thank you thank you very much council member council member McDonald thank you very much um let's see um since the last our last meeting I have not had any of the committee um assignments being held but this week is a busy week and I just wanted to note that The Pedestrian bicycle advisory committee will be uh uh hearing they were near demonstration project for different bike lanes and I hope people with concerns on that will tune in on December 7th for uh for that discussions public discussions also the oversight committee for the county tax measure measure o for mental health meets this week and so that ought to be an interesting update for both their revenue and their expense plans thank you thank you and now we'll go to the vice mayor thank you madam mayor um the Continuum of Care board trying to get a lot of work done these last two months of the year before two-thirds of the board approximately turns over we gave final approval to two memoranda of understanding with the county of Sonoma regarding them being lead agency and collaborative applicant for uh for applying for uh state and federal grants related to homelessness we're also hoping to have final ratification by the end of December or by December 22nd actually of um of the county-wide Strategic plan for homelessness as well as some new templates to help us evaluate
different programs such as different permanent Supportive Housing Programs I hate the term against each other but that's something so we can rank which which types of programs are working the best for the for the outcomes we're looking for that's all I have thanks thank you councilmember Healey thank you a couple things [Music] um the uh League of California cities met leadership met last week um or on Thursday something called League leadership and then on Friday was the smaller groups the board of directors um and came up with the cities League of cities 19 2023 advocacy priorities and I know this group has had so much fun with seven of us trying to whittle down to 10 top priorities imagine being in a room with 150 people and trying to come up with four priorities um it was um yeah so um they're very broad General categories number one and no particular order but they're numbered one through four number one is protect and expand Investments to prevent and reduce homelessness number two increase the supply and affordability of housing while retaining local decision making number three improve Public Safety in California communities number four Safeguard essential local revenues and support fiscal sustainability that said I think the organization's almost singular Focus for the next year and a half is going to be defeating the Business Roundtable initiative that we are anticipating will qualify for the November 2024 ballot as early as next month um that would um be very
Resolution Accepting the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Development Impact Fee Report Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1600 and Finding This Action is Not a “Project” Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21065 and 21080 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) Mayor Barrett opened public comment, receiving none, she closed public comment.
detrimental to cities around the state in terms of local control um and then relatedly and kind of pushing in the opposite direction we heard from assembly member aguir Curry who as I think most people know is based in yellow County but his district extends into some fringes of Sonoma County not here and she indicated that she's going to be making another run at a bill she ran a couple years ago which was assembly Constitutional Amendment one um which would have passed it needs a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature and then a majority approval by the voters of the state but it would reduce the threshold for special local taxes for infrastructure from two-thirds to 55 percent and I have to say that with with the presentation by our fire chief and police chief at a recent meeting um that that really resonated with me as some some place we might not to go might need to go or want to go because you know even though measure U is is great it doesn't get us everywhere we we need to be so keep an eye on ACA one she she tried it before I think she learned some lessons and is is more confident on getting it passed this time and then this morning there was a meeting of an ad hoc meeting of directors of the three different groundwater sustainability agencies in Sonoma County and staff to see if there might be opportunities for consolidation in the management of those three groundwater basins and the consensus is there may be some little things we can do in the near term but
Motion to adopt the Consent Calendar (Resolution Nos. 2022-183 N.C.S. authorizing teleconference meetings; 2022-184 N.C.S. approving the lease to own of one new Toro Groundmaster; 2022-185 N.C.S. authorizing the Updated Water Recycling Funding Program grant application; 2022-186 N.C.S.
probably in terms of an actual consolidation that's premature maybe look at it a couple years down the road so that's all I have thank you thank you council member barnacle thank you madam mayor I've had no appointments um I did want to share um a local win on the quick build process I know we started to get going on that um the city of Emeryville set a goal of um installing seating and every bus stop in the city and they did it in the same year I thought it was a pretty cool um quick build project just something simple but makes a difference for some people um and then I'd appreciate some update on the the cell tower ordinances that were just brought raised and then to the people who brought up the tenant ordinance um I just checked the tentative or the agenda planner for the council and it is on the agenda for January 9th I believe but maybe city manager City attorney can confirm that but that is the plan I relief foreign Fisher I have nothing to report thank you thank you so I will follow up on council member barnacle's request to get an update on the timing for the tenancy ordinance so maybe our City attorney so um so the the expiration date is clear Council and um and I think the what we're going to be planning what we're starting to plan already in communication with the council and the community about is making sure that we are in a position to do the Outreach that we need to do and have the stakeholder dialogues that we need to have and have the menu of options before
accepting completion of the SRJC 12-inch water main and Maria-Leghorn Recycled Water Main Extension projects; 2022-187 N.C.S. authorizing a professional services agreement with Grindline Skateparks Inc.; 2022-188 N.C.S.
the council and not just just a complete integrated package so that so that we can address all that an option that I'd like to avoid but if we needed to to cover all that an option would be a short extension of the ordinance to make sure that we cover check all those boxes but we're hopeful that we can avoid that with our with our scheduling but we'll we'll be in touch more about that with the council and the public but there's stakeholder dialogues we need to have for sure and also be presenting the council some choices that come from those and staff recommendations about those regulations going forward okay thank you for that update I I do think the extensions is a good plan B but um I do think it was the intention of those who voted for this in September for it to be a permanent um uh solution that provided you know no gaps and so I think the key is no gaps and and to extend it into permanent status so however that can be done I appreciate that since I won't be here but thank you for that and we'll turn it over to the city manager for saying thank you for your comments thank you mayor and city council and Petaluma Community um I have no uh updates tonight but I do want to address some comments that were made during public comment when the city council adopted approved the modifications to our izo chapter 24 earlier this year there was no modifications to review Authority with the exception of increasing review of variances in the floodway to the discretion of the Planning
accepting the FY22 Annual Development Impact Fee Report; and adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2826, 2827, 2828, and 2829 N.C.S. changing certain appropriations), made by Councilmember McDonnell, seconded by Councilmember Fischer.
Vote: Carried 7-0 Yes: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember Healy, Councilmember King, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay No: None Absent: None Recused: None 5.
Commission those modifications approved by the council did not increase staff's discretion that said there are different entitlements that are and have been at the discretion of staff for years examples of these entitlements are minor use permits and administrative site plan and Architectural Review and as aligned in the city's code there are different Wireless facilities that trigger different levels of review including applications that are reviewed as building permit administrative use permits and major use permits that has not changed so when a project is reviewed at the staff level as an administrative permit the project is noticed and specific findings as outlined in the code are required to be made prior to approval so additionally all administrative permits can be appealed to the Planning Commission and then as far as the wireless ordinance the Telecom ordinance that dropped off the um the city's uh priority list because that was replaced by our top 10 list and I don't know Eric I know you had it on your list for a while and it it's it's still on my list I um we still do need some updates to um the chapter to yeah really to provide for better tools for processing applications and making sure we maximally reserve City decision makers discretion while complying with the shot clock requirements and all that those things and plus we just need some there's some updating that's needed because of changes in the law so you know we're going to be no doubt in conversation with
the council in the coming year as our timeline estimates for the council priorities evolve as they're certain to do and as to how you know we do a lot more than 10 things during the year um and so some of these things that are opportunities or things that need addressing have to happen along with the council priorities so I look forward to strategizing how we can do the major pieces of that and weave them in with the rest of the work that we're doing so and I know that's a little vague but it's we still have some good draft work and good background that we can be working on completing the next year thanks thank you and that concludes my comments thank you thank you very much and now we are on to the consent calendar and I'd like to ask assistant city manager Brian Cochran to provide a normal report on items 5B if I items five and item six thank you madam mayor good evening council members so we have two updates for you tonight the first is on item five which is the amended employment agreement with our city clerk and wanted to report out so government code section 54953 C2 which is part of the brown act does require that prior to taking final action on an employment agreement the legislative body needs an oral report of a summary of the salary the salary schedule or the compensation that's paid to the employee and the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken so this oral comment constitutes that
Resolution Approving an Amended and Restated Agreement for At-Will Employment of the City Clerk and Finding that this Item is not a "Project" Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) Councilmember Healy expressed opposition to the compensation changes presented in Item 5.
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2022-190 N.C.S., made by Vice Mayor Pocekay, seconded by Councilmember Barnacle. Vote: Carried 6-1 Yes: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember King, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay No: Councilmember Healy Absent: None Recused: None 6.
report the key changes this time in the city Corps agreement there were just a few there's an amended salary the new annual salary is 164 883 annually on the administrative leave there's an increase there from 80 hours per fiscal year to 96 hours per fiscal year and then finally as we typically do when we bring these amended agreements we made miscellaneous benefit language cleanups to um keep the language modern in terms of trueing up current city policies and practices modifying the holiday schedule and updating the latest City Healthcare contributions so that concludes the oral report on the item five Amendment to the city clerk's employment agreement and then finally just quickly item six there was a typo that was found on page three of that staff report it referenced an incorrect date I believe it said January 24th 2022 it should have said December 19 2022 and that was correct everywhere in the staff report as well as on the resolution except in that one spot on page three so we did upload an amended staff report that corrects that that typo uh that's all I have for you tonight thank you thank you very much and with that I will ask our members of the city council if there's anyone who would like to pull something or um recuse themselves council member King yes I will be recusing from item number six um the downtown Petaluma business Improvement District I have an office within the district and I pay the the assessment so as with every other year I'm recusing okay and I
understand all you need to do is refrain from voting you don't have to leave the Deus okay so thank you anybody else council member Healey thank you I'll be recusing from item six for the same reason as council member King and I'd also like to pull item five off the consent calendar thank you okay thank you and anybody else not seeing anyone okay so um I will ask if there's any but if the clerk has heard received any public comment on the consent calendar items Madame mayor no comments on the consent calendar were received prior to the meeting thank you and I um do not have any cards for speakers here in the city council chamber on this item or these items and so I will ask our moderator to see if there's anybody in the virtual audience who would like to speak to this item during public comment on agenda items the public is invited to make comments on that particular agenda item that is being presented to the city council members of the public attending online or by phone should raise their virtual hand or press star 9 if participating by phone and Madame mayor no hands are raised so that we will open and close public comment on the consent calendar items and um I think what we so I will ask for a motion from the council council member McDonald I'd like the motion the consent calendar with the exceptions of five and six okay Andrew is there a second council member Fisher okay so uh motion by McDonald's second by Fisher and we'll have a roll call vote Barrett yes Barnacle yes
Resolution to Approve the 2023 Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District Annual Report and Related Budget; Declaring the Intention to Levy the 2023 Annual Assessment; and Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed 2023 Annual Assessment; and Finding This Action is Not a “Project” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) – REVISED 12/5/2022 Motion to adopt Resolution No.
2022-189 N.C.S., made by Councilmember McDonnell, seconded by Councilmember Barnacle. Vote: Carried 5-0 Yes: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay No: None Absent: None Recused: Councilmember Healy, Councilmember King PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 11.
Fisher yes Steely yes King yes McDonald yes okay yes motion passes unanimously okay so um I will uh since council member Healey has pulled the item five I'll ask council member heal if you'd like to make a comment on them yes thank you um I I do think our city clerk is doing an excellent job I think virtually all of our city employees are also doing excellent jobs um I cannot support a 22 pay raise for this position one of our direct reports when we're not able to offer anything comparable that to other our other bargaining units so I will respectfully be voting now thank you very much so is there a motion for item number five I'll make that motion okay Council vice mayor posaque has made the motion and vice mayor I mean councilmember Barnacle second okay so there's a second by barnacle and the motion is by postaque and we will have a roll call vote Barrett yes Barnacle yes Fisher yes feeling no ping yes McDonald yes yes motion passes six to one Healy voting now thank you very much and now we're on to item number six and I will call on council member McDonald and motion approve uh item number six okay and vice now council member Barnacle second okay so we have a motion and uh by McDonald and a second by barnacle and we have two people who are recusing themselves so we'll have a roll call vote Barrett yes Barnacle yes Fisher yes McDonald's yes okay yes motion passes unanimously with healing and King recused thank you and with that we are on to public hearings and matters for
consideration and this is a public hearing an introduction of an ordinance approving a zoning text amendment of implementing zoning ordinance section 11.040 alternatives to on-site parking and Associated references in section 11.030 off street parking General regulations and section 11.065 power of the zoning administrator director to modify requirements and finding that this action is exempt from SQL pursuant to SQL guidelines sections 15305 and 15601 B3 so with that I will ask our staff member Andrew triple to make the presentation I'm gonna share my skin and I can confirm that you're sharing those obviously so this is a zoning taxidant of the Ico section 11.040 and associated with references public hearing the introduction of coordinates a bit of background about how the this Zone and text amendment has come forward it is a property owner initiate its own text Amendment their job recently after we've enjoy your values of that study initiated so I didn't want to make that point I recently the proper unit that happened in Aluma which was the Adaptive release of the historic silk you know converted into the uh you know the proposing an expansion project to increase the root count from 75 rates to 93.
Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment of Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 11.040 (Alternatives to On-Site Parking) and associated references in Section 11.030 (Off-Street Parking – General Regulations) and Section 11.065 (Power of the Zoning Administrator (Director) to Modify Requirements) and Finding that this Action is Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 and 15601(b)(3) Planning Manager, Andrew Trippel, presented the staff report.
Councilmembers asked questions of staff. Mayor Barrett opened the public hearing. Darren Racusen John Shribbs Mayor Barrett closed the public hearing. Motion to introduce (first reading) Ordinance No.
hey Andrew can I stop you for a second I'm getting feedback like if you want plugged in or no okay how's it oh much better great and so uh the increase of rooms from 75 to 93 would be an 18 room increase in a completely separate building from the silk Mill so so there was no expansion of the historic structure as part of that project the applicant requested a 19 reduction in required parking for the expanded 93 room facility from uh what would be required to be 94 spaces to utilize the existing 77 spaces that were currently part of the facility uh planning staff informed him that a variance would be required for this request and that staff would not be able to make the findings to recommend approval of a variance but another option was to submit a zoning text Amendment application for a city-wide amendment to modify the minimum parking requirements through a discretionary process and so the applicant Perry Patel did submit that zoning text application or zoning tux Amendment application there was a Planning Commission public hearing for discretionary review of the text Amendment and recommendation to council as well as hcpc completed a review of the major historic site plan and Architectural Review application during a public hearing for discretionary review of that item those public hearings were held on November 15 2022 we did that in a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and hcpc during that meeting Planning Commission reviewed the zoning text Amendment only because
that was their purview for that portion of the project and by a vote of seven to zero recommended adoption of the zoning text amendment to council subject to two modifications which I will review then subsequently hcpc then reviewed the Project Specific entitlement major h-spar and by a vote of five to zero approved project-specific SQL exemptions as well as conditionally approved the 19 reduction in required parking and the h-spar request for review subject to adoption of this ordinance so with regard to the city-wide zoning text Amendment zoning tax amendments are governed by chapter 25 of the implementing zoning ordinance and by California government code section 65853 the implementing zoning ordinance provides that Planning Commission May recommend zoning text amendments for approval to city council based on findings that the proposed amendments are in conformance with the city's General plan and consistent with the public necessity convenience and general welfare so to take a step back and give this a bit of context we have local Regional and Statewide context to consider in the spring of 2019 the city council declared a climate emergency to address the adverse effects of climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it adopted an aggressive goal of achieving carbon neutrality by the year 2030 via the subsequently adopted climate emergency framework and corresponding climate ready 2030 initiative uh in doing so the framework recognizes that one of the city's
2830 N.C.S., made by Councilmember Barnacle, seconded by Councilmember Fischer. Vote: Carried 7-0 Yes: Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Barnacle, Councilmember Fischer, Councilmember Healy, Councilmember King, Councilmember McDonnell, Vice Mayor Pocekay No: None Absent: None Recused: None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Barrett adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m., in memory of Josh Baccei and Lucy Kortum.
largest and increasing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions is transportation from gas powered vehicles additionally two goals of the city's 2025 General plan seek to minimize the contribution of greenhouse gases from new construction and to expand and improve Transit and shared Mobility Services to be more accessible and attractive than single occupancy vehicle use continuing on carbon neutrality continues to be one of the city's highest ranked goals and in order to to achieve carbon neutrality we must continue to reduce our dependence on automobiles in part by disincentivizing single occupancy vehicle years and encouraging modal shift to alternative transportation modes and alternative transportation programs additionally in 2022 following a joint study session with Planning Commission MP back city council directed planning staff to explore changes to local regulations including eliminating parking minimums establishing parking maximums and increasing requirements that facilitate active transportation choices this work is ongoing and this amendment would not replace that effort at the regional level we find that a variety of municipalities both large and small have moved to either eliminate minimum parking requirements in their entirety in all or part of their municipalities and this includes Santa Rosa Hillsburg San Jose Alameda Emeryville and several others additionally at the state level various mandates since 2015 reform parking by reducing or eliminating parking
requirements based on locational factors or land use factors the most recent being ab2097 which the governor signed at the end of September this year which would eliminate the minimum parking requirement for any land use within half a mile of a high quality Transit facility with the exception of hotels so with that in mind that context then we take a quick look at the current policy to see how it addresses minimum parking requirements those requirements are established in table 11.1 and a section 11.040 provides for allowed alternatives to achieving the required minimum parking this includes off-site parking parking in a shared common facility valet parking or the implementation of a parking District such as our Downtown parking assessment District however what's important to recognize by uh is that these Alternatives don't allow for a reduction in the minimum amount of required parking they only allow you to to find parking at alternative locations or through alternative sources then as section 11.065 provides zoning administrator approval for for three types of modifications to a minimum required parking the first is to utilize compact parking spaces to achieve the minimum requirement hence no reduction in the number of spaces required it does provide for a reduction in the number of spaces in the case of elderly or retirement home land uses which would be a land use based reduction and then a reduction if the use has available a Common Parking facility and this reduction
is subject to limitations as well as conditional use permit approval so this example is a locational reduction with a discretionary entitlement required so then on to the proposed text amendments uh the uh the proposed amendment would include the addition of section 11.040 d as the amendment and it would set forth two types of adjustments to the minimum amount of required parking the first would be a minor adjustment and a minor adjustment would be allowed when it's a request for a reduction in parking of 20 percent or less it may be approved at the discretion of the director or of the review Authority for Associated project entitlements if it is determined that the reduction is consistent with certain findings and then the next level is a major adjustment and that would be in response to a request for a parking reduction of 20 of greater than 20 percent that may be granted through a conditional use permit reviewed by Planning Commission and uh again Planning Commission would have to determine that the reduction is consistent with certain findings um I want to go back here and just identify a couple of things even the director level approval would still be a discretionary approval and that has been a topic of conversation at a couple of levels this evening a discretionary approval by the directors because the director would be required to make certain findings so anytime we're required to make certain findings that does become a discretionary process uh second the the um the
the process of minor adjustment and major adjustment is relatively consistent with our current process of of considering variances so previously as I noted when I was introducing the Hampton and Expansion Project uh prior to this amendment the only way the applicant would have to reduce the amount of required parking would be through a variance process and it's challenging to make the findings to recommend approval of the variants if you don't have physical constraints to the site and so variances are required to be heard by the director and the director has the ability to refer a variance to the Planning Commission so this is actually sensitive to the variance process and in part reflects it except that it does direct that any request for a reduction greater than 20 percent go to the Planning Commission uh absent the direct the direction of the director so in terms of required findings which are very important and have been crafted very carefully the first is that the applicant has to submit a parking analysis parking demand analysis excuse me for a minor adjustment or a parking demand study for a major adjustment demonstrating that the parking demand for that project is different from the standards specified in table 11.1 so we wanted to differentiate between the parking demand analysis and a parking demand study primarily due to cost a parking demand study is prepared by a professional engineer and that cost could oftentimes um exceed five thousand dollars or more to
prepare a parking demand study and so to be sensitive to uh to that cost for minor projects that may be requesting a a parking reduction of less than 20 percent we have the option of a parking demand analysis they would still have to provide the same information the difference would be in the level of of the uh the professional preparing the analysis or study then the next finding would be that the number of parking spaces approved excluding on-street parking spaces will be sufficient for the safe convenient and efficient operation of the use and this uh this second binding reflects the preference of Planning Commission who asked that the language excluding on-street parking spaces be added to the proposed amendment to um to recognize that existing land uses may have needs from street parking and that that should not be included as a factor in reducing parking spaces and then third the overall project characteristics including location access to alternative transportation modes an incorporation of alternative transportation programs as well as support for reduced on-site parking and Associated City goals policies and initiatives related to climate action enhanced connectivity economic vitality and Community character so these are quite robust findings that would be required to be made through a discretionary process I want to take a quick step back and note that the difference between the minor in adjustment and major adjustment of 20 percent was additionally a request by
Planning Commission to reduce that threshold planning staff had initially uh recommended a threshold of 25 percent and the commission was more comfortable reducing that to 20 percent so then we find that the essential characteristics of the proposed parking reduction policy are that it's demand sensitive and so through the analysis or the study we're looking at the demand for parking for a project uh a specific project rather than making assumptions about that project and basing that that calculation of assumed Demand on general characteristics and then next it's uh it's sensitive to Project Specific characteristics such as location proximity to Transit including a SMART Train as well as public transit by bus as well as walkability and bicycle infrastructure and then the land use itself the nature of the land use and how it may differentiate from what would be expected of the land use and then finally alternative transportation modes or programs that the particular project May employ and then next it's responsive to the scale of the request as I indicated the minor adjustment being less than 20 percent in the major being greater than 20 percent and finally it is discretionary required findings must be made public noticing and review of a majority of the requests would be completed and then the decision is appealable to Planning Commission or to city council Denver Associated references that would need to be modified should the amendment be adopted we would request
modification to section 11.030c to just add reference to modifications by section 11.040 and then to add to a section 11.065 that when a request for a reduction has been approved no further action would be needed so standards for review include consistency with the general plan alignments with goals and policies of the plan as well as noting that the amendment does not change the general character of current zoning regulations that would and it would continue to regulate parking and then in the implementing zoning ordinance that it's consistent with public convenience necessity and Welfare so we found alignment with or implementation of a wide variety of of goals and policies 31 of them in fact with regard to land developments meet long-term Community needs we find that it would support mixed-use development flexible building form intensification of development along corridors in an underutilized sites and it would help applicants innovate in site and building design it would protect and enhance the identity and connectivity throughout our community by encouraging adaptive reuse Rehabilitation and infill development at preferred locations as well as support development and planning for 15-minute neighborhoods finally it would support goals and policies related to air quality improvement and transportation needs it could reduce vehicle usage promote ride sharing and car sharing programs and encourage modal shift and next and finally would increase economic vitality and
opportunity could help to expand existing retail and employment centers support Economic Development investment and encourage those retail and services to support higher residential densities foreign the finding for public necessity convenience and Welfare a zoning text amendments are consistent with the public necessity convenience and Welfare and that the amendment will provide greater flexibility to reduce vehicle-related air pollution increase utilization of non-vehicular Transportation modes and reduce auto-dependent design it would allow for a new review process that creates greater flexibility in achieving parking compliance for a variety of land uses and it would ensure that the reviewing bodies such as the Planning Commission can respond to plant Project Specific characteristics that would reduce demand for partner public comments were received both at the Planning Commission public hearing as well as in advance of this evening's public hearing for the Planning Commission public hearing both written an oral comment by the same commenter expressed concerns at the Hampton Inn project needs more parking and not less a similar concerns were expressed in advance of this public hearing that the parking reductions would support new development and not existing Property Owners or that the required parking demand analyzes may not be as viewed as legitimate if provided by the applicant uh planning staff would like to respond by saying that both quantitative and qualitative
data are required to support the findings through preparation of a parking demand analysis or study typically those are prepared by a licensed professional engineer and second uh Planning Commission requested that the modification be added to exclude on-street parking from consideration and this does reflect a sensitivity and respect for existing land uses in particular residential another concern expressed by the public was the perception that the amendment proposes a ministerial process and no opportunity for higher review by Planning Commission other process in and of itself is a discretionary proposal in that required findings are needed to be made and also the uh the director should the director through the administrative process feel that it's necessary to elevate to hcpc or to Planning Commission they would be able to do that so it doesn't take away any authority of the director to elevate and the next the perception that the public does not have the opportunity to review or comment about the process of course with a public hearing this wouldn't be an issue because we notice public hearings and we hold them in a public meeting format but for administrative decisions which would be made which would be publicly noticed but not held in a public meeting format it is true that the public would not have the opportunity to input other than provide comments to the project planner so we do we would do the same noticing as we do for any discretionary review and then of course
all decisions could be reviewed could be appealed to a higher review Authority should the public disagree with the decision that's made and so with regard to sequa planning staff determined that the ordinance is exempt from sqa based on the following SQL guidelines section 15061b3 uh in that SQL applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment additionally it's not a project and that it's administrative activity with no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment and that any subsequent discretionary review would be subject to sequa and the second exemption is SQL guidelines section 15305 minor alteration to land use exemptions and additionally any application of the ordinance on future projects as I mentioned would require analysis pursuant to sequa and so with that planning division recommends that city council adopt the zoning text Amendment resolution modifying section 11.040 of the implementing zoning ordinance to add a process for minimum parking adjustments to minimum parking requirements subject to certain findings and review Authority approval as well as to adopt modifications to Associated references in section 11.030 and 11.065 to clarify and Implement these changes and then also to find that the action is exempt from sqa pursuant to SQL guidelines section 15305 and 15601b3 and with that that concludes my presentation thank you thank you very much and we'll go to questions from Council Members
starting with council member Fisher thank you very much Madam mayor Angie would you review Once Again the difference between a parking demand analysis and a parking demand study because you just said that either one would probably be done by a professional so I'm not understanding the difference between them and do we have definitions for what's required for each of those and what are the differences I guess sure so the primary difference would be that you know a parking demand study could be done by a civil engineer who may not necessarily do a parking demand study or a parking demand analysis rather could be done by a civil engineer who may not necessarily do a parking demand study we would require that a parking demand study be prepared by a transportation engineer who is licensed and would do that a parking demand analysis would likely we would anticipate be prepared by a design professional or a land use professional but not specifically a transportation engineer so what is the difference between an analysis and a study there would really be no substantial difference they could both consider the same factors location land use project characteristics alternative transportation modes it's really just raising the level of the study too on the individual who prepares a okay um council member Healey thank you so on public noticing um you said that a majority of these requests would be subject to public noticing why not just say all people are suspicious sir and and that is a
recommendation that we're prepared to make to council is that we would add a public noticing requirement that any minor or major adjustment be noticed consistent with Section 24.100 okay thank you and continuing on the same subject is does public noticing consist of posting large signs on the project site or sending letters to people within a certain radius and or legal notice in the newspaper all of the above no we have two different levels of public noticing depending upon the um the level of discretionary review so administrative review uh we mail notice to um Property Owners within 500 feet and we publish in The Argus career but for a um then for a public hearing or for what would be a major adjustment then that would receive the on-site noticing the mailed noticing and the publish I guess you know I think people kind of expect to see the big blue signs now and that's that's been a major Improvement in in our previous practices and and I I I'm leaning towards saying that those should be required here as well so anyway that's my thank you thank you thank you um I had a question uh regarding the uh also about the uh uh parking demand analysis and study I guess uh sort of in that there's a comment in the report that Suburban hotels I think it's in the U.S on average have an average occupancy of 66 percent uh it seemed like that number for this hotel would have been easy to obtain I'm wondering why that that wasn't in here as well or instead so well that's a great question
thank you and I think that points to how when we make those General assumptions to to establish minimum parking requirements sometimes even at the industry level those assumptions miss a key Point uh that that exact Factor occupancy rate was one of the factors that drove the applicant to request the reduction in parking uh you know naturally I think any hotel owner would be excited to achieve a 100 occupancy rate which would then result in a minimum of you know one one car per room especially in a Suburban Hotel but when you when you have hotels downtown and in particular in this case that brought forward the zoning text amendment being adjacent to the Smart Station just down the street from it as well as in close proximity to downtown those locational factors combined with the land use factors to uh reduce parking demand so I think I'm not quite getting it yeah well I guess I was just thinking that I guess I was thinking that they uh um probably did have a lower than 66 percent occupancy and that would strengthen their their case to lower the parking but I suppose you've introduced me to the other aspect of this is they may not want to advertise that their occupancy has only been 32 percent or something well there is that the uh I I realize just now that we did not include the parking demand study that was submitted for the Hampton and hotel Expansion Project we didn't do that because this is a city-wide zoning text Amendment as opposed to Project Specific so we didn't want
to confuse matters however I believe it would have been helpful to have shared the parking demand study to see first how it's constructed but then secondly it does it does address occupancy rates for the Hotel industry and and uh and utilizes data and and Analysis to conclude that it's it's quite difficult to achieve I believe anything over 80 percent sure okay thank you thank you um council member McDonald uh thank you I think some of that came up at the planning Planning Commission review on this and I was quite favorable for it um and voted for it but um it there were certain things that still hung me up about this um one is that the 20 we push down to 20 percent and um 20 percent of 10 units is very different than 20 percent of a thousand units uh so minor at 20 at a thousand that's not the same but um but it still felt like the right place to leave it for for staff um and then um the they I think they did submit a parking uh analysis and they were um and quite happy to share that they had an occupancy of 67 or whatever it was which means that sometimes it's 100 and sometimes it's 32.
and um um but they proved that their studies showed they didn't need the parking which then caused me to think well then is there a climate benefit if they can prove they never needed it and and I believe the way it came out of planning and correct me wrong but it you know even if you knock the um the higher number down the hundred percent down to disincentivize some away from the 100 you're achieving something is that the way you recall that yes sir I mean just trying to prove that this even though they proved there they didn't need it it's still a climate benefit um because it's impact on Peak occupancy um and then this applies to remodel projects as well and expansion projects as well as new and there's the room the remodels could uh provide their own evidential evidence of on-site um instead of Industry standard and that would show up in the in the uh um in the analysis or traffic studies so that that's one distinction between projects and and that came up right correct yes it did um and then the I think if we also talked about that we're in the midst of General Plan update and having the Ico change now helps but it will get another bite at the Apple in in two years right so we felt confident in that that's correct we're very comp conscious of where we are um with the direction to review our parking standards um and of course the study that commenced this summer um to to begin that analysis and we felt that that this was still appropriate uh perhaps an elimination of
parking minimums might be say to expand the Downtown parking assessment district and may not be applicable throughout the city whereas uh to take this approach to create this sort of parking reduction policy tool would be applicable for all land uses throughout the city and would then give review authorities maximum flexibility uh to respond to Innovation and to Project Specific characteristics great thank you I would also if I could uh point out council member McDonald that um as as you as you saw happen at the Planning Commission public hearing even though it was a night a request for a 19 reduction in parking it was still reviewed by hcpc as part of a major h-spar application so when we start to think about as you mentioned 20 being 10 10 spaces versus a hundred spaces or or something you know sort of the magnitude of the reduction I would I would offer that it's likely that a larger a re a request for a reduction that results in a larger number of spaces is also going to be part of a larger project that's being reviewed by Planning Commission by hcpc or even coming to city council for General plan um Amendment or rezoning so council member barnacle oh thank you just really one question there's one mention of economic Vitality in the what's required for the required findings I'm just wondering why we're not um looking more at that as a required finding or to to what degree are you um looking at that or would it be looked at sure well the to to look at economic Vitality
would be to look to the general plan and all of its policies and and goals related to economic Vitality so even though we just have one mention of it in the uh finding C it it directs to look across all of the city's goals and policies that would support economic vitality and revitalization um so I'd like to finish this up with a question about uh there was a mention of neighborhood permitting permit parking to address the impact that it might have on uh local neighborhoods that are located near hotels and um I wanted to you to kind of run through how that might work the city does offer a neighborhood permit parking program I believe it's not heavily utilized but it is available and so what what a neighborhood can do is petition to have that program established to establish the boundaries and then to set up the process for obtaining a permit from the city I believe those are annual permits and then the Petaluma Police Department is then the enforcement agency for that program okay so um that's good but then so if a neighborhood wants to do that um how did they do that block by block how is the neighborhood defined um you know these are these are these are new programs so it's not like there's already an existing neighborhood that can say oh we're the people who would be the permit um affected by this sure well I I think that the you know some neighborhoods are are well defined and named through through time and they have neighborhood associations I think if it was a new
neighborhood that felt that it needed to organize in order to benefit from a permit parking program they could either self-organize or or come to planning Division and we would be happy to help them okay well I'm going to disagree with you about that because there's an existing neighborhood called the Oak Hill Brewster neighborhood but it's much larger than the group that would be impacted by the parking that happens at the hotel Petaluma so um you know which never has had parking so I mean that's already an existing condition there so if that let's just use that as an example if that neighborhood wanted to get permits required um for an existing hotel in an existing condition it wouldn't be the entire Oak Hill Brewster neighborhood because that's just too large an area so how would how would a smaller group do that how would they know what other blocks are they know like my block is affected but how about the block two down or two over well I don't know how how one finds that out how's that determined well that is a great question I I'm not sure I have the answer I I think during the planning review process you know we could look at a quarter mile distance which would be an average walk distance okay that that's a good message so right so we could look at that um you might look at other factors that uh look at the is it major streets or minor streets the majority of the streets in Oak Hill Brewster or minor streets and and there's a fairly high density it's almost
exclusively residential use and that's what Planning Commission expressed was that that they wanted to protect residents to ensure that they had the on-street parking available to them so you know while while a if if there was a commercial use along Petaluma Boulevard North you might not protect the other commercial uses but you might go beyond them into the residential portions and and want to protect a couple of streets well and the silk Mill hotel is a perfect example of a very commercial area and a very residential area right so you know so I guess I'm just saying that while that sounded like a good fix it's really nebulous and so how how that gets defined and and put into play is really important and that probably is a decision that should have public input and happen at a Planning Commission meeting and it occurs to me that we could add that to the um the parking study that's being done you know the work that's being done is directed by Council we could have that as another layer of reviewing those permit parking programs and enhancing them and ensuring that they're clear and accessible okay well if someone makes a motion to that maybe they will add that to that so I'm going council member Fisher and then councilman Haley I just wanted to offer that Heather Heinz has their hand up oh I I can't see that so I rely on the moderator for that I I don't see that so um thank you for that uh call on council member Healey and then we'll go to Heather Hines [Music] okay all right
Mike wants to hear what you have to say Heather before he sure thank you mayor Barrett good evening council members um I just wanted I was pulling up in the background the residential parking permit regulations that we do have adopted in our code and they are very general there is not a specific way of establishing um those districts and it is something that is required to come to council so it is something that I think on a case-by-case basis depending on what the impact is it's specific to residential but we could work with um neighborhoods if that if that was the desired um direction to go to create permanent parking areas and you're calling this program parking areas no I'm just that we do have in our existing Municipal Code a process to establish residential permit parking so if there was a neighborhood that was particularly and we brought up Oak Hill Brewster neighborhood um and and the hotel Petaluma there are ways to create those permit parking to alleviate the impacts of surrounding commercial on residential surrounding residential and it doesn't say there's any one way to define what that residential is um so it could really be designed on a case-by-case basis if that was determined um necessary for those neighborhoods okay thank you very much and I will go back to council member Healey thank you so I do believe the one residential neighborhood that does have the permits requirement at this point is directly across the street from the junior college campus and it's
been there for many years and I think it's been a success um in the Mayors in my neighborhood the hotel Petaluma is inside the boundaries of the old Keller Street Garage assessment District therefore they're not required to provide any on-site parking and they don't um and then they just tell their patrons and staff to park in the neighborhood they don't park in the garage um so you know that's a challenge but you know the other thing and the hotel Weaver and then we've gotten some comment letters on that is is outside the boundaries of of the color Street Garage assessment District so they are going to have to provide on-site parking one way or another if if that moves forward um but the other one that is interestingly inside the boundaries uh is the old Caruthers building now being converted into the headquarters of Amy's um and even though you know technically if you just read our our documents they don't have to provide any on-site parking at all nevertheless the city is working with them because of the major intensification of the use there to have different programs in place that they don't overwhelm um the Downtown parking and I think that might be a precedent that we should pursue within the boundaries of of the color Street Garage assessment District that if there's a significant um intensification of use at an existing site that we do what we did with Amy's and and require that they you know come up with programs for to mitigate the parking impacts in the area
because I I'm just concerned that if you have these accumulation of intensified intensified uses that it's just going to overwhelm the parking situation downtown if you if you're in in downtown on a weekend evening or afternoon at this point you'll notice the golden eagle parking Center parking lot is completely full and I'll bet no more than five percent of those people are patronizing businesses in the golden eagle it's kind of our spillover Municipal parking lot and you know we as a city we want that parking lot to go away and do you know more high-end stuff on more intense use on the site but that's going to be a challenge for us so anyway kind of open the can of worms with this um I'm glad with what you brought forward tonight I do think the public noticing should be strengthened in the ways we discuss but other than that I'm fine thank you thank you so I think we're done with Council questions so I will ask the city clerk if she's received any comments prior to the meeting Madam mayor yes we received four public comments prior to the meeting which I've posted online with the agenda packet okay thank you and we have no one in the um in the city hall who wants to speak to this item so in opening the public hearing on this item I will ask our city moderator if she has anybody in the virtual audience who would like to speak on this item at this time members of [Music] sorry at this time members of the public attending online or by phone should raise their virtual hand or
press star 9 if participating by phone and Madam mayor we do have two members in the virtual audience thank you why don't you go ahead and call on them during recusen I will allow you to speak you can unmute yourself and address the council well thank you for that and I want to thank Andrew and the planning department for incorporating the planning commissions feedback on this text Amendment the one big thing that came up uh in that meeting was also establishing some kind of feedback mechanism and assessment of cumulative impacts when and I think it was determined that this should really be administrative guidance for staff when they are deciding on a major or minor adjustment and you can correct me if I'm wrong um planning manager triple but I believe this would be some form of map that would show in an area how many major and minor adjustments were made and that could be part of the decision making process to make sure we don't have you know 10 major adjustments in the neighborhood I don't know what neighborhood that would be I can't imagine but but anyway just this idea of having some kind of feedback mechanism assessment of cumulative impacts that wasn't too onerous in terms of data collection uh you know you could go all the way to being subjective and interviewing residents of surrounding areas if they felt that the adjustments were you know somehow creating too much overflow and affecting their ability that might be too onerous but at least having a map so staff could
see where these adjustments were made and having that be part of the decision making I may and I just took uh stepped away and came back so that's already been discussed my apologies but I'd love to see that included kind of baked into the administrative guidance of the application it of this text amendment when when staff is making required findings thank you and John trips I'm going to allow you to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and address the council thank you this is John schribs and um I like having the council members start asking more specifics about of concrete examples I always like to hear concrete examples of how this is being used is the example of the hotel that's being used now is very good and looks like it's a worthwhile project what they need to meet there but how else is it going to be used both positively and negatively in the future and by whom so is for example um if it's for the round of Transportation Corps that we have at the train station we have new properties and developments will this allow less parking to be done in the future than what is being required what we required now so it might be a benefit to different type of structures that we would use and parking requirements over at the Target Center could since there's an abundance of parking there that spaces that maybe we'd like to convert over to some other use would this be regulation that's being put forth help that trend transition move forward or at least open it up to make it
easier to transition parking lots in shopping centers and the like to be converted into other structures building structures and the like so and how could it be used downtown by smaller business folks that want to expand out or I'd like to put up a more permanent benches for my restaurant and take up some spaces in my in the small little parking lot I have to do that is will that be passed through and more easily now that we have this rule in place so how's it going to be used and by whom more examples I'd like to hear about coming from especially from the folks the business folks downtown and then once we do the parking and do these restrictions and include all these climate change actions um is there a way of including that when you do do this oh you must provide electric car charging stations as part of your package you must provide more bicycle parking and with with a camera security cameras in place so there's no thefts of the more expensive bicycles that are being used now so can we add in there not just our parking spaces but be more inclusive include electric cars charging and bicycle parking as part of the requirements when this does go into action you do reduce the parking in any which way um so it's just a little larger consideration maybe broaden things out a little bit thank you thank you um is that the last speaker yes that was the last public comment okay we're going to close public close the public hearing but I would like to see if our program manager wanted
to address that last question but I know you need it yes okay thank you sir um and I did want to address Mr brackerson's comment about uh as staff administratively monitoring implementation of the program and uh he is correct we did agree US during the Planning Commission public hearing that staff would be able to collect those data and map them and that that would be a basic sort of level of monitoring that we could do and would be able to implement and maintain uh so that when we do receive a request for parking reduction we could look and see what other reductions may have been approved in the area and does sort of monitor that cumulative impact that may happen should there be a tremendous amount of activity in a certain area so that's no problem with regard to Mr shrib's comments um if if Redevelopment so so the a likely scenario would be Redevelopment of a shopping center to either perhaps add some resident to it in a mixed use format or or expand its retail square footage and through that Redevelopment process they could request a parking deduction they would have to demonstrate though that the parking provided is sufficient for all of the square footage of all of the uses on the site so they they couldn't narrowly analyze just how it how it might affect or how the proposed new use might differentiate in Project characteristics they would have to review the entire site that would be impacted by the proposed reduction so I think that that would be a standard practice and
and would be something that we would typically expect as part of planning review and then how can be it be used in by who it's it's a city-wide proposal and so any at this point in time any land use throughout the city could take advantage of a request for parking reduction and then finally it certainly would be within the purview of the review Authority and making findings to request additional bicycle parking be installed or electric vehicle charging stations so that is one of the um I think benefits of the discretionary review process is that we can drive and pursue other policies through the the review process that we may want to implement thank you very much and I briefly saw Heather Hines had her hand up I don't know if she continues to speak okay well I might be touching on the same thing Eric's about to touch on but I'll I'll start it and and Eric we can tag team a little bit so I wanted to Circle back to the issue of the noticing so the way our noticing currently is adopted into the code is there's one set of noticing requirements for all of the administrative projects so this is the administrative site plan and Architectural Review the minor use permits the administrative historic and cultural preservation or a historic minor administrative historic spa and that is publishing in The Argus Courier sending notices within a 500 foot radius major projects so those are the ones that go to the Planning Commission a major cup a major site plan and Architectural Review um a
subdivision or rezone anything that's going to a public hearing has a different set of noticing requirements and that's mailed notices to a thousand feet publication in The Argus and posting of the on-site sign so we don't require the sign for administrative permits and a lot of that was based on costs and timing of that Edition so when we talk about adding that for these parking reductions the way it's currently set up is if it would be a minor reduction it would be part of uh administrative and notice that way and if it was a major reduction going to Planning Commission or part of a major project it would be noticed going to Planning Commission so I just wanted to kind of clarify those two differences in our code currently thank you for that clarification and City attorney I don't really have anything to add I was going to raise the same thing that the issue of noticing is one that we probably is best looked at holistically because it affects other types of applications not just the ones that are being considered tonight and if they're questions of the council I can work with Heather to address them thank you thank you okay council member Healey I had a another question um so you you got the study you got the analysis you make a decision Planning Commission makes a decision Council makes a decision wherever and then they're off and running um is there ever any look look back um two years five years down the road to see if the right decision was made um and and I have in
mind another decision another situation about a block from the hotel Petaluma since that came up and that's um Brewster's where they are outside the boundaries of the um assessment district for the color Street Garage and and there was a lot of time and energy that went into determining how much off street parking they needed to require and um and and just from my perspective with someone who lives a block and a half away I have to say they do very good business and there are a lot of peak times when I don't think they have adequate off street parking because everything is just done and so is there any true up in in this process that you make a practice of going back two years later four years later and saying yeah this worked no this didn't work and if there isn't if it didn't work what what should be done to bring it back into the kind of compliance we were expecting sure that's a great question and and I think a great example um one of one of the benefits of bringing this Amendment forward at this point in time is because of the ongoing work to evaluate all parking throughout the city and while I don't know that as it would be it would be typical to review and review policy implementation through uh sort of a policy approach probably less so through a development review process but I think certainly we could build into the parking study that sort of long-term monitoring and review because because a lot of the decisions coming out of that work I think would want to be
monitored and be evaluated for success is there any kind of formal monitoring process in place now no no there's not there's not and the and the proposed amendment doesn't include that no right okay I get that but the only the only monitoring we we would do is in response to planning commissions uh requests that we map all of the approvals and monitor them that way so that when we do get a new application and we could go and look at where we've approved previously and um sort of uh be very conscious of potential for over concentration should there be that level of activity I I just think there should be some mechanism if a neighborhood or staff thinks that something is not performing the way it was presented that that can be Revisited if I could counsel um I don't think there's a mechanism right now except for the fact that we're in the midst of our general Plan update which is going to be followed by wholesale implementing zoning to implement that and so I think as we've talked about in regards to some of these other sometimes significant policy changes we're doing now I view it as a little bit of an experimentation time as we're pivoting to address climate change and some of the other things we are housing um that we're going to get to look at again when we do the general plan process now the caveat for that is once there's what we call AFCO vesting which is hard costs under a permit incurred by the applicant on the ground there's vesting so it's not like we can just you
know even in the later General plan process go back and say okay you need 12 more spaces or whatever but we can certainly revisit the policies and also the mechanisms by which we deal with these things because I think still these uh parking reduction objectives as part of ghg production and climate change response are relatively new and I think we'll I mean I'm sure we have some things to figure out still to strike the balances correctly but the general plan process I think will be a help to us to be able to look at some things holistically and revisit some of these questions so if what you're saying is I appreciate that if what you're saying is that once once permission is granted for a certain level of parking we can never revisit that um then that kind of to me means maybe we should err on the side of being more conservative in the assumptions and and the studies that are being presented as opposed to just kind of down the middle I don't know I don't know if there's a way around that well they're um there are going to be competing interests as they're so off as the council is most always weighing in on and it'll be important whether the and you know as staff as as rightly said um discretionary processes are not ministerial processes and that means there's weighing that happens of these competing interests whether by staff or by another body or on appeal before another body so that those are going to be important considerations and um and that that's why it's good that it's
that the process would be discretionary because that that can be weighed and and when there's at a minimum even I think the recommendation by staff is even at a minimum for the administrative determinations they're still going to be noticed is that that's right so there so there will be a chance for competing views to be brought forward and I I know staff are going to be looking at them anyway even if that doesn't occur okay thank you um and then and then going back to the the noticing thing so I understand the distinction that Ms Heinz was making um can we still say that all of these requests would be publicly noticed one way or the other yes as opposed to the majority so um if they're not already noticed I I would anticipate that a lot of the requests are going to come as part of another discretionary entitlement application whether it's Spar or or cuc so um there we would anticipate that a majority of them will already be noticed but by adding that language in to require noticing of any um decision to approve a parking reduction then we would capture those few that may come forward but not otherwise require discretionary okay that's great thank you hey council member barnacle thank you for the staff report and all of the explanation and discussion um I think this really just sort of uh demonstrates The Tipping Point where we're at for me because we absolutely want to be intensifying uses I long for the day when we're at 100 parking occupancy because that probably means
that our businesses are thriving um so and you know I just think it [Music] um we need to be looking I appreciate what um council member electribs mentioned about bike parking and other just thinking about TDM um I think AV charging is you know is a great and kind of a no-brainer and probably any hotel is going to need it but you know micro Mobility Solutions coming from a hotel that that's that's that close to downtown I mean if we really want to try and shave trips it's like the ideal location but um if it's not safe for people to get downtown from there um you know they're going to drive and then they're going to be taking their their traffic right down D Street and creating more congestion so um if we want to be you know really thinking about where we need to go this is just you know to me more you know like we can't put our feet in both both sides of the fence here we need to go all in on something um I think everybody knows where I stand on this stuff but um absolutely in support of this honestly I wish this we would make it simpler and get rid of parking minimums we had six out of seven council members say that they supported getting rid of parking minimum so I'm not sure why we're here with multiple phases and tears of that when we had like clear direction from the council um saying to just go with parking minimums and maybe that's a question of why did we give clear Direction and it come back with this sort of like tiered approach well I if I could respond to that so
I think that the clear direction is still being still being worked on we're still in the process of developing that approach and there will be more policy coming forward with that regard this this amendment came forward as a property owner-initiated Amendment and so we are responding to that application for zoning text Amendment and creating this parking reduction policy in response to that so while it's while it's a city-wide zoning text Amendment because it couldn't be Project Specific we are responding to to that application while the the parking study and work that Council has requested is continuing to move forward I hear that and I also just the the dueling factions I think on the council are pretty clear right now um I just feel like in terms of Staff time and optimizing the use of Staff time and getting things done like if we're gonna move forward on something to just rip the Band-Aid off and get it done um I feel like we're kind of taking a half a step forward instead of a full step forward um and so that to me is what's you know most frustrating about this is that we're we're not really fully fully putting ourselves through it there's a lot of uh what ifs how could this be used and things like that and um those are all right questions to ask but for me um the real questions are um how do we roll out permit be ready to roll out permit programs in a more meaningful way how do we be ready to um offset vehicle trips and congestion from you know wind intensities really
or when uses really do get intensified like those are the questions that we need to be answering and right now we're sort of waffling between um 20 or 25 percent how much is going to be super saturated these sorts of like unanswerable questions that sort of lead us to fear and conservatism when we know where we need to be going and we've given direction that that's the where we want to be going so um like I'm going to support this but it feels like um a bit of wasted time to be quite honest that we're here not approving an elimination of parking minimums instead of like uh what we're here talking about tonight so um that's my comment with that I'll move the item okay we have a motion from uh council member Barnacle that I'm going to go on to council member Fisher I'll go ahead and second the motion um and I have two things two questions um in terms of granting approval for either a minor or a major um adjustment um what are the limitations on the kind of conditions of approval that we can impose on those permits I I would I would turn to um the City attorney to confirm but I don't think we would have any limitations uh oftentimes we want to be careful that we don't programmatically condition a project because it is difficult to monitor programmatic implementation but we could do that so for instance to require that they engage with a car share right would be a program or a bike share or put in more bike parking yeah and and it would actually be beneficial I think to have some
support for bike sharing car share locally to drive some of those I would say not disagreeing with Andrew's answer at all but the findings are gonna there's gonna have to be Nexus to the findings so that in a way that's a limit and if I just quickly respond to council member barnacle um the council direction is clear the challenge that we have right now it that's sort of in the background of my earlier comments is we're not really in the core General plan discussions and with all that information that we're going to have for that so that's why we're doing what I think is rightly being perceived as creeping toward the direction because it's it's pretty that's a pretty big change in terms of potential SQL impacts and other impacts and and again the policy desire is clear we're moving in that's guiding Us in the interim and I think we're going to be in a much stronger place to really address those policy desires when when we're really doing that because just just walk me through the potential sequel impacts of re eliminating parking minimum city-wide like I mean what are the what are the the secret impacts that I'm overlooking here that we couldn't get get past tonight that somehow this this policy gets passed but the other one doesn't when the state's just completely eliminated parking minimums around Transit with the exception of hotels and almost certainly fewer parking spaces probably means fewer vehicle trips probably fewer vehicle miles traveled I'm just like it to me this
like um and when we talk about planning preparing for the general plan process and inching our way there um the whole conversation tonight has been around or you know at the Planning Commission was around 20 or 25 and these little things um instead of the programmatic approaches that councilmember fisher just raised that's where I want everybody to be talking about is this how are we going to actually alleviate these trips not what is the right threshold by which it's made administratively or not um because I want as many people staying in hotels as possible and I want us to think about how once they're here that they don't use cars well I think again I'm not I'm not trying to be debating policy but what I'm trying to say is to to my thinking those are city-wide circulation issues that we need to address in terms of Citywide you know the traffic element for example in the general plan and and how it works in the in the regions of the city you know the in the in the downtown and and the impacts that it has you know I and and that is not the prep work that was done yes I I saw your hand come back okay I didn't want to interrupt the City attorney but since you have that's okay sorry that's all right um I just want to kind of put a little bit of context because it this was one of the things that we did talk about at Planning Commission this in no way is trying to distract from the work with what we're doing with a comprehensive parking update I understand maybe it isn't moving as
quickly um you know councilman Barnacle we are working on it we're working on it hand in hand with what we're doing for a TDM ordinance so we're also actively working on that working with fair and peers having regular meetings talking about that and we're also trying to to um combine what we might do with private parking regulations and what we're doing with public parking and Transit and active Transportation so we're really trying to not look at things in isolation and recognizing how much all of those things work together to create what we're what we're trying to do and so we're working on all those pieces currently this came up more quickly uh you know a a project um that was asking for this amendment for the hotel expansion and staff viewed this as a way where we could open up some flexibility in the interim while we're figuring out and working on those other pieces thank you for that and um okay uh Kevin McDonald sure uh thank you I appreciate the councilman Barnacles perspective on this and and I think that um I'm really enjoying the conversation because I think what we're doing is workshopping something we're communicating with the public on this and and advertising that the other is coming down the road and figuring out all kinds of wrinkles that we didn't see or didn't talk about previously uh at planning we did um say about the silk Mill since that was the case in point that night um that they have a wine bar in there and they have other amenities in there that are
not allowed for public because of parking constraints but if we remove parking constraints now they're wine bar is another facility in the in in the city to use it's it's another place for a rotary breakfast or other uh convention type Gatherings and there's more to talk about on this and more to kind of work through on this and so I'm kind of glad that we're getting one shot at this and then bring Bring It Around to policy at a later Point does this does this right here this this ordinance that we're doing tonight is it going to open their facility up to be used for their wine bar to be used or is it still to have the same it was prohibitions if you will the um it was good to see planning have something of a checklist for how they intended to approach this and so that came up as conversation that it didn't change any on-site use in in the in this conversation but when we get to parking minimum I'd I'd be asking that question right away this is do they have uh entitlement to change their on-site uses because of a constraint that was from a prior um you know zoning consideration and I and I don't know if we want to answer that tonight we're waiting for the the bigger policy to roll through yeah I guess I just I feel like there's so many blessings that come with eliminating parking minimums and getting the regulatory hurdles out of this mess like and this is just another example that's a great example council member thank you thank you so um I think that's the uh there's a
motion on on the floor we have closed the public hearing uh we there's a second by um Fisher the first is by uh barnacle and um I think we will get a roll call vote unless anyone wants to say anything more I'm not saying anywhere is their hand so we'll ask our clerk to go ahead ferret yes Barnacle yes Fisher yes really yes King yes McDonald yes that's okay yes motion passes unanimously thank you and thank you for a good discussion on this item um for some more to come I'm sure and so with that we will uh be a journey and we will adjourn in the honor of Josh Bocce and Lucy cordum good evening