City Council - Regular Meeting

Everybody, uh, we're calling to order our, uh, December 3rd, 2025 meeting of Sonoma City Council. Uh just want to let everybody know the process for public comments. For public comments that are on items not related to tonight's agenda, we take 10 people um at the beginning of the meeting. They each have two minutes each. And then if there's more than 10 people that have a comment not related to tonight's agenda, then at the end of the meeting, we will we can take additional public comment. But we do that to make sure that we get through the items that we need to discuss while we're all still awake. So, moving forward. Uh, so we've called to order. I ask everybody as you're able to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City clerk bar, would you take the role for us? Thank please. Council member Gurnie here. Vice Mayor Willander. here. Council member Dean here. Mayor Fivas here. Thank you. And we can let the record show that council member Low is absent this evening. Yes. Thank you. Um and and also we did not have a closed session. So we have no report on a closed session. And now I will ask um the council to see if anybody has any changes they'd like to make to the agenda. and if not ask for a uh approval of the agenda. Mo a motion.

I move to approve tonight's agenda. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor? I I All right. Um so now we will open it up uh for comments from the public for items that are not on tonight's agenda. Anybody that would like to make comment for an item not on tonight's agenda, you may uh come to the podium. And I'll give you a second, but it appears as if we do not. Yes, Claudia.

Thank you. I just want to meet that translating for. So for those who speak English, please I have to translate. request that there is a little pause between not big small pause will do but uh there might be if there are some public comments in Spanish then I will then translate them in English as well

all right thank you very much thank you Claudia we're very happy that you're here with us tonight so um wow no public comment I I'm I'm befled of what to do next here we go so now at this point we're going to go and see if there are Any meeting dedications? Anybody have any meeting dedications this evening? No. All right. Uh, and now we're going to go to council member reports and comments. Do we have reports and comments? Yes. Vice Mayor Willander.

I'll keep this short. Uh, and some of them will be repeated undoubtedly. had the opportunity to take in the uh the tractor parade and and it was a hoot and I was very impressed with the turnout and I think it was excellent and also had the opportunity along with my cohorts to be present at the lighting of the palm tree at the plaza which again was fun and reminded me that Sonoma is special. Um, committee-wise, I was asked to participate in the zero waste Sonoma meeting last week, and the topic was whether or not the board wanted to move forward and ask staff to put together a letter to uh uh to I guess outlaw the use of artificial grass on on athletic fields. And I believe the and you can confirm it uh that I believe the direction was to have staff write a draft. So that's uh coming up for discussion. And lastly, and it's not uh directly city related other than the fact that the Rotary and others put on another phenomenal Thanksgiving meal at the vets on uh Thursday. Again, it reminds me of how special we are in Soma in in giving. and I was not able to attend, but I did some vegetable chopping on Wednesday and that's it.

Very good. Follow. Yes. Uh, Council Member Gurnie.

All right. I need to uh enhance Vice Mayor's comments because I actually witnessed him in the kitchen scrubbing pots and pans, which is normally what I do. And they served over 600 dinners. And additionally, everybody that's up here this evening, I'll just uh attended the community breakfast uh for the Chamber of Commerce this morning and we received um a couple of updates. One from John Stout, the airport manager um at our Santa Rosa airport and um lots of good things happening up there. Um, and then, uh, we had a presentation about the Sebastiani property from JJ Abodili. And then, uh, we met the new CEO, president of Sonoma Valley Hospital, Kelly Kaiser. And, uh, it was a good good little breakfast meeting. Lots of good information and, um, lots of good things happening. Thank you.

Fly out of Santa Rosa. Council member Ding.

Thank you, Mayor. uh the la November 20 I was attending zero no waste so no the meeting and good thing is wrong both of us the representative I'm primary he is the you know alternative we work very well for sure we don't miss any in the meeting to represent our beautiful son uh The little bit things I want to share with you guys. Zero waste sonoma issued a green and award some the recognition for the great performance for and recology sonoma and the marine. Yeah. As you know the general manager current general manager is Logan Harvey. He used to sitting in the the city council and really change a lot of thing for the local politics. right now he continued to serve our community but in a different area. Recology Sonoma and Marine uh that is the largest and the waste treatment facilities in North Bay and couple of years ago they invest three or4 million dollars updated lot of equipment. They have the huge capacities to you know the the take care those kind of the waste but right now they just only have the one shift. Yep. Possibly they have the three shift shifts. Uh this is number one. Number two and that is the yeah the wrong already mentioned

and uh zero waste want to uh you know pass the ordinance to stop using artificial curve and the minor concern is because is a water also the issue because at the beginning the why and we are using artificial on the curve that is the watering the natural grass. But however and make a comparison natural gas or natural grass and uh artificial grass a lot of the environment issues we need to conserve and the cost and the health these kind things. So that also uh this why right now we needed to and consider this issue because as a state passed the AB 939. Yeah, we should got it uh to be a compliance conform and with the state law. So we unanimously approve and recommended the staff the board and uh by the and also the local task staff and to do the more research and then for the next year it will take the two or three month and send back to our board to see how we can bend and artificial curve. I look at our websites, we have program so-cal cash for grass program. The maximum is the $1,000. Uh this program still isn't available for all the local residents. But I look

at and for the artificial curve uh if you are using this and we're disable we're disqualified for you take this credit. I think that is easy for us to carry out the the new ordinance for and stopping artificial curve. Yeah, that is my report. Mayor, thank you.

Thank you very much. I will be quick because there's a several dittos of things that I attended as well as other council members. Uh but I did on um November 21st attend a meeting uh uh with the Sonoma Index Tribune with our city manager and also Joanne Brown. Uh and Joanne Brown, I think it's she's on our local library board and she's also a member of our Sonoma uh uh Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission, but she was very concerned just about the transitions happening um at the Press Democrat and the Index Tribune with them being purchased by uh you know a private company, basically a hedge fund. But we had a great meeting with their editors and their staff. There was uh four people showed up for the meeting as well as the three of us. Um they they we walked away from the meeting I think most of us feeling quite good about the situation. uh the one of the statements that were made and I'll do it in quotes that it was a statement made that uh they felt that you know the paper edition of the Sonoma index Tribune would not go away within the next 10 years and that they are really focused on trying to have local stories in the index tribune and the press democrat uh the new editor there uh Maria McCain um we were I felt very assured she is really kind of an old school editor of paper and digital newspapers and really committed to local news. And she said that the company that bought them is committed to local news as long as they meet their numbers. And from what they said, they were they're getting many many more digital customers and they're they're meeting their numbers. So, you know, I think it was a very it was a very encouraging meeting and they really

encouraged people to contact them with comments or if you have stories and so it was a good that was a very very uplifting um meeting. Um and then I also attended a meeting on that same day of Sonoma Clean Power has a citizens advisory commission and we're in the process of we had candidates for uh two two positions. Um um they roll the positions roll over on a regular basis. Um so it's a four-year commitment I believe. And so it's a it's if you are if people that are interested in uh public utilities, if you're have engineering experience, it's a great way to become involved by sitting on the advisory commission. Um and so and those positions every year, I think it's every year or every other year at least positions open up. So just so people are aware of that to keep your eye on that um because their voices from that advisory commission are people really pay attention the board does and so does the staff to what their recommendations are. Um and then just that ditto on the lighting of the plaza and uh the the tractor parade. Um so it was a great nice busy holiday weekend. I will just say that I was the tractor parade. The number of people that were there was really quite amazing and people thought it was I heard a lot of comments they thought it was short but we had my understanding we actually had more tractors. This was the largest tractor. This is our only third year so the third and the largest. So anyway it's a great event. So moving moving on. So, now I'm going to move and see if we have any comments u or updates from our city manager, uh David Cuan.

Great. Thank you, mayor. And I'll add on to that. Uh thank you to the staff, the nonprofit groups, and the public for helping make both the tree lighting and the tractor parade so successful this year. Um but it's not done yet. We still have more events, holiday events coming. Um on this Friday, December 5th, that's on the plaza, we'll have Santa will be coming to the plaza. Uh and then on following right after Santa's done, there'll be hoola on uh hoola for the holidays at the amphitheater. So you can stick around for that. And then on Saturday, we'll have the snowmo hometown band holiday show at the amphitheater. So a lot more to come, a lot more holiday events and hopefully you can enjoy some of that those. Um another update, the tw 2026 a holiday nominations are open. So if you are interested in nominating somebody for the 2026 a call day, uh you can visit our website city.org. org. Uh the deadline is 5:00 pm on January 7th and those uh nominations come to me. There's information on the website on how you can send those to the city. Um on tomorrow, actually December 4th is the Sonoma Art Walk first Thursday. So um we had great success last month last month and uh looking to see people out there again. Um, and then a news release just went out that uh we are excited to announce that the city and the cultural fine arts commission has selected it lemon as the city of Sonoma's 2026 treasured artist of the year. So, we're very excited uh to acknowledge her um and going to see her um how we're going to acknowledge her throughout the year in 2026. Um, and finally, um, just because, uh, I'm here, I'm going to, uh, give a shout out to our my stepdaughter, Diana, who's celebrating her 17th birthday right now and tonight. And I'm sure she's watching like all 17-year-olds. So, happy birthday. Um, and, uh, that's all I have. Thank you.

Yeah. And now we'll move on to see if our uh, city attorney, David Vudman, has any birthday announcements. No birthday announcements this evening. Thank you. And so no other announcements here. Okay, good. Okay, that's good. All right, so now we're going to move on to the consent calendar. Um, do we have any uh questions or anybody that would uh like to pull an item from the consent calendar? No, we don't. We're moving right along tonight. So, now we're going to move to item nine, our regular calendar. Oh, public comments. Sorry. Public comment public comment on the consent calendar

and then we'll and then we'll seek a motion to approve Yes. Yes. All right. See things are moving so fast tonight. It's like I'm just like rolling with it. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved. Second. All right. All those in favor? I I.

All right. Now we are going to move on to item number nine. Eight. Where am I? Public hearing. There we go. You're right. Thank you. Thank you. Keep me moving the right direction here. Um and so what we're going to do as a public hearing is in regards to adopting an ordinance repealing chapter 14.10 of the Sonoma Municipal Code and reenacting a new chapter 14.10 10 adopting new administrative provisions and adopting by reference parts 1 through 12 of the 2025 California building standards code and local amendments. This is something that we have to conduct a hearing on every year. So I will hand it over every two years. Three

every three years. All right. Maybe we should do it every year. No, here we go. Back to Jennifer. Jennifer um Gates, our community direct development director, is going to present this item.

All right. Thank you, mayor and city council members. Um so before you tonight, um we did come for the ordinance for the construction code adoption. We did come before you on November 19th and introduced this ordinance. um answered some of your questions that night and um also reminded you guys that based on this type of regulation, we do have to have a second public hearing um during its adoption hearing. So that's why we're here tonight having a second public hearing. So the proposed ordinances include all the previously included amendments unless the state code um matched our prior amendments and as well as a few additional amendments that were permitted. um under the AB130. So if you remember AB130 limited our ability to modify the state approved building code to um increase any kind of restrictions that would impact residential specifically residential development. So, at that November meeting, um, city council had asked staff some specific questions and we provided some answers and then also we provided some additional responses um in the staff report that was provided to you on a certain um a few topics. So, as a reminder again, this is we do need to have a public hearing. So with that, staff is recommending to open the public hearing and also to um adopt the proposed ordinance and read the title in its entirety. Um the fire marshal Trevor Smith as well as our building official um Joey Teignor I said Joseph Joey um our building official he is online. So if you do have any questions for the building official we can bring him in through Zoom. So with that, if you

before we open the public hearing, I'll just take it to the council to see if anybody has any additional questions. Okay, good. So at this point, I will open the public hearing um and then ask anybody that would like to make a comment regarding our adoption on repealing chapter 14.10 10 of the Sonoma Municipal Code and reenacting the new chapter to come to the podium if anybody has any comments. All right, give them just Yep. Nobody is approaching. All right. So, at this point, what I will do is close the public hearing. Um, and then I will ask uh council at this point if they have any comments or discussion they would like to make. Yes,

some questions if I could. Yes. Um, I will reopen the question period for

Thank you. Appreciate that. of this particular item. The greatest concern I have right now is the uh the new requirements for the Cal Fire hazard um fire hazard severity maps and what is associated with that regarding the uh the new requirements for creating or hardening off our our homes. Um, I recognize that we passed or supported the fire maps that came before us and we I don't think we actually had much of a choice. So, I don't want to suggest that we were negligent, but we just had to adopt them without any question. In looking at them, I see that uh about um let me think about 35% of our city limits fall within what is called the very high hazard zone. about 8% and these are eyeball guesses 8% high hazard 15% moderate and 42% not in a fire hazard zone which is good I have great concern about the implementation of these and recognizing that we are handcuffed but I believe that there may be an opportunity for some local discretion I think it's paramount that we are we clearly understand how these new regulations are going to be implemented. How is it going to be enforced and and uh and to what degree are we going to be living in more of a gray sector of discretion or if this is truly going to be a black and white world. So, I would love to hear a little bit if possible about uh the vision from the fire

profession on the city as far as how they envision uh educating the community, implementing these new restrictions and what the fallout might be because as I believe I shared back in November, I have great concern about creating a Phoenix, Arizona look in our town of Soma. So, um with that, I would love to hear some comments. Good evening everyone, mayor, council, vice mayor Wellander. Um, so today the issue at hand or what we brought what we're bringing for the ordinance is our local amendments to the new state laws. Um, the codes that you're referring to may be two-phase. So I'll try to answer your question the best that I can. Uh, one of the building standards, uh, is the WOOI code or wildland urban interface code and that does have some correlation to the fire hazard severity zone maps. Um, we're not amending that or changing that in any way. Uh, we're just taking the state law that they gave to us. We have the choice to make it more restrictive. We've opted to make no changes to that um, from the fire department. How the maps come into play in relation to the wildland urban interface code is for new construction um homes in the very high and this may be a question for the building official too uh because that office regulates the construction standards so if I speak out of turn I hope that Mr. Tiger will correct me, but in the very high and potentially the high fire hazard severity zone, new construction would have to comply with what we used to call chapter 7A in the building code, but now it's the WOOI code standards. Things

like class A non-combustible roofs, non-combustible siding, closed sophets, these types of things that prevent a home from igniting. I would say for the most part, new construction in our community has done all those things on their own. Um, so I don't think it's going to pose a big change. Now, the question I can't answer in relation to that is what is the trigger for remodels and new additions. And what I believe it to be is if you replace your roof and you're in one of those fire hazard severity zones, you replace it with the new class A roof. Now, there is a pointer in that law that talks about vegetation management, and I think that's what you're getting at. For new construction and existing construction, we can, as the fire department, apply what's called public resource code 4291, which is a set of regulations that have been in existence for, and don't quote me, but many, many years. and they were designed to protect the wildland environment from catching on fire when I catch my house on fire. So they were designed with these 30 feet and 100 ft of defensible space. Um we're already enforcing those standards in the city. So you should see no change in the environment. Now if a new housing development was to go in, we would ask that they plant accordingly but not drastic changes. Now, there is new regulations that's not related in any way to tonight's discussion on the building standards, but the state of California, Governor Nuomo, um, by legislative action wants to create something called zone zero or the non-combustible zone around a house. 4291, the law I mentioned that will go into effect within the city limits in those high and very high areas, uh, only talks about third the first 30 feet and

then 100 feet or to your property line. you don't go to your neighbors and do yard work for them. So, don't be scared about that. Um, this new regulation that potentially comes out in January would again be for new construction and then they say retroactively in three years we could enforce it throughout the totality of the area. Um, like you and many of the people in this room, we don't want to change the environment of Sonoma. We want it to be the way it is, but we do want homeowners to be safe. Um, the flat lands of Sonoma are not our concern from a wildfire perspective. We're going to focus our areas on those true urban interface zones where homes are adjacent to or in within the slopes of the mountains. That's primarily where our focus is going to be. I can't speak for the insurance industry and how they're going to choose to regulate who they provide insurance to, but from our standpoint, we want to focus on the most hazardous areas within our communities. Um, and in the in our fire district, there's very little of that within the city limits of Sonoma. And I hope I answered your question.

Yes, you didn't. Thank you very much. So, um, something that will be of interest at some point when it is fleshed out will be what I call that spring point of compliance relative to a dollar volume of remodeling or whatever. Uh, I will be interested in that. Um, and and the idea that we we're kind of having an ease in period, the three-year retrofit type or that I I love that idea. Um I not unlike other professions there in my research and in my interviewing with various professionals there is disagreement with what uh some of the uh requirements have come out as and that doesn't surprise me because that's pretty typical with professionals but unfortunately I'm I'm again hoping that um that there will be some uh discretion placed upon um consider some some considerations such as the ground plane and such as the again this is dear to me in terms of as a landscape arch that is just the the sheer concept of what appropriate planting is and I won't repeat my thoughts about the current landscape at the fire station but I'm just saying that it's something that if we really want to get community buy in on what I call the critical areas, which would be zone zero or what have you. I I think we need to again want to uh be smart, but in my opinion, not be too draconian on that. So, um, anyway, um, my last comment, and it'll be something for discussion between you and staff, and that is I think at some point it won't hurt to have a community meeting where the whole focus is on what this hardening process is all about and how

it might be implemented and how it uh might impact or uh involve people. I think uh our community communication is huge and we certainly are very mindful of the uh unfortunate events of the last 10 years. So we are sympathetic and supportive of our first responders and we certainly want to u work with you on that. So um and it is again just this is more of a rhetorical comment. I'm I'm disappointed in in what has come out in the sense of these new rigs because it seems like it's given the insurance companies an off-ramp to not want to uh renew policies and that's very uh disappointing and something that I wish more thought would have been brought into the idea of well what might be some of the unintended consequences but um thank you for that explanation. I will sleep better tonight. I will probably wake up a couple times, but I will sleep better. So, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

So, just a quick comment. Uh there when I attended the last Sonoma Valley uh citizens advisory commission meeting, there was um an organization called Unity Policy Holders uh came and did a great presentation and they were established after the 2017 fires really to help people uh work with the insurance companies. and their website has uh a lot of information of suggestions of what you can do to really help you ahead of time uh to you know if if your insurance is challenged you know what you can do at this point uh you know I'm not going to get into whether it's you know like the the um you know whe whether what the insurance companies are doing is right or wrong at this point we're having to people are you can do that I'm people are having to deal with it. And just from a financial point of view for people that want to protect, you know, look at how are you protecting yourself if someone is trying to take, you know, increase your insurance, you know, what they have, they can they have great suggestions of the key things that you can do. And also the fire department is uh comes out and will do checks to your property uh and help you say, you know, like, you know, how are you what are the what are the best practices? So moving. Did you have any other do we have any other comments in regards to the codes? Yes.

Um I want to support we adopt this similar new and code and also I want to say that thank you for all the staff and fire department. You spend a lot of the time and translate it from the general language from the community language to professional language because uh this is an updated that is you just mentioned the three years that is in a timely manner and because if we don't have this kind updated uh we should use the state and the code and you know in this way and the local interests on the residents interest could not be fully represent. Thank you again.

Do do I have a motion? Was that a will you formulate that as a motion or do Yeah, I have to read by title. Do I have a motion?

Okay, I would like to make an emotion. Okay. City Council uh City Council to adopt an ordinance repealing the chapter 1410 of the Sonoma Municipal Code and enacting the new chapter 14.10 10 adopting the new administrative provisions and adopting by references part one through the 12 of the 2025 California building standards code and the local amendments.

Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Uh, could you take please a roll call for this? Council member Gurnie. Yes. Vice Mayor Willander? Yes. Council member Dean. I. Mayor Ferrar Rivas. I. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously with one council member absent.

Thank you. Now we're going to move on to number nine. And we have Jennifer with us again. Thank you, Jennifer, for being here. you really help us understand some of these things that can become quite complex. So, uh we're moving into 9.1 and this is a study session just to be clear what we're here tonight. We're not here tonight to make decisions. It's we're still in the study session portion of addressing the issue um of um options for mobile home park closures and conversions under the city of Sonoma Municipal Code and recent legislative changes under AB 2782 and SB 610. And so tonight is for us to gather more information, give direction to the staff and then in early next year we will bringing be bringing back a final recommendation of the language that we would want to adopt and then at that time we'll have another meeting to discuss that and to uh finalize or not finalize.

There we go. Madame Mayor, if I if I may, just for the benefit of the public, uh because council member Low is absent today, uh she did ask that we inform the public that she's going to be recusing herself from the mobile home uh park conversion and closure ordinance discussion because her personal residence is located within 500 ft of a mobile home park. So, she will not be involved in any decision making related to this matter. Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving forward. Thank you.

So, Jennifer Gates, community, yes, community development director. Thank you, mayor and city council. So on November um the 5th 2025 this year, the city council held a first study session to discuss the legal and the procedural requirements for the mobile home park closures and conversions under our current municipal code and also legislative changes under AB 2782 and SB610. At that meeting, staff provided the requirements that are under our code as well as um our existing closure and conversion process as well as the updates needed to comply with state law. Tonight, staff is looking for direction from the council on any revisions to our existing ordinance. So, why are we doing this? There's two reasons. one uh we did have some uh comments and correspondence um with what will the tri park committee um for our representing our mobile home um owners as well as residents and also we do have a program within our housing element it's number 11 that we would comply with state law and make those necessary updates to chapter 9.82 82 which um pertains to our mobile home closures and conversions. In the city of Soma, we have just as a reminder three mobile home parks with over 450 units in Moon Valley, Pueblo Serena, and Soma Oaks. And these units are recognized for providing an important source of affordable housing within our community. At the last study session, staff again discussed the required minimum standards based on our state law that will need to

be addressed within a future ordinance. The state law that you see uh on the slide um in front of you right now is what provides the city discretion to enact more stringent standards and or specify how to implement the ordinance. Um under the law in comp in the compliance options matrix that staff provided with the staff report. It has the current code, our state law, the proposed ordinance provided by the mobile homeowners and residents. again that trip park committee ordinance and options for consideration to begin discussion. These are divided into key areas. These main topic areas were replicated in the jurisdictions examples matrix that was also attached to the staff report where staff um summarized processes and standards for comparison purposes. So I will go through these key areas and some policy options for your consideration tonight. Then after public comment, staff will revisit these slides to discuss these key questions again. So the first question um before you is really u more of a general topic area. So, as we know, um the mandatory relocation impact report is something that's already in our existing code. So, any person that is applying for a change of use um or to close or cease operations of a mobile home park must file this report with the city manager. The tripart committee ordinance contains more specificity regarding what is required in this report and also within a relocation plan. The example ordinances provide a range of level of specificity while the city is more general in some instances. Staff did not go into each difference but is

requesting policy direction on the level of specificity desired by council. What is contained in that report? The next topic um is in regards to the notification and timeline. staff is looking for direction on if the city should have additional noticing and/or extended periods of time, who at the city will take the lead in processing an application, and if a permit should expire. Based on state law, the city will be updating the current requirement that the mobile home owners and residents receive the reloc the um the report at least 60 days before the hearing. The city can increase this period of time or modify any other deadlines and noticing periods um including if a noticing must be sent to mobile home owners before an application is submitted. The jurisdiction examples and the tripart committee ordinance provide a variety of noticing um timelines for pre-application or before a public hearing as well as post hearing. Currently, the city manager is responsible for implementing the application review process. However, most jurisdictions do identify the planning or community development director as the lead to process these applications. In addition, most jurisdictions have a period of time for the permit to be executed before expiring in an extension procedure to extend that permit. The city currently does not have a standard period for um this uh uh execution of this type of uh approval. However, we do have a standard period for development permits in Soma of 2 years. So the next topic is in regards to relocation and payments.

The state law states that a replacement and relocation plan that adequately mitigates the impact upon the ability of the displaced residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park is to be provided within the report. Some jurisdictions provide more detail on what is to be included in that relocation plan and provided as part of the report. The city's ordinance just states that one will be provided with a timetable. Some jurisdictions and the Sonoma Tri Park Committee ordinance require the owner to pay for a housing specialist to help prepay this relocation plan as well as to assist the homeowners and residents in relocating. To assist park residents with relocation, the city currently requires that the report include a po list of potential housing specialists. In the city's ordinance, there's also a section that discusses discusses potential relocation assistants that are paymentbased assistance. There is no direction as to when this assistance would be paid. There is also no specific assistance geared towards assisting lowincome and/or disabled households which some jurisdictions have included. Another aspect of the tripart committee ordinance proposes that comparable parks to be identified up to a distance of 20 miles or in Soma or Napa counties and of similar cala's cal envirro screen. Um this is a um map a GIS map that is available um online and that provides this score. Currently the city's code states comparable parks are only those in Soma County. So staff is looking for direction on the level as specificity to include in a relocation as well as some of the details that identified on this slide.

The next is in regards to our review procedures and finding. The state laws are silent on most of the review procedures and findings other than that the approval must be by a legislative body um and and a finding in regards to housing availability. Currently, the city states that the report is to be provided with a change of use request. The Tri Park Committee ordinance requires a special use permit to be considered concurrent with the required development approvals or an additional finding is required in the instance that no development is concurrently proposed. The example jurisdictions provide a variety of treatments um from the developments that must be heard after the closure request to allowing development agreements concurrently with the close of request. The city requires approval by the city council along with most jurisdictions. However, the city council can identify the planning commission as the approval body. This would allow for an appeal process to city council. A few jurisdictions and the tripart committee ordinance allow for a decision to be made after the close of a public hearing, but within 60 to 90 days. The city's current wording is that conditions may be necessary to mitigate any impacts identified when making their findings. The tri park committee ordinance requires these condition requires conditions to mitigate while other example ordinances state findings should include conditions necessary to mitigate. Another question um before us is how to involve mobile home owners and residents within the process beyond our standard noticing and public hearing. We will talk more about public outreach on another slide. The next one is in regards to

consistency findings um related to housing availability. The state law requires that finding shall be made as to whether a closure will result or in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households. The tripart committee ordinance proposes a finding that the closure will not reduce affordable housing stock to the extent that the closure or conversion would be inconsistent with the housing element. So, a very specific finding. Another topic is in regards to the right of first refusal or the ability to purchase in a future development. The city currently requires the council to make a finding regarding if a right of first refusal is provided um to mobile home park owners and residents. However, the code does not specify if the report or the relocation plan um what information needs to be submitted with those to make that finding. Only one other jurisdiction included the right of first refusal and they inserted that section as part of their relocation assistance option. Public outreach um is another topic that we wanted to touch on. Currently the city only has our standard out um public outreach which is connected to the public hearing itself. In the report information on each mobile home, its owner and its occupants is to be provided. Most of the example jurisdictions that were provided and the tri park committee ordinance require questionnaires be completed by the mobile home owners and occupants for their households and provided with the report to support that information that's collected. This could be an

option for the city. In addition, the tripart committee ordinance proposes to require a community meeting to be held um by the applicant at least 30 days before the public hearing and attended by city staff. Staff is looking for the direction on what types of additional public outreach is preferred if any beyond the public hearing. Enforcement tools. So the city currently requires a written agreement to ensure compliance, but it is not required to be recorded. Nor does the ordinance clearly state when compliance needs to be completed by. It would be on a case-byase basis within the agreement, such as before the issuance of a building permit. The trip park committee ordinance provides that the mitigation measures are to be completed before the building issuance of the building permits and the example jurisdictions also tie the completion of mitigation before construction and some have required recorded or written letters stating compliance. Reconsideration is another um component potential in our ordinance. So, we do not currently have um a process which we could reconsider an approval and most jurisdictions as well as the Tri Park Committee ordinance include um a revocation process. And lastly, other um state law states that if a mobile home park owner is going through a bankruptcy that it is exempt from preparation of the report and a relocation plan. The tripart committee ordinance and a couple example ordinances allow for an exemption from relocation assistance based on reasonable use or economic value. Staff

wants to know if this council is interested in providing this option as well. And as noted previously, if the city does not require concurrent processing of a development project or if the park doesn't have a plan at that time for redevelopment, the tripart committee ordinance does propose an additional finding be made. So that is my different topic areas.

I don't think we went over the valuation and appraisal topic. So on evaluation it would be sorry where' it go? Did I miss a slide? Okay thanks. Thank you. Um so the evaluation and appraisal I will add that slide real quick. Um is that the appraiser is selected and managed by the city or an approved list that is selected from. So the city um has a consultant that's preparing the RA the report currently um would do the appraisal as part of that report submitt to the city. Um state law just requires that an in place market value. So we would be modifying our current code to say in place market value um for each um specific mobile home um be used must be appraised by a state certified appraiser and submitted as part of the report. And so the question for you is um specifically related to whether or not we would as a city um hire that appraiser or just provide a list um to be selected from so that that appraisal can be provided. Um and then also lastly the other part of that question is in regards to the trip park committee ordinance that was submitted. Um it does recommend in that ordinance that the um appraisal do um include the actual mobile home park itself and three um different types of appraisals be done for the park. Um two of the four example jurisdictions did require um this as part of their submitt with a report.

All right. Thank you very much. very helpful how this is organized for us to be able to go through all of these items. And I will add that slide really quick after you ask questions. So I'm going to at first we're going to have if there's any additional questions questions from the council before we go to public comment.

Many questions. I really don't many question. I really don't know how I I can start it. Yeah. But anyway uh that is not easy because I already saw that you raise these kind of questions and also I already and notice you have some answer although that kind of answer is not a final answer but you provide a lot of the good information and based on your matrix and you designed because I look at and uh right and far right in the column that is an option for the consideration you combine and three different cities and what they are doing and in the suggestion. So the but we still need to do a lot of the detailed work and more professional way to address the issue to answer these kind of questions. Uh and for example and question two not uh notification and a timeline. Uh I appreciate it and you put RI 15 days to 60 days. That is good. more time uh for the uh the the residents to know what is going on. And but my concern is how we can guarantee uh the the residents receive this kind of notice or you know return receipt or you have this kind of hand deliver service and for example some the residents sick in the hospital and several months

and they miss this 60 days. So I'm not sure how you can you know make the sure guarantee in residents receive this kind of notice in advance uh this kind of example and also I would like I want to know uh you mentioned about the Sonoma tri park committee what kind of organization this is a sub community owner you know do Do you have the what kind of membership and uh what kind of fund you are and a board member and do you have the term limitation if any authority? Yeah. So how you work with the now because looks like is not in the sub commmittee of the planning commission and on ad hoc. So how we can uh work and what kind of relationship between this committee and HOA you know HOA seems like you know more official and the you know because between the residents and the park owner so I would like to you got some of the answer from these kind of questions. Yeah. Thank you.

So I'll start. Um so just to clarify to um so this meeting is to kind of gather some input having more questions, thoughts, concerns raised because then that helps us develop what that ordinance to how to address those concerns such as the one you raised at the beginning. How do we know that people received that report? Um, and so we can build that into the ordinance if that is across the board something that is of a concern that we want to make sure is specified in the ordinance. Ordinances can be more vague and be case by case or they can be pretty specific and and um

uh directive um on certain things that that's why we're asking you today for some policy direction. We'll go through each one. take in, you know, what those different aspects are that you're concerned about or want to understand better about the differences, maybe other communities or um that was proposed. So, I will let the tri park committee say who they are. they're representative of the different parks. Um, and they have come together and they hired an attorney and that attorney provided that uh what I'm calling the tripart committee ordinance. So that's what that is based on. So that they provided that with their comment letter. And so what I was doing under the options for consideration is saying here's our code, here's the law, here was the ordinance from the comment letter and what are those policy considerations that you have that are not, you know, prescribed by the law. Um, that was the goal of the options. There are a lot of policy options, but we wanted to be able to um bring it to somewhat digestible of what was being pro um provided to you in the committee's ordinance. Um so that's what that's about. um we will bring back that ordinance based on this uh discussion that takes in your feedback and is legal. So, we will work very closely together um to develop that ordinance um and bring you back something that um in a draft form that we can actually get into some of those level of detail that you may still have questions about at a future

meeting. Um probably like what we talked about was February, March of next year. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Do we have other questions? Yes, Vice Mayor Wellander,

I would love to hear some clarity as far as the sequence of events because um it seems the focus right now is on the potential closure, what the mitigation steps are going to be. Then we are talking about a two-year to execute or possibly a two-year to execute this. It's a permit. Are they so they're seeking a closure permit or is that just a a use permit or please help this confused person? So right now the way um our ordinance is written is that if some if a mobile home park owner comes forward uh with a project that says that they want to change that use or cease operations basically right to go to something else that they have to submit this report to us that has to be reviewed and approved by the city council. RIR

their RIR um has to be reviewed and approved by the city council um within I think it's 30 days of us receiving it. You have to review it and make findings in regards to it. So it's in itself its own process. Um the um doesn't necessarily say that it has to be heard concurrently with a pro that proposed change. In our city, our mobile home parks are zoned mobile home. That's the use, that's the density. Um that's also in our general plan. It's mobile home. So any change to something that's not mobile home will require a general plan. uh change as well as a zoning change to whatever that future use would be. And so as we know that in itself is a multi-year process and also um will uh be considered by the city council. So, is it correct to say that um if a park owner wanted to cease close that there is a process to go through and it principally is a process that identifies the the the obligation they have in terms of mitigating the impact it is to the current residents. But if uh they are not are they obligated at that same time to identify what the proposed project is or do they have the latitude to say it's you know we just wish to close it at this point and we're not sure what direction we're going to go. Is that problematic to the process or is that something that you would envision it being a normal sequence or possible sequence

under our current regulation? I don't think it's separate. I think it's with

Yeah, currently the way that the chapter 9.82 A2 is phrased. Um, it requires the impact report when any person files an application for a general plan amendment, a reszoning of land or approval of conditional use permit or other application for the purpose of converting a mobile home park. Um the one exception is if there is a a closure based on um the vacancy rate within the park, right? So there's a there's a threshold if it's like 75% um vacant or maybe 70 or 25% vacant. Can't remember the number. Um that triggers a de facto closure and that would require um

the report to be filed. Yeah. the the the application to be filed for the closure. So there there it does contemplate both, but it only contemplates um this process without a corresponding um zoning and and general plan application in the in the case of a de facto closure based on occupancy levels. And that'll be one of our discussions tonight as to whether or not we believe that that should be happening concurrently or if it can happen separately. I Yes.

I mean, I would the other thing that I would just say is that it would probably difficult to make the findings for a closure if there wasn't a concurrent application. Um, so they don't have the right, and I'm just speculating, they don't have the right to just simply say, "I wish it's not working. I wish to close the park." Assuming that they then follow through all these legal obligations, I'm just telling you what's what's in our what's in our code right now.

Okay. Okay. Well, um, what I was trying to say is this face still looks confused because it's confused. So, we can go on. It's very it's con it's confusing. I you know I mean there's a number of different processes that kind of come together and cross over.

It's there's not it's lacking a level of clarity in certain things that you know hence the confusion. So we if we get an application which as we all know the application could take multiple years to process but it says that once I get an application I need to submit a report and then once I get that report I have to give it to you in 30 days for you to make findings. So in my world that's not concurrent. It's with but not concurrent. And I was going to look closer at the findings, but but we can go into it a little bit more when we get into discussion.

Other questions? I I just have one question, just a clarification in regards to the letter that we received today from uh William Constantine for the attorney for the tri uh um excuse me, for the the Okay, I have to get their name right. by the mobile home um owners association in the city of Sonoma, the Triome Association. Um the question I have is and the letter referred to a number of different code sections, state code sections, and the concern was that those code requirements did not appear on our matrix. But my question is and it's kind of confirming my understanding those are codes that we have to follow and that anything that we would be doing and ordinance that we would be creating would be in these codes would either be referred to or they would be just we would have those would have to be followed through this process as well.

Yes. So, um, as with all state laws, if some project is being presented to us, um, so specifically in that letter, the housing crisis act,

it's not in our code because it's a state law. And so if a project or is presented to us that then triggers that law, then we need to implement that law as written under the state. Um, and so there are instances like that that were brought up like the subdivision section. Um, again, that's a state law. So if a mobile home park closure includes a subdivision map project, then we need to follow that section of the state law, which is more specific um, in regards to what's required in that relocation assistance. Interestingly enough, um, so we do recognize that there are other state laws out there. And again, like I was saying, the things that are before you are really more about policy. And so when we get into crafting the ordinance, we won't craft something that isn't compliant with the law. Um, you know, we've talked about maybe referencing these sections. Um, and say has changed from time to time because we know how that works. Um so um but yes no we're we're looking at it and we'll look closer but yes

that that's very helpful just so that we you know that I think that the the referencing often is very helpful just but I recognize those change in keeping track of all that can be difficult as those things change. So you have another question council member day.

Yes. Uh also I would like to you verify uh that is California and the housing crisis act if any extension from the current year to uh 2030. So that means some of the islanding mandatory is not recommended. So in this way uh we should be a little bit more and strict like this but I'm not sure. Yeah. Could you please double check? Yeah.

So, yeah, the the housing crisis act is in effect and was extended and so we would be um we utilize that with all housing development projects. That's the trigger is a development project that uh requires the demolition or removal of units, housing units and that's the start of the process and says okay does this happen? Yes. And then I have a whole set of guidelines that I have to follow after that. So, one of the questions that we ask in our development applications are you demolishing units? So if any in a year or in the two years extended or three years or five years do you have any idea

um each legislation I think does it differently. I think what they just approved was 2030. Okay. Okay. Because I think it was supposed to expire this year and they extended it another five years if I remember correctly. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Right. If we don't have any other questions, uh, I'm going to ask now, and one of the things I just want to say when we go through, we have 10 sections here to go through. After public comment, when we go through those sections, we'll also have more time to kind of dive into each section so that we're clear about what's being asked of us and what, you know, so because tonight is for us giving direction. Um, we're not going to be word smithing. So just just to be clear about that to give general direction from the council of how we would like the key issues to be addressed in the final ordinance. All right. So now I'm going to open it for a public comment and everybody will each person since I'm assuming we will have a lot will have two minutes each. Hi before you start the clock I would just like to ask you to recognize uh the the people who are here in this room tonight. Uh, please raise your hand if you live in a mobile home park in the city of Soma. So, I don't know. Can somebody count for us? Uh, well, um, but anyway, please let the record show the room is full of, um, support for our, um, our proposal.

Park for being here. The Tri Park proposal. Thank you. The Tri Park.

Okay. So, now you could start my clock. Thank you. Hi, my name is Anne Kichitus. I live at uh, 14 Hosienda Public Serena. our beautiful park. Uh tonight I will speak on the RIIR the relocation impact report and going forward I'll just refer to it as the report. Um the report as proposed by the tripart committee provides a high level of specificity including requirements for full homeowner questionnaires, financial data, independent appraisals, verified comparable park lists, mobile home valuations, and a housing element consistency review and a replacement and relocation plan prepared by the city selected consultant. These components are all essential. Household questionnaires and financial data tell the city exactly who is at risk. Seniors, working families, disabled residents, fixed income households, and whether medication efforts are realistic or successful relocations even possible. Independent appraisals and verified comparable parks are what allows the city to determine actual market conditions, avoiding hypothetical relocation options that don't exist. And the housing element review ensures the city cannot approve a closure that undermines its statemandated affordable housing preservation goals. Requiring the replacement and relocation plan to be prepared by a consultant chosen by the city and paid for by the applicant ensures independence and public trust. This is how Sonoma crafts a strong datadriven report which protects the city and preserves the affordable housing that keeps our community livable. The report with the features

described herein offers a comprehensive analysis and becomes the backbone of the city's findings when evaluating any proposed park closure or conversion application. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good evening, council staff. I'm Bonnie Joy Klan, president Moon Valley Homeowners Association. In the November 24th letter from Lethrop GPM's legal council to the city of Soma, he states that there are no threats of park closure now in Soma. Agreed. There are no closures, no threats until there are no urgency until it is too late. FYI, since 2015, 41 mobile home parks in California have been closed. Two years ago, the Tri Park Committee began raising funds from our own pockets to secure expert legal counsel to bring forth an ordinance designed for the city of Soma and Park homeowners that provides a comprehensive list of provisions designed to protect your constituents, us in relationship to this subject. I want to specifically

I'm gonna ask you so that for your our interpreter you can slow down a little bit and then if you need a few extra because I know you've timed this a few extra seconds we'll let you have it notification and timeline page 68 summarized the current Sonoma code gives 15 days before the hearing to present homeowners with an RIR the city can extend to 60 days and as stated the tri park ordinance provides Three more valuable provisions. In the aformentioned letter from Lethrop GPM, they offer the closure and conversion of Winchester Park in San Jose as an example of a successful closure and conversion. If the city of San Jose had a robust closure and conversion ordinance back in ' 86, the com the homeowners might truly have had a win-win outcome. Not the grueling six years of uncertainty, inability to sell their homes once closure was known, and finding acceptable housing uh housing close to their community, and the stress and fear of being unhoused. Regardless of the park owners council phrasiology that agreements were reached in 2019 without objection. Unanimous the homeowners lost their individual homes the community they knew. 111 homes similar to the number of homes in Pueblo Serena all were bulldozed and replaced with approximately 700 high-end condominium units and apartments. Thank you.

Thank you. And I also have one request. It's very helpful as as people are speaking to um identify if they can because you may be wanting to make more than one point the kind of the specific categories that you're speaking to so that we can as we're listening to you, we know which category you're going to address and um as much as possible kind of your level of prioritization um of your requests. Yes, undo that. Thank you.

Good evening, council and staff. My name is Limarie De Vincent. I am addressing agenda summary question number 3C on page 69. Quote, clarify timing when the payments shall be made. The tripart committee ordinance requires the payment be made not less than 90 days before the date to vacate the mobile home. And FYI, Watsonville uh includes that. Okay, so picture this. If when any of the three parks succumbs to an irresistible offer from the private equity companies that are currently devouring parks in California and Sonoma County, Paluma, Windsor, Santa Rosa, and Kati, if and when the Sonoma City votes to approve only some of the provisions in the Tri Park ordinance, I could get that notice. My park has sold and will be converted. I am 77 years old. I depend on a small social security and as some of you know, I work part-time for the county. I live alone and I have no family here. My closest relatives is in North Carolina. I have been on the two local lists for low-income senior apartments for 12 years. Burbank Housing has many of these in Sonoma County, and I have heard there are 15,000 seniors on these lists. So, where do I where do you think I'm going to go? Even if I get a reasonable price for my 1970s smaller mobile home, how am I going to relocate? Question number 3 C. Quote, shall the timing be clarified that I might need no less than 90 days to get paid before I have to vacate? Yes. Please include that in the revised ordinance. Please implement the strongest possible protections for our three communities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council. I'm Caitlyn Cornwall. I'm representing Sonoma Valley Collaborative. And I know you know this, but for any in the audience that don't, Sonoma Valley Collaborative is a cross- sector coalition that tries to address the issues that are beyond any one organization. um for all of Sonoma Valley. And the issue of housing affordability is one that our coalition has prioritized for the last several years. And our coalition includes uh residents as well as businesses, um nonprofits, the health community, schools, youth serving nonprofits, the environment, etc. So, everyone in our community is concerned about this issue. And as you know, uh, mobile homes are have been part of our housing affordability platform from the beginning. Um, you get a a lot of people in here at the city council, um, asking you to protect their homes. Um, but this population is on a knife's edge. Um, if they lose their homes, they will leave the community. They there is virtually no place in some city that they could go and afford. And I think you know that but that's why the strongest possible protections are really paramount. Um and the specific point that I am to make um you asked about priorities. Uh Mayor Farah Rivas um we tried to pick sort of our five top priorities make five different comments here. Um, so my the comment I'm making is on item number six, which is about the issue of um the finding that the city would have to make about the impact of a closure on the city's entire stock of affordable housing. And what we would ask for is not just that the city make a finding saying what that impact would be, but that the city make it impossible for itself to close a park if the

closure of closure of that park would result in a net loss of affordable housing to the degree that would be inconsistent with the housing element. Um, and you know, theoretically there's a universe where a park is closed, but the reo redevelopment plan for it somehow produces more affordable housing. I mean, you know, maybe that happens. Um, so that would be a situation where you could make a finding that it's okay to close the park because the net result will be a net increase in affordable housing. That seems very unlikely, but um, that's what we would ask that you not let these parks close um,

if they're gonna harm the total stock. Thank you. Good evening. My name is John Kyle. I live at PBLO Serena U mobile home park. And I'd like to be clear about two things that are central to what we're asking tonight. Um th this is mentioned twice in the decision grid and it's whether a con a closure application should be concurrent with a redevelopment plan. Also, I'd like to add that the homeowners should never be able to ask to wave their rights. These are two protections, both essential, and I'd like to put this in human terms rather than legal terms. Folks, we know are being told their parks might close unless they accept unaffordable rent increases. They're overcome with fear, the kind that keeps you up at night, wondering where they're supposed to go in a housing market that has simply gone insane. And you can imagine the terror parents experience being told that they might have to leave a home where they're raising a family and the community where they work, knowing they'll have to move so far away they'll be losing their jobs as well. And the city loses too because when workers are pushed out, businesses lose staff, neighborhoods lose stability, and we lose the affordable housing that will never be recreated. In Soma County, threat of closure is being used to leverage to as leverage to demand rent increases far below the RSO limits. But when closures can't happen without a real project attached, that threat loses its power and homeowners are protected. And we should never allow for homeowners to sign away their rights. These rights belong to the

public as well as the individual. They protect our affordable housing and our citizens. They cannot be bargained away. So, no closure without without an actual redevelopment plan and no lab no waving of legal rights ever. Both belong in this ordinance. Um, to answer an earlier question, our attorney has submitted a second memo explaining in a lot more detail which state laws back up our positions that we've presented in our ordinance draft. Um, and I'd really appreciate if you guys review it um, a as you look through the options tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Hermes and I'm a homeowner at 12 Ramon Street in Soma Oaks manufactured home community. And I prefer manufactured home because our homes are really no no longer mobile. The um Sonoma Oaks manufactured home community was formerly known as Rancho de Sonoma and I have lived there um for um 20 years and I've lived in manufactured homes for 50 of my nearly 87 years. As someone who has had a career working in low-paying nonprofit positions, it was my only affordable option. And that certainly hasn't changed as I enter this late stage of my life. The owners of our three parks have stated that they have no plans to convert. However, ownership can change as has happened several times in the 20 years I have been living in my current home with each owner having a different vision for maximizing their investment. Like many other residents in our three parks, I am hoping to live out my remaining days in my current home without fear of a forced move this late in life. The state of California has recognized the importance of this protection. I urge you to take advantage of the hours of research and the financial investment that we homeowners have made to make it easier for you to make this change in the ordinance. Our efforts were simply designed to do that and to protect the significant number of lowincome seniors and families who live in the city of Sonoma. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Kate Bby. I'm the housing policy analyst at Legal Aid of Sonoma County. Um, across California and nationwide, we've seen how quickly the stability of mobile home communities can unravel when they're not adequately protected. Uh, and with really devastating impacts on vulnerable residents and affordable housing that they provide. Um, this is why the specific provisions contained within the Tri Park ordinance uh are so important. These proposals align with state law and allow Soma to exercise its authority uh under AB2782 which grants local jurisdictions to adopt stronger protections um that go above and beyond state law uh and set standards for closures and conversions. Uh I want to just really quickly touch on a concern um raised about why now? Why is there a need to strengthen regulations in this moment if there is no uh active uh closure or imminent closure and uh to offer the framing that that's actually exactly why this is an opportune moment um to strengthen these regulations. In recent years, we've seen both locally and nationally uh corporate investors and private equity firms buy up what once were familyowned parks uh and in huge numbers. And uh when we do, we frequently see aggressive and predatory rent increases uh and and often the threat of closure and sometimes these sort of threats or or uses sham closures in order to coersse uh both residents themselves and local jurisdictions uh into eroding their regulations. Uh unfortunately we see these entities use comparatively weaker standards and ambiguities and loopholes in regulations that exist as strategic opportunities. But jurisdictions that have clear narrow uh and really well-defined pathways around closure specifically are far less

appealing targets for these type of entities. Um that protects residents and it can help protect the city too against these highly ligious types of actors. Um so if a proposed closure or conversion uh does arise, having a framework in place that is highly predictable, very consistent and defensible uh puts the city in a far safer position actually legally. Uh and I also would like to make a specific comment in support of item number five, which I believe addresses uh giving residents and their legal representatives equal time as part of a hearing uh on the closure itself.

All right. Thank you very much. This is exciting. Um, my name is Tadas Lumiere. I live at Pueblo Serena Manufactured Home Park. I'm here to tell you my personal story. It's It's a bit sad with a happy ending. Uh, it's 2008. I get hit with a cancer that kills most people in a few years. I have to leave work for eight months. Uh what's commonly called a medical bankruptcy. The following year, 2009, we're deep in the housing recession. And here we are, my wife and I, in Sacramento, living in a gated condominium community in the middle of Sacramento. Our home that had been valued at 425 was down about 150,000. That happened the following year. The following year there's a flood in our condominium complex that affected 10% but because of that no one could get insurance and the house the value of the houses went further down. So by luck we happened upon Pueblo Serena. I got lost looking for the hardware store. Yes. And we ran into a neighbor Bob Burner. God rest his soul. And he said, "Oh, let me show you around." And by golly, we found a place for under a h 100,000. We borrowed money in order to buy that place. That was 2010. And I am so happy, so lucky to have found that community. Uh this morning I taught a class. Six people came to a class of having to do

with vitality. When we have gettogethers, I celebrate. I'm the MC. I play music. It's more than just a place to live. Uh it's a place to grow. It's a place to blossom. Thank you. We need stronger legal protection. Please help us.

Thank you. A little taller than me. Hi, my name is Carrie Buddy and I've lived in the Soma Valley for over 50 years. My husband and I um were self-employed and uh we participated in community events. Um we uh were involved in basketball and little league and I was a team mom and and witchie poo to just name a few. In 2018, my husband passed away. I sold our house to generate retirement income. I wasn't able to make a lot of sound decisions after my husband passed. I thought a modular home was a temporary place to live until I could think straight. So, um I've been a homeowner now for 5 years at PBLO Serena and it turns out to be the best decision I've made. The homeowners take such great care of their houses and their gardens. And while walking there, you'll be greeted with a hello and a smile. I'm thankful to be able to walk to the grocery stores, my doctors, the hospital, and to town. Our grandchildren are fifth generation Sonomans, and all four of them live within a half a mile radius. Should our park be sold, I'd be forced to move out of the valley, and the impact impact of the closing would be devastating for me and my family. So, that's just what I'd like to say. Just a side note, I talked to my um fifth grader granddaughter today who's a fifth grader at Sasserini and she said, "If you want any of the kids to come, we should have a kids meeting on the impact to them." Thank you so much.

Thank you. Uh good evening. Thank you everyone for taking the time to deal with this subject. I'm Mary Sterns and I live at Pueblo Sereno. I moved there uh two years ago with my partner. Before moving to Sonoma, we lived together in San Francisco for 20 years. We were renters, but we were in a single home, family home, which is not under rent control. And two years ago, our landlord raised our rent astronomically and we had to move. We did not have a lot of opportunities. We could not afford to buy a house. We could not afford to buy a townhouse. We could not afford to buy a condo, but we could afford to buy a 1970 mobile home in Pueblo Serenia. Uh I'm so happy about becoming a homeowner because my entire life, including growing up, I've always been a renter. I have never owned anything. And even though a p a mobile home, a manufactured home isn't exactly the same as a real home, I suppose, it is something. And we are happy. We garden, we paint, we improve the house, and it's a completely different feeling than being a renter. And it also feels good to live in a mobile home park. It it is a place where people help the older residents. We drive them to the hospital. We drive them to the doctor. We pick them up when they fall. It's a place where people play music together, where people do art work together, where people share gardening tips, people in our mobile home park volunteer for your city, they attend your churches, they go to your community centers, and it's a real community. It would be devastating to my partner and myself if Pueblo Sereno closed. We don't

have another house to go to. We don't know where we would go. We would feel well the rug would be pulled out. After years and years of working and being living in somebody else's house, we finally have our own. Please enact an ordinance that will protect us and make us and our 80year-old housebound neighbor more secure. We are your Sonoma City residents and constituents. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm sorry to have got into the very end of the line. I could not have stood that long. Uh I'm here speaking not on my behalf. I'm a resident on First Street West 649, Robert Demler, as you know, and speaking on behalf of the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation for a change, not personally. We uh discussed this issue at our last board meeting. And I'm not here as I said in a message uh to to all of you. I'm not here to discuss legal aspects or structural aspects but the human aspect. And um in our mission statement we focus on three areas structures, landscapes and natural resources. This uh community issue, this neighborhood issue is part of landscapes and we have defined some several historic landscapes in Sonoma. the more recently actually and uh to the uh the uh the one around the plaza we have designated the railroad district, the uh Sebastiani cottages district, uh the Broadway corridor district and those are historic districts. They're not communities and those people had no say that those people who live in those districts had really no say in that that designation. These people have communities. And I think we probably should add a fourth focus in our our mission statement of the human aspect of of living in our town, our wonderful town. And whatever you do, please provide as much

protection for these folks as you can. Okay, that now I that's finished for the Sonoma League. I have one quick thing uh to say on a personal basis. The city recently established a precedent by investing in a local developer for some affordable housing. I don't know how much these manufactured housing parks are worth, but if our housing fund grows, we may consider doing a partnership with these people to protect them in the future. Anyway, please protect these folks. Thank you. Thank you, Robert.

Good evening, council member and staff. I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving. My name is Denny Derrosos, and I'm the director of manufactured housing for HCA Property Management. We own and manage PBLO Serena for the Agiri family. I'm here to tell you today that the Agiri family has no intention of selling or converting our park. The building of Publo Serena started in 1970 by Mr. and Mrs. Heidi. They ran out of money during the building and Mr. Agiri became the partner to finish the buildout. It took several years for the park to become self-sustaining. When the Heidi passed away, Mr. Agiri became the sole owner. The Agiri family is in the mobile home park business, owning several other parks on the West Coast and recently purchased another park in Kalisoga. We have no intentions of selling or converting PBLO Serena to any other use. We request you not enact the radical Constantine proposal, but rather make upgrades to conform to the changes of California law. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, council. My name is Solo and I'm with WMA. We work with mobile home park owners and managers throughout California providing education, advocacy, and training. On behalf of park owners in the city of Sonoma, I would first like to thank this council for providing both sides of this discussion with the opportunity to participate in a fair and equitable manner. I'm also here to strongly support the legal analysis by Mr. Andrew Ditl Ditzens, attorney for park owners in the city. The letter carefully lays out the position of the park owners should be given as much attention and consideration as the resident's radical proposals. Without repeating his words, he goes over in great detail the reasons why our suggestion to this council is to move forward only to the the changes to this ordinance that are needed in order to bring it the city's ordinance to compliance with state law. From the beginning from the beginning of this process, park owners have been very clear that there is no plan or desire by any of the three communities in the city to close or convert it to any other use. We've also maintained that while the city is not required to change the ordinance, state law already governs the closure and conversion of these communities. Uh we completely understand the desire to do so. But we also urge this council to be cautious going any further than is necessary. The current ordinance has served the city well for over 20 years and will continue to do so if it continues to be a simple ordinance that complies with state law. We ask that you reject calls to turn this into this simple code update into an ideological crusade that is based on nothing but speculation and fear-monger. The reality on the ground calls for this ordinance update to be very simple. I again ask you not to harm the relationship of cooperation that the city council has had with your housing providers in these communities for decades. The city is fortunate to have owners and managers of communities who care and take their role very seriously. They would like to continue to offer their service and continue to be a partner with the city and residents. We only ask for a fair process that focuses on the actual recent changes to state law. We are committed to the ensure that

this process results in a solid product. It has been mentioned several times tonight that corporations are buying family-owned parks. We agree that is happening. Where does it happen? It happens in overregulated jurisdictions where mom and pop parks can't afford to operate anymore. They can only only where only corporate owners with an army of attorneys and on retainers can do so. We're asking you, urging you not to turn the city of Sonoma into one of those jurisdictions. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right. Do we do do we have anybody else that would like to make public comment on this agenda item? All right. Seeing none, then the council we're going to move on to a process where we are going to go through each of the categories and have um a discussion of the council for each category. And the goal of this discussion is for us to give direction to um our de community development department because I'm hoping it's not just you doing this. So uh but to you so that so that you can draft an ordinance and come back and bring that back to the council. So So there's 10 I think that we're looking at if I count these right. So, we're going to start with the relocation and yes, and you have your uh slide, so Oh, good. We'll we'll follow by you.

All right. Yeah, we'll let you lead it. We'll start with this one and Yep. We'll stick it the stick to the specific topic areas.

Yes. So we'll um focus on um these specific areas like we did in the staff report and during the presentation. So this is when we really want to have more of that discussion or if you have any other um questions based on some of the comments that you heard or any other things to provide us direction to then come back um with an ordinance with amendments to our ordinance. So the first one is mandatory relocation impact report. It is mandatory but as I stated in the presentation um there is um a variety of levels of specificity provided in each jurisdiction. um in our in our actual ordinance which is attached to your staff report. Um there are the things that we need to know, but there could be another level of specificity provided to that. So, we're just wondering if you want to keep kind of more of the topics general um or do you want to add more specificity in that area? If you want an example, I can find one for you.

Yeah, I think we had example would be good. I think that um one of the members of the tri park committee was able to list a number of them out which was very it's very helpful. Um because I keep looking for these specifics and I think we had uh the the homeowner questionnaire,

right? the the financial data and I it should be clear what kind of financial data we're talking about there. Um I guess um the mobile home valuations, the relocation plan, well that's the replacement and relocation plan mitigations needed and I think that there's a number of other things that were included in that that I catch all of them.

Sure. So, our um current ordinance, just for an example of one of these topics, is um item number three, the names and addresses of all mobile home owners within the park, including absentee mobile home owners as shown on the rental agreement for this park spaces, and the names and addresses of all tenants within the park as of the date of the application. And it would include as well the characteristic of each mobile home. So what's the space number, the date of the manufacturing, the type, things like that. Um, and then as far as the occupancy in our current code, it just says that it'll identify whether it's an owner occupied, renter occupied, um, and then also the number of residents who are physically dis disabled or chronically ill. it doesn't provide that level of specificity in the sense of um whether the household would be considered lowinccome um and you know other things like that that are in more of that questionnaire uh example where they were looking for more specific information for each household to then that would be provided from the household versus just collected and reported to us. So there there's that level of detail that we can ask for to be submitted to us and then how it is submitted to us whether it's literally from the hands of um each household or just in a summary document.

Did you have a comment? Go ahead. Yes. So, the current ordinance has 17 listed items, but my favorite one is number 17. Um, it states a list of person, I'm sorry, 17. Um, any information which the city manager determines is necessary to address the specific issues raised by the application. And it goes on for another sentence or so. So, I I actually thought that that kind of covered a lot of the things that uh uh that the tri park ordinance mentioned.

So, number 17 uh um as stated, the city manager determines is necessary to address specific issues raised by the application or the impact study and any information that may be necessary to implement provisions of this chapter. It's um what I like to call our catchall at the end um that gives discretion to the city manager. Yes, Vice Mayor Willer.

Um a comment was stated earlier about datadriven decisions and I think that is a very valid question. Uh but I also at times have been overwhelmed with data. So if I had a request or a preference would be uh yes we want enough data so we can make a thoughtful uh decision but um I think there should be some discretion taken as far as how much data we truly are asking. Um but again I want to go back and reemphasize I would would like to see enough data that I can study think coitate reflect and then be able to make a recommendation at that time.

Did you have any comments council member Ding? Uh no right now

not at this time. I I think I'm trying to look at these not each of these individual but for me I think what is going to be the most important data is collecting the data that gives you a picture of the mobile home owner or renter what their financial situation is so that when you're looking at a a plan a new plan coming in and not and not just not just their financial situation, but I think some of the stories tonight helped us understand what people are basically looking to replace, you know, and and I know how hard it is to replace community, but I think how, you know, how is that, you know, part of this aspect? I I think of like if someone moves and they're um they're able to walk examples that were given able to walk to a uh a store, able to walk to their doctor's appointments, able to do things like that because you know the mobile homes that they're in are located in an area that they don't need to drive. So you would want to be able to to have that information that there's are they mobile? uh can they drive you know that type of information. So you're really looking at what what's an appropriate level of replacement. I'm kind of of you know guess I don't want it to be so much data that you're it's impossible to collect but I'm I guess my thought is how do you kind of capture that of like how do you actually replace the quality of life that they're currently living in versus just you know you know that it's 20 within the 20 mile area.

Awesome. Um also maybe we can and collect some the information. Each household the the income my understanding is uh majority of the residents major income they come from social security benefits but each year they make the adjustment to increase by cola for example this year is the 2.8 a only and definitely cannot catch and the price increase and on the market. So the if we have these kind of the financial statement from each the household each unit maybe can help us you know what kind of the resolution we can and uh you know provide and we can and educate it or provide more information to the park owner and in this way and we can have this kind of the you the comments and we can move forward. Thank you.

Do you want to speak? Yes, you may. Um, I would even suggest that this tri park group collect this data on their own and provide it accordingly. um if if we should ever have a circumstance where there's potential closure.

So in regards to let's clarify what you mean by that. uh there's collecting the data, then there's you know bringing in a consultant that can bring create the format for the data to be collected and then according to what we're seeing currently the city selects a consultant but that's paid by the applicant. So I just want to clarify that because that's kind of a key component. No, the the point I was making was for all this emotional data um that that you're talking about um not make it part of uh the report unless it's provided by the trike trike group the tri group

right let them let them collect it and and then submit it as part of the report.

Any other comments? The 17 to me seems to cover quite a bit. And this is the question for me. I'm trying to look at like what from everything I've heard tonight is is missing in there. And maybe the way uh council member Gurnie is addressing it is that because within this I think that there maybe there's a question that specifies for each homeowner can write in you know what are the key components that are most important for them in any relocation. And I think so what I've heard is um some there's there's what I would call household data that's not necessarily social data but uh financial um there's an interest in just enough data but not overwhelmed with data. Um and so maybe that data is then tied to the data needed to make findings. Um, and we can look a little bit closer at that. I think as we get through a little bit more, there will be some other questions that'll help feed where those data uh potential data needs would be to give that a little bit more specificity in certain things, but allow for a generality and a catchall still at the end of the day.

A question for our attorney. If indeed we were to pursue the idea of collaborative data collection and the residents provide a certain type of data and it's submitted and can it be folded in as an addendum to the RIIR or is it something that can legitimately be considered as a source of information that should be taken up at the I don't think there's no reason why any any person who's involved in a closure couldn't submit comments and information to the council to consider. Um, but the question is whether or not the council would like this information as part of the statutoily mandated impact report. That's a question and because that is going to be the document that um you must rely on to make your findings. You are not required to rely on other evidence unless that you find it to be credible.

So well so that's my question. if if it's not if we can't use that information as uh as part of our our thought process then it would be foolish to ask for it. So what I'm basically saying is is you know if someone is submitting that information to us can it not be brought in a package to us so that we either have the ri as it has been specified as far as the elements within and then if there is I'll steal the word social data that uh was deemed possibly has some value to it as far as painting a picture that that would be then a supplement to it. But I again I don't want to be led to think that there's some legal reason we can't make that part of our consideration.

If you find um other evidence that's presented to you to be credible then then you can rely on it. Okay. So that's a that's a council person's discret not discretion but opportunity. So if it comes to us and we believe it's uh you believe it's credible it's and it's relevant to the proceedings then you can rely on then we can fold it into our thought process. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And I think if I look at eight on this of the specifics, I mean that addresses a number of the things of like close how you know like location information because I'm thinking of the information for the uh mobile mobile home or the manufactured home owner or the you know the renter that tells them you know well this is you know these are the places that exist and these places have access you know to transportation. They're close to hospitals. They're close to shopping centers. You can, you know, that that data is there. You can walk someplace from this. And I know there's some concern about from the the mobile park owners in regards to the amount of data they need to collect. What we have seems to be, you know, the consultants going to do it and seems to be information that's pretty easy to collect. And I think just adding on a little bit more about what's available that includes those that includes and it's in number eight. Um yeah, I I'm I'm not quite sure how to make the the social aspect of it, you know, in something that you can actually evaluate and describe about another place, right? So, you know, I think I think we're good here as long as we can also have, you know, as we're talking about that there's an element where people can really describe the specific enhancements that exist where they currently live that create the quality of life that is uh good for their life, you know. So, okay. All right. I think we're all right. Okay. Notification and timeline. So the questions that we specifically raised around this is uh more of a

general question and we don't need necessarily specifics in the sense of we want 45 days or 120. We're just wandering. Um if you want to require additional types of noticing um again as the examples is you know before an application is submitted. Um if it's you know a longer period um within uh currently as we stated it's 60 days is the requirement under state law for a report to be provided. Um I think our ordinance is 30 days of notice before the actual public hearing. Um and then um to all the homeowners um and uh also residents. So what does that look like to you? Um and you know also the post application um there was uh in the proposed ordinance um from the tri park committee a an additional notice that uh is provided to mobile home park owners before basically the close of their teny. Council member comments.

Um as I mentioned before how many days uh important but is not and the most important most important thing is for sure residents receive this kind of the notice if any follow up and make sure you know they know this happened. Yeah. So, um, my question is in terms of additional notices, until there is an application submitted, is there a project? I mean, it it doesn't sound like there's a project. So, then the question is, what is the communication between the the park owner and the residents as far as what the forecast might be? But again, why would we want to add an additional notice prior to the formal submitt of an application? I'm not sure I see the validity of that. To me, the big question is once that application has been submitted and is found complete, then it's that subsequent period of time is critical. And whether it's the sweet spot is 60 days or 90 days, I don't feel strong at this point. It's just that to me that's that's the critical period that we should make sure that it is sufficient uh sufficiently noticed in in advance.

Go ahead. I think um the more advanced notice that we can give um is valuable um in looking at specific numbers um you know if we can extend the timelines so that we can be assured that everybody's noticed and and even give the property owner um you know additional time to fulfill whatever responsibilities are upon them. So, um I'm for extending times. I'm for extending times and and I actually think the idea of and I understand I agree with what you're saying about like when the process starts the application but I like the idea that before a filing that there would be an opportunity for the community and the park owners to be able to discuss what's going to happen because maybe at that point that discussion creates you know solutions so so that there is no application filed or if an application is filed that the homeowners are kind of aware and more comfortable what the process is going to be. So, um I I like that because I think it allows for commu a community engagement process between the between the the park mobile park owners and the uh the manufactured home owners and renters. And I, you know, I'm also agree that, you know, whatever more time is better than less time and with no specifics, but looking at

kind of the standard, what we've seen from other cities, you know, what makes the most sense there. My only concern with that is, you know, we're legislating good business practices. So, I'd like to think that that would be something that would take place, but um anyway, I just have to mention it.

Um my only it's not a rebuttal, it's just a comment. And that is and and I I'm things change, but I'd like to think that there is desire in the part of both the residents and the park owners, the park owner managers to have a dialogue, to have communication to to have a relationship that hopefully continues as it has in the court past 20 years. Um so again I would hope that there is that mutual respect and the recognition that to have that again the communication without necessarily legislating. So what I've heard um I've heard a lot but as far as I'm don't want to use what do I want to use what word? Um so um I've heard two comments more around extension of the time of the notice itself and and making sure like from application um to public hearing that there's that adequate time um provided for discussion or whatever that may look like. We'll have another slide that talks a little bit more about maybe public outreach different things. Um the other is um I don't know that I heard consensus around a pre-application um submitt based on this discussion. We can always come back to things, but as of right now, I'm hearing more that we want to just focus on maybe an extension within our current process time frames,

unless I hear otherwise. Explain pre-application. Yeah, I think it's important to note to be cognizant of the fact that the park owner would come to the city and say, "We're interested in in closure." And the city manager then needs to identify a consultant. This is under our current rules.

Identify a consultant who's going to do who's going to prepare the impact report. And then there's a period in which once we've hired that individual, that person has to get the data and prepare the report. And that may take some time. And I I don't think there's anything in our ordinance that prescribes a particular time that that impact report has to be completed by. I think there's a 90-day period in which we're supposed to identify the consultant. Um but the only statutory requirement of notice of the of the residents of the manufactured homes are is that 60 days before the hearing on the impact report. So there is time prior to coming up with the hearing to inform um the folks who live in these communities that there has been uh interest in a closure and an impact report is being prepared. is it's not pre-application per se. It may be pre-application visav, you know, a subdivision map application or a zoning change, but it's certainly not pre prior to the application of we're going to be looking at doing a closure and we need an impact report. Is that does that make sense? So yes, um I think the other part of that is yes, we do get the notified of that the way that these other ordinances were built is that um and the tri park example is that there would be a use permit associated with that closure. So again, there's other components that may drive certain things and the use of a pre-application terminology. I just mean as we were stating, we have certain timelines right now where we have the 90 days to go find a consultant to prepare it. During that 90 days, could you require notification that we're looking into this? Could, you

know, there are also opportunities. Right now, what we have is 30 days before the public hearing. We need to let the mobile home park owner know of their obligations and we need to let the mobile home um owners and tenants know that there's a public hearing coming. Uh the new state law is the 60 days of just receiving the report. So, that's kind of letting them know, hey, this is coming down the pipeline and there's going to be a public hearing. You'll get a notice in 30 days before. So, what we're trying to say in the when I say pre-application, I just mean before any of those legal notices go out, do we want another legal type notice to be received by tenants and mobile home owners? That's what we mean by pre-application notice. That's what I'm talking specifically, too. And that's what I was saying. I'm not hearing that before we get, you know, actual triggered to move forward with actual noticing that there's not something at the very beginning when we're looking for uh a consultant to make sure that everybody was notified that this is happening. Does that make sense a little bit more?

Well, you no, you go first. I was just going to say I so an application is submitted to the city, the city is evaluating whether or not the application is complete and I thought it was at that point in time that the time clock stops starts as far as the 60 days. Is it correct then to say that a a a requisite of submitting a quote completed application is the actual RI IR report

the um the triggers for us to move forward is the completion of that RIIR report. That is what's triggering all of our noticing requirements and all of our timelines. So, we have one timeline at the very beginning of saying I'm interested in closing, which gives us we need to hire a consultant. But once that consult once we get that RR, I have a certain amount of time to bring it to you. I have a certain amount of time to make sure everybody's notified. Um, that's that 30-day mark that we currently have. So, those will get fixed. So this is not like other projects where if you got an EIR, you're not, you know, they're putting in an application, you're identifying that the EIR is required and and that's the the point that they begin meeting their obligations. So this is different.

This is different and that's why when we were talking about concurrent processing and things like that, this plays into when this comes in to the actual process. It's not clear under our current code. It seems to me under the current code this would happen first and then we would continue the process of the actual general plan amendment, zoning amendment, things like that.

So, you know, what I've heard up here is um that there's an interest in ensuring communication with tenants and owners. Um I will say that um with regards to the tri county ordinance or tri park ordinance um in that they have notice provided to mobile homeowners at least 30 days prior to the date of filing an application and that's what you're talking about if I understand correctly and I think that's a reasonable expectation.

Thank you. It would be 30 days prior, my understanding in their code is 30 days prior to us receiving the information saying we want to close. That's what they're saying. Correct.

Yeah. They're time. And so for the park home mobile park home owners, they so they're okay. We're going to do a closure, you know, or a conversion. And so we now before we go to the city, we have we're going to let all the homeowners know and then in 30 days we can go file our you know let the city know and then that starts the process and the city then has 90 days to get their consultant and then once the RA RRI is done then the next processes the timelines start and so I agree with uh council member Gurnie I think that it's a reasonable request. I mean be because if it's true that we've had great you know there haven't been any closures what I'm assuming is and and I know that's I understand that I appreciate that. I think that that's great, but we know in this world things happen. People pass away, other owners come in and so, you know, this just is ensuring that kind of moving forward. There's that because I would assume because of how you've related, you know, the relationship you have that that would happen anyway, right? That's what we're hoping. This just says this is something we want that notification to go out early so that people are communicated before the application is filed. Okay. So I've now heard yes to the pre-application as um so what we'll do when we bring this forward is um providing that detail but also provide a lovely diagram of a timeline of when things would occur. I think that would be helpful. Um, the next question is to modify from city manager to the director of community development.

I'm going to do a very I'm going to go ahead and and say yes to this and see if my other council members agree because I think it also allows for from my understanding allows for appeal process. So, it is good. No, it doesn't. This is different. So, this we'll get to that one because of the process would be well that's later on. Okay. Okay. Anyway, but I would say yes. I think it should be you versus our city manager because I think it's going to be within the development department that's going to be dealing with Yes. This kind. Yeah. I Oh, go ahead.

Okay, let's sit here and silence. Um, so going to the director of community development. Um the actual application is still submitted to the city manager. Is that it would be submitted and to the director of community development and would be the person processing the application. Okay. I I just didn't want the city manager be cut out of any activity. Okay. Absolutely no concerns because I know that the communication thread between the two is just perfect. So but there's not going to be a closure. So, do can I vote on this as well? I can vote as well. Yeah, I think

all right. So, the next one is to add an approval expiration and an extension procedure question because currently we do not have an expiration. So, once the closure is approved kind of is there. I'll go ahead since this is already our process there. I think it should be the process for this as well. Okay. And we just extended that recently from a one year to a two-year. That's correct. So it gives them two years. So what it means just so that people are clear that you have two years to go through get your final permitting in. Right. And then an an option for an option for an extension

and that would be just one year extension as it currently is for our other projects. Currently, it is a one-year extension only for development. So, if that's the way that the approach is is consistent with the development projects, that's what we need to know. Okay. I heard consensus on that. Unless I didn't. All right. Relocation. This one's going to be meaty. Um so same kind of question that we had with the um RI is in the relocation plan. So again a replacement relocation plan is required under state law and it has to adequately mitigate the impacts upon the ability of the displaced residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park. Um, with that, some jurisdictions again provide a level of specificity in what they want to see in that relocation plan. Um, and also um other components to determine and identify the appropriate relocation assistance. Um, I'll go ahead and combine that with the next one that is that and a housing specialist would be identified to assist. we can separate or keep those combined. But um that is what I'm asking you is do we want to be more specific in that relocation plan as I stated right now all we say is that on number eight of our ordinance under the RR is the proposed time table for conversion closure sessation of use of the land as a mobile home park and for obtaining other discretionary approvals um for the proposed use. Sorry that was not the right one. Um, uh, where did it go? Timetable. That was the only thing that

I saw that was regarding that relocation plan. Sorry, there it is. A relocation number 14. A relocation plan that will include a timetable for physically relocating the mobile homes or payment of the relocation assistance. Yes,

I actually have another question for our attorney. Under the u your summary, you just simply stated that the state law provides a replacement relocation plan that adequately mitigates the impact. Who's defining the word adequately? And is this the opportunity that uh you know if we have the opp if if this is the opportunity where we can supplement uh or provide clarity as far as what that word is. But I I I'm amazed that Sacramento allowed that word just adequately come out without more specivity. I think that the consultant is going to give you his or her recommendation in the impact report about that, but in the end it's going to be the the council's determination as to adequacy.

So, I mean, I think that the plan is going to provide with provide a proposed u these proposed mitigation measures for closure and then it's going to be um up to the council to approve those or modify them based on your understanding of of what is sufficient or adequate. Wow. And so versus us setting specific mitigation measures ahead of time.

So I would say that um our code does provide examples of relocation assistance that could be provided. That is the some of those details that would go into that relocation plan. So the payment of assistance um there we've again general um but there could be other uh clarifying factors that we want to see in a plan. Keeping it general with just the timetable means, you know, it keeps it kind of open-end. And this is why I was asking in the beginning about what's the data we're trying to pull for the relocation impact report to then be able to respond in that relocation plan. Um so that you know that you're mitigating those impacts because that's one of your findings that you have to to make. Um there are examples that were provided to you all from other jurisdictions where they are kind of separating out what they're looking for in that relocation plan.

Um that's kind of where I was going with we just have a sentence that's very general. If we wanted to be a little bit more specific about what we're looking to be part of that plan, um, you can want me to take a shot at it. Okay. So in that re relocation plan, I would be comfortable with the the the 20 miles and adding Napa to our ordinance and not just Soma because county because I'm concerned about the distance. I think that actually the shorter distance is better and I could be wrong. The shorter the shorter a 20 mile distance is better than a 50 mile distance. Uh, I mean because that's that's a lesser the area that the people are relocating to. That's a less amount money that the the park mobile park owner has to pay. So, it's good for them to have 20 mile is it's not 15, but it's not 50. So, I think that that's a good I think that's a good mileage number. I would say 20. Yes. And I would say that um that we do want to um include in that um additional assistance for seniors and low, you know, for low-income households and disabled individuals. Um and that it should be um no. Yeah. So that those okay those are mine so far and then we'll let other people add on. I thought I had one other one but

so yeah but I'm looking at these guys here. Yeah. So um the mayor was um looking at all the questions that are provided on this slide. Um I'm just going to there's going to be uh these are other components that could be in that relocation plan. So I'm just going to give an example of where if you go are you guys I don't know if you have the document in front of you but uh there is a community that I'm looking at just for example and of course I lost it. Y

um the not Watsonville but the next community in the ordinance section there is um a section that's specific to the relocation plan that we were just talking about. I'm not going to get into the specifics. I'm just going to highlight some of the topics areas. But um it's specifically giving uh a level of specificity for what is that moving allowance for eligible residents like how should it be decided determined um what are the mobile home relocation cost for a mobile home owner and providing a little bit more specificity that it would include um any connection cost things like that permits replacement um it gives that level of detail. um what are uh the eligibility of the individual mobile home owners and residents for relocation assistance. So that's where I was going with there are some code examples where they're really getting into more of the details of what they want to see and how they want things provided to them, the data. Um but we can keep it general and that we just need to have an enough evidence um presented to us that that provides you the ability to potentially make those findings if you so choose and again that mitigates those impacts. Here I find some difficulties to define a low income household and you know I'm I'm not sure you know my understanding many you know majority of the household based on social security and a little bit you

know retirement panishing or something like that. So the you know because here we mention about the low income you know this is a very general term. I think that will be maybe should have the negotiation process between resident and park owner but that is a too big question. I really don't know how to address this kind of issue and go ahead. No, you go ahead and

Well, I just um I'll turn to the city manager. I believe that these terms uh as government as an industry has standards associated with all these terms. So there's no question as to what that means.

They are defined by state law and we would follow with the state law. Um again there are specific uh requirements for low-income households. Um the there are additional there are examples of additional provisions that sometimes get provided for specifically low-income households or disabled households um rather than a a household that um doesn't meet any of those qualifications. And it's just a an option that we're putting out there for you if you want to consider or want us to look at what is, you know, if we wanted to provide more specificity around assistance that could be uh off offered to low-income households or disabled households. Something that we would like to know. Um also um you know that is kind of one of those clarifying components in that relocation plan as well. So if we want to do additional relocation assistance for these things then we need to make sure we have that information. So, for example, to be clear, for a low-income household to be relocated, first last month's rent may be something that would be difficult for them to come up with. And so that's something I think for low-income households could be I would like those types of considerations to be thought about in the ordinance for people that are disabled that you're also looking at if they're moving to another mobile home or another manufactured home that there are that there's ramps and if the ramps aren't there that the ramps can be provided. So those are the type of specific things I think would would be helpful. Um so that you're basically looking at some specifics to make the ease of the move

for those people that maybe can't afford it or it's going to be a much higher cost because of their disability that those are provided for those. So those are the type of things that I would be looking for. And then um and then you know I I think the 20 miles is basically anything beyond that you know the the mobile home owner would have to be pay for let's say they ended up at 30 miles that extra 10 miles they have to you know they have to pay for that themselves if they're you know going beyond the 20 miles. I see the limit is actually a benefit to the park owner that you're not saying a 100 miles and they're not, you know, I mean, for most cases that's referring to you moving a actual manufactured home, you know, it it doesn't apply to someone that you're not going to be able to move it and they're going to go and live someplace else. But so then that cost is not something that the total, you know, it's it's less of a burden on the mobile park owner. So there's two things you're talking about right there. So I just wanted to clarify. One is the discussion around compar comparable parks. Part of the um the report the IRR um that needs to be provided is what are the comparable parks within 20 miles um is what's being requested is the 20 miles Soma County or Napa County. Our current ordinance says what are the comparable parks within Sonoma County? And then they need to provide information around those parks. Are there available spaces? What are the costs of those spaces? So that's where we get into those comparable parks. When we're talking about relocation

assistance, our current code is 50 miles. We um that's what ours currently says is that the relocation would be up to 50 miles. So, what I was talking about um in re in the comparable parks was did we want to get closer and then farther as well um or just keep it to Sonoma County? Um the other component that was added in the example ordinance was the envirro score. Um which is something it it is a combination of um environmental factors as well as uh affordable factors. So the idea being that you get a lower score if you have a concentration of um households that are low income and your environmental factors such as smog um high statistics of asthma and things like that. They overlay and they create this map. Um don't ask me the details. I just know that all these things get layered up and it colorizes a map and it says this is the area that there's concentration of low-inccome and high environmental factor

and we're looking for a comparable score. The way that it's written is that it would be comparable uh score that was that's what was proposed. I will say that um obviously we're a little different than the rest of the county. We are special. We're very special. All right. So, I'm just taking a step back for a second. Um I want to see if there's uh consensus. Do um do we want to keep the relocation plan um just general? Um just keep it simple,

general. Or maybe we can look at other cities. They have look at what they are. is saying and maybe we can go some reference and what is make sense. Essentially the more specificity you pro provide in the ordinance the less discretion you're giving to the council in the future when they're making that decision because they're going to have to stick to the specifics. That's the policy decision. Question then if I could please.

Yes. Go ahead. uh correct me if I'm wrong, the um the manage the managing of the consultant that's putting together the RIIR is going to be handled by staff. And one of the goals and expectations of that RIIR is to give the council adequate information to make findings. So I would suspect that you will be giving some direction that are tailored to what wherever the park might be. So that uh so I would be more inclined to be more general or leave it the way it is with the expectation that there is going to be some uh discernment and discretion and direction coming from staff as far as what is to be in the R or RIR. Maybe I can make a general slightly more general that there would be it would be general but you would ask that there would be specifics related to impacts upon lowincome and disabled individuals in the RAR ri I mean the riir is supposed to reflect the existing conditions and I would say it's safe to say within the three parks we probably have a pretty good cross-section of residents that own homes there that follow in all those categories. So if if we're asking for an IR R IIR to be responsive to a specific then that's covered would it not be or again

I I didn't see that I don't think that that's specifically covered but I will look through those 17 items again but I do I would like to I mean I just would like that there that that is information in regards to findings for us that we're looking at of whether or not that information is available so that you're number six. Oh, does number six cover it?

Number six says the total number of mobile home residents listed by space identifying owner or renter occupancy, principal or second home occupancy and the number of residents who are physically disabled including the chronically ill. And so then to take it to relocation, we'll have that data, but I would like in that relocation that there would be compensation considerations for those individuals because it will be a more costly move for them. That's what I'm trying to address is that those individuals be able to be because of their low income and disability that you're addressing those issues for them. it's going to be harder on them than it is on other people.

So, I don't know how we say that in a general way. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Um, okay. So, I'm hearing in g keep it general. I'm hearing that um potentially this is where I'm asking for consensus if I'm hearing this correctly. keep it general in the sense that we have and but um look at is there uh language in there that um covers the disabled which we have in the IRR but maybe not in other locations and then also uh I'm asking low income general you know is right but what I concern is and some that are res resident the income is a fixed income

you know if uh compensation or assistance provided it's you know is not sufficient for them couldn't you know relocate that is I I projected you know that way happened this kind of thing you know so I don't know how to handle this kind of issue you know so let's just go through and respond to that request of you know kind of General, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, just one thing and that's, you know, thinking through

the all the different state laws that may apply um if this were to happen, the housing crisis act. Oh. Um we may need to know the income levels of the residents in order to determine whether their relocation would trigger that law. Um, it may have to do with whether or not they're rent controlled, they're in a rent controlled space or not, but not not all of the spaces are necessarily rent controlled. So, it's possible that we may need to know their income level

regardless and I would and do you do you disagree? Do you think that we have some I mean it seems like it that it is likely to be a relevant factor that we're going to it may become a relevant factor depending on the project. So that's that's my clarifier. So why don't we put something before you just for the consideration that keeps it general that still gets what we need. If the Housing Crisis Act is triggered, we're gonna gather that information, right? Regardless. Okay.

Okay. So, that's regardless. And then we have certain requirements under that law that we have to follow in regards to relocation, putting people up during the time period in which there is no housing. There's things like that that have to be done um for low-income households. We will be doing those things regardless. Um so and potentially ADA as well.

Yes. So we need to meet their needs. Um the aspects though around this specific thing. We'll keep it general. We'll say because in our relocation assistance, we already have pretty general things of what you could do. We can just add a little clarifier of also potentially addressing special needs or low-income households. And we can consider that again at um when we actually draft it so that you can see what that looks like. And so let's clarify this for you the 5020 Soma Napa issue.

So the only request that I have around that is comparable parks. Right now we have Soma County. That's our current regulation. The tripart committee ordinance is 20 miles Soma County Napa County and the cow envirro screen comparable. That's what was proposed. Sonoma County is ours right now. And all we're asking the park owner to do is provide a list of comparable parks.

It's a list of comparable parks, but there's a lot of information that needs to be provided for each park. And so that's the question. Do you want to just narrow it down to Sonoma County like the way it is, or do you want to increase the range of parks countywise, but then narrow it based on the Envirro screen or the 20 miles? Well, the 20 miles is included. Basically, you're going to see what's at 20, what's in Sonoma, what's in Napa that meets those requirements. It's not one or the other. It's you're seeing it all for these different things because there may not be any in 20 miles or there may not be in Sonoma County. It's kind of with the calro screen. Yes.

So, it's expanding expanding but narrowing. That's why. So if you if you in if you picked up a mobile home park in Vallejo, it probably it may have a cow enviral screen that's much different than a one and therefore it would be removed from that sample. So, we're thinking the Envirro screen is actually going to limit the Envirro screen potentially would limit

you know I I haven't changed my concern yet you possible or it will trigger you know the housing crisis act if you know relocation will happen and then the resident become the homeless. If this kind of situation will happen or and in the law can protect them. That is the goal of the law is to mitigate as best as possible. Um, but whether or not that where that park is located when we're comparing and things like that, I think is really what we're we're trying to just narrow narrow down. If you want to consider something different than what we already have,

but I still couldn't fully understand. How about the city attorney and Dave? How about you think you know this kind of situation? Have you have this kind of experience?

This is not a legal issue. This is really a policy decision. Um it's it's about the sample size that you're comparing to. on on the one hand, the the more comparable mobile home parks you include, um you know, that's going to be a little bit more work for the consultant um to gather that information to include. Um so it's going to cost the park owner more money. But um on the other hand, having a a a larger number of comparable parks, um you know, could be could be a benefit because it you know, it provides more areas where a a home could be moved to, right? I mean, if you only have three parks that you could look at moving a mobile home park to, there's a lot fewer opportunities to actually be able to

to to relocate. But if you have a much larger pool then there's obviously going to be a greater chance of uh relocation if you know my understanding obviously we've heard plenty of comment that the relocation is is very unlikely anyway thank you for your know more information thank you let's go by I because we have this choice of the 20 miles or this is what it states here in the code up to a distance of 20 miles or in Sonoma or Napic counties and use of California EPA cal environmental screen. That's the tripart. That's the tripart. I know.

Okay. And you would you're saying 50 no no miles.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the our code just says Sonoma County. That's all our code says. Sonoma County for comparable parks. Oh, and they cost up to 50 miles. Okay. So, it's the Napa County or the Sonoma County and the Envirro screen. Okay. So, what if we did Sonoma, not do Sonoma and Napa? I mean, the Envirro screen will probably knock out a good deal of Napa. So I'm just trying to get like how do we get to what's the best mix of people for the mobile home part but not so extensive for the consultant to have to do a significant amount of you know like go be way beyond what is really available for people because most people are not going to want to move there that far. do a a a radius, a simple, you know, 40 mile radius from from the city of Sonoma plus the Calvro score.

You narrowed it down even more. Yeah.

And then what you said We'll look into it more difficult. I think there'd be more information why it's difficult for us because we don't know what the end answer to these parameters are. So, right in regards to like what does that end up encompassing for people when we look at Sonoma County and 50 miles and what does uh Sonoma County and 20 miles and the environment what does that mean? What does that end result come in? So it's very hard for us to kind of say which it should be when it's like we don't know what the end result is. Okay. All right.

We can look into that a little bit more. Last question on this slide um or two. So clarifying timing when the payments shall be made that can be just a general you know thing or as provided in the example ordinance was it was a specified specific time frame before closure that a payment would be made. And then the last question was in regards to whether or not a housing specialist would be hired by the city um or not. And the applicant pays for the housing specialist. That would be correct. Yes.

And so how does the housing this is my has been my question. How does the housing specialist differ from the consultant?

So the consultant is specifically hired just to prepare the report, collect the data. It's probably a different specialist. Housing specialists are going to be those that are more uh knowledgeable about housing and would be able to um prepare that relocation plan and or assist with actual relocation, finding housing opportunities for those that are displaced. That's the role of that housing specialist versus somebody that's just preparing a report. Yes, that maybe assistant to where directly work with the residents. Yes. Provide the service.

I'm going to comment on the lowhanging fruit. I believe that um I could support the recommendation of 90 days that um be no sooner than 90 days from from the timing of payment. P timing. Yes. Payment. timing as was in the tri park park draft ordinance, right? So, we can check that box off. That's what you would recommend. Let's go through. Do are you comfortable with that? Just so we can I Yeah, I'm comfortable with the 90 days. And how about you?

Yes. Okay. So, we're good on the 90 days. And so it seems to me if we hire an AR an assistant then maybe we can keep everything much more general potentially.

I I think that I don't disagree with that but I think that there could be value in keeping everything under the oversight and management of the city so that the housing specialist is hired by the city. That would be my recommendation or my thought and I' I'd be open to other comments but it just it's consistent where we handle a lot of other required reports that the city hire manage applicant pays and everybody's happy. I'm just checking with everybody so we can move on because she needs to get consensus. Okay.

All right. I would support that too. Okay. All right. Moving on. Going to the next slide. I think did we cover all that? We did.

So, um, again, kind of in that same vein of the housing specialist. Um, I'm probably hearing going to hear the same comment about the appraiser being selected and managed by the city. Um, currently right now, um, the consultant that we select needs to provide an appraisal with the relocation plan, but it doesn't really state anything else in regards to that about where that appraisal comes from. So, question for you. Do you want it selected and managed by the city or do you want a selection and list for the applicant to receive?

I'll be consistent. Okay. Yeah. Manager by the city I think will be better because we the city close to the residents. We know what they need. I I would just comment that it it must be a state certified appraisal. Yeah. And appraisers do have ethical obligations to provide independent u advice visa vuations. So

So if that's the case, then if the city were to hire, they'd be hiring a certified appraiser period. So that's not an issue. So I don't see a liability in having likely the same cost for the for the applicant. Yeah. And again I I single source or being able to being managed by the city I think has value. Council member Gurnie. Well, I wasn't quite sure the point you were trying to make. um doesn't really matter who hires them because they're ethical and okay

I the only comment I would have is there may be an appraiser that has maybe more experience in manufactured homes so that would be and I do think that the city it's good it's a question of do we want to control the process or do we give the list that's the issue to the mobile park owners I think it's I think we should control the process. I would agree with that. And my only concern is capacity of staff in in terms of managing all these things even though we've never seen one of these. Right. Okay.

The last question in this one is kind of a bigger one is should the scope of the appraisal include the park? So right now the appraisal just has to be for the individual homes for their um in place value. The uh trip park committee was uh suggested that three uh like I said three um specific appraisals be done on the mobile home park. I'm curious that if we were to do that, what is the information the value of the information gained relative to what we are trying to make the findings etc. What what are we gaining by knowing then the the appraisal of the park?

So the values that you're that the appraisals are getting as one is what its value is right now and then what its value would be at its future use. Um, so it there could be uh different uses that you could have in making findings around an increased value. Um, basically it's going to be more of a financial uh consideration. Um, also potentially how much potential value would come out of the property with a future development. And my sense is is it potentially could increase the u the amount of money that's paid to the residents. Um I actually prefer the municipal code as it currently stands.

Well, I'll just consultant preparing uh well this is what what is in our matrix, right? uh consultant preparing the report uh to provide appraisal in the report estimate of the fair market value of each mobile home and all associated fixed property that cannot be value is or not and I heard no I still haven't I still really haven't heard what the the gain is there the gain is there um but I mean

it would be you what is that future value of the park what's its current value. There could be considerations around uh future taxes or how much funds um potential investment will come back. As council member Gurnie said, it could be um you know that you there's an understanding of that um future revenue. So that presupposes though that the requirement is going to be that there is going to be a project submitted with it concurrently because then if we there's no project there's nothing to compare it to. It's correct.

So maybe we should Can we go to that address that issue and then go back to this? I know it's not in your order. No, you're fine. Too many. Yeah, to be honest, we don't have a lot of experience. Don't know what's going on. Yeah,

a lot of us. Yeah, that is the that is the you know what kind of the benefits we we we couldn't know and then the and from from mine if for me of course I want to personally and I would like to include you know get more information get more reference that is good

if I may suggest going back to valuation I I would say that we go ahead and and address the other state law requirements with the in place market value so that at least it's compliant and then when we see the draft again um we can continue to chew on whatever it is you need to chew on on the park

on the park I mean to me the benefit of the mobile park manufactured to home owners, not the park owners, but the the homeowners of knowing that is relative to compensations they may want to seek if they think that there could be s, you know, significant financial benefit that is being gained by selling the property or or I mean that's why it's there. I'm not saying I'm not saying what I think it should be one way or the other, but I'm just saying I think that's why they're asking for that. I could be wrong, but I think that's why they're asking for that because then, you know, you know, it's like you're going to sell this business and or you're going to sell this property and you're going to make significant amount of money and you're quibbling with us about whether or not you're going to pay for X, Y, and Z. So, that's what it gets down to and so that's why they want to know that. So I'm just kind of So then it's whether or not that information whether we think that that's valid information for them to have or whether we think that it's you know you know we're already going to put in here enough u on the other side of it. I like saying both sides of the story. on the other side of we're putting enough in here that gives people an understanding of what's going to happen through this process that that's not information that that you know we think that they that is relevant to what we want to make sure happens.

Okay. So we'll bring that back. Yeah.

All right. Ignore the first bullet. Go to the second bullet bullet. Should development be reviewed concurrently with a closure and conversion. That means that during the process we'll sub have a application submitted for that change of use and as one of the many uh what I call entitlements but part of those findings that need to be made for the development would also include the findings that need to be made for that closure. That's what I consider concurrent. Does anyone want to tackle this one? I'm happy happy to go with the first and second one of this. Do you want me to go that way or not? You want to just do bullet two and then go back?

You guess because bullet two will determine bullet one. Okay. So my sense is I think it should be concurrent. I think it's important for us as a council, not just for everybody involved in it to know what the next what's what the plan is going forward. I think it helps all the planning. It helps timing. It helps everybody understand kind of what the process is going to be. I think it can alleviate fears. If they're, you know, doing a conversion and, you know, that there's going to be a certain number of affordable houses that are going to be available, I think all of the concurrent makes makes sense to me. I'm good with that.

Yeah. I I will say that the Trip Park Committee's proposed ordinance, even though it it proposes this concurrent review, does have the the ability for the park owner to

make a deing and demonstrate such financial hardship that that that's not that's not possible, economically feasible for them. So, if we do go ahead and and go that route, I I think we should probably incorporate um that potential for an exception in in in unusual cases where um really uh an owner is closing due to the inability to to continue as a going concern. And I think that that's already in there somewhere in regards to bankruptcy. We we have a provision related to bankruptcy, but this doesn't require that the owner declare bankruptcy. Uh the bankruptcy provision is required by so financial hardship.

Yeah. And so the the provision that the Tri Park uh folks put in uh recognizes that you know that there is a uh you shouldn't have to be forced into bankruptcy if in order to get out of a business that isn't

it's not penciling. How can we make the definings that there is minimal impact to our affordable housing inventory if we don't have a follow-up project to evaluate against what we're losing? So, it's complicated, but there could be another project that's not on that site that is providing the housing that exceeds our number. The I the whole concept with the the housing element and it is not reducing our number of units and making sure that there's more units. So, it needs if if this is reducing, this needs to go up somewhere else or on-site. That's that's kind of what we're looking at. So, is there another project going on somewhere else that fulfills that need? Is it not? That's that's going to be it's more complicated if you don't do it concurrently or there's a condition that those need to be provided that housing option needs to be provided before like new housing units. Well, we're already getting so much I won't call it flack, but stress from Sacramento regarding more housing and we have the RENA number and so it's like we're going in the wrong direction if we're saying, well, we've got another project offsite that's going to generate that that's going to fill in that. Well, that doesn't help us in terms of uh

I know it doesn't help us. Unfortunately, business happens and life happens and people are going to buy and sell property and we can't tell them that they can't. So, no, but no, you're missing my point. My point, though, is just simply whether or not there needs to be a concurrent project, right? And I think there should be concurrent. And I think what we do is make sure that there's language in there that protects the uh the the the uh mobile park homeowner that if they, you know, if they're not in a financial position to be able to do another project that then then it's then they don't it's not saying that they have to do another project, but we want these things of what's going to happen next to be concurrent. We'll look into that more too.

Sorry. Concurrent is either there is something or there's not something. Is it not? I'm

no because there could be something but you're resolving the issue of the closure or the conversion first before considering the uh what the future project would be. I don't see how you can I'm with you. You have to do that in my mind. You have to do those two together. But there could be an instance where, and I'm I'm not talking about the when I make these assessments, I'm not talking about the current mobile park owners. You're just talking about any mobile park. Then we're talking about what could happen in the future. There could be an instance where they, you know, they're closing not because of bankruptcy, but because there's there's no longer sufficient occupancy, right? And they can no longer continue the business. So, but ideally, you know, there's the other case where there's, you know, there a conversion is happening and there's going to be a project and then they're going to be doing other kind of development there that then we want to know that there's going to be affordable housing that's going to be able to be match what we already have.

Okay. Right. Um I don't know if I'm right. So, we'll we're going to look at that a little bit more. Um and then we can provide you that answer when we provide you the the ordinance. Um based on that concurrently, city council would need to approve it because anything if it's concurrent, it would need to be city council because it of the uh general plan amendment and the zoning amendment. Um so there wouldn't be an option for an appeal. Um the um so let's see maybe this one's an easy question.

I realized that Uh the next one is should the decision be made at a public hearing or given more time for consideration the close of a public hearing. Typical development entitlements is you make your you make that decision at the meeting um and you know usually at the close of a public hearing or you continue it to another hearing um before making your decision. Um the examples there was a a basically a decision would be made after the public hearing within 60 to 90 days were the examples in these other jurisdictions. I do not necessarily know the value of that um but it is there for your consideration. Yeah, I prefer, you know, made a decision, you know, a little bit later, you know, couple of months later and for sure we can digest or fully understand comments or concerns during the public hearing. But if we're doing them concurrently now, we're going to have a zoning ordinance that's going to take two readings. Um, so they would want it needs to it would need to be concluded

at least by the second reading of the the entitlements would need to be completed on the second reading. I'm going to pause for a second. We actually have to take a vote to continue the meeting because it's after 9:00. We actually don't need to do that because we're not starting a new item. If we start a new item Oh, good. All right. Yeah. Does anybody Can I just say do does anybody need a quick break? Let's finish this and then I'll take up the break. Thank you. So, I guess what I'm saying is that given the direction regarding concurrent review um we're going to need to have the council's decision uh by the time that the other entitlements are in place. Ah,

so for a zoning ordinance, it's It's two meetings basically. So it's a two week spread. Yeah. Yeah. Or a spread between two meetings. Yeah. And you can continue the meeting. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So I would say that we just you know we just I don't want to this is going to be a long process anyway. I don't think you want to we're going to have a lot of information by the time we're at this point. Um, and I think that at that point what we say is we have the meeting and if we can't come to the decision at the meeting then we have another meeting versus say 30 or 60 days. Okay, that would be my position. You don't we're not going to just roll it the can down the road. I'm just concerned about also the mobile home people kind of the stress that people will be under at that point of like how do we just make sure that this is moving forward.

It's kind of like closing a school. Luckily, we're not in the process of doing this. We're just talking about what the process would be if we were doing it. Could we answer the first one about planning commission or city council dur said?

Yes. So because it would be reviewed concurrently, it would be city council making that decision. So I heard public hearing would be the decision. I'm not seeing any I'm seeing head shakes. Okay. Um and then the currently um the conditions um should the conditions necessary to mitigate impacts be required um as you saw adequate you know mitigation is required it's our language is a little bit more um I don't know what the right word is that I'm losing off the top of my head um but there there may be different types of mitigation measures that could be done. And then there's certain language that's stronger or language is isn't as strong as I saw in other jurisdictions or in the proposed as far as what is required. Um and then the last one is how to involve the mobile homeowners and residents in the process which we'll talk about in another slide. We can take a break. Um because I think we're all waning out.

You'll bring back something on the conditions necessary. Yes, I'll bring you back something. All right. Okay. Yeah, bathroom. Let's do that. That's good. So, next I think we need to take a quick break. Just five minutes so people can get up, stand up, and we're going to really keep it to five minutes. Um and then we have one, two, three, four, five, six more. But most they get much easier. Yeah.

All right. with the last bullet point.

Um, no, I'm going to skip that bullet point. We're going to talk about public outreach later. Um, in another slide. Um, the, um, consistency findings. Um, right now, again, the state law is saying that findings shall be made as to whether a closure will result in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing. The tripart committee ordinance proposes a finding that the closure um could not be approved if it would actually reduce um the availability of uh low-income housing. So that and consistent as consistent with the housing element. I am going to as I with each of these I'm going to try to hear from each of us first unless nobody has anything to say. You can ponder for a moment. So should the language be strengthened beyond the state law? I'll simplify it.

Thank you.

State law. I I think I think I am comfortable with the state law on this one. I will also say that concurrent development means that it has to the development to approve the development entitlements. It has to be consistent with the general plan and the housing element is part of that general plan. I think the reason why I'm comfortable with state law is because I feel that we have the housing element is driving us and it would be hard to be in a position where we wouldn't be, you know, looking at seriously looking at the effects that a closure would have on our affordable housing situation. Okay. Whoops. Whoops. Where did I go? Um, I'm g skip this one. I feel like this one's about the right of first refusal. This is something that we already provide um in our code and just based on what you're saying, I kind of know how to approach that.

Um, yeah, I think we're good. Yep. So, going to go skip that to the next one. Public outreach. I think this is the one that um you know based on the conversation that we just had around noticing um earlier is do um do we want there to be a public um a questionnaire provided to all the mobile home um owners households and resident households? That's so that's where the information that's collected on each household would be within uh that questionnaire. Yes.

I guess I'm I my understanding is this in the letter from the attorney from the mobile park owners. This was one of the areas that they were very concerned about. And it seems to me that this is something that the consultant is doing and I'm having a hard time understanding why that is the burden that they expressed. Um I don't know if you because this seems to me like it's really key information that needs to happen to be able to move forward with anything you're going to do anyway. So the way that the current um code is written is that this information is going to be provided in that report. It's the how it's collected that again that level of specificity

that is in some of these ordinances and in the trip park ordinance is specifically saying that should be provided within a questionnaire from that household that is then submitted as part of that packet that goes with that their report. That is what is the difference is the how it's collected. So the concern is that the difficulty is actually getting each household to complete that questionnaire. Although so us requiring that is really a burden on the individual home on the mobile homeowner, not on the mobile home park owner. Right. I mean, so I mean, I think it's information that we need to have. And the question I have is when you're any when you're doing questionnaires and somebody can't, you know, they can't complete the questionnaire because they're ill or they're too old or does that mean that you provide some assistance for them to do that? you know, I mean, or you just recognize that there's some questionnaires that are just not going to be completely answered and you're going to get as much information as you can. I mean, that's what it seems to me reality is that you can't anticipate that every questionnaire I know me personally when they give me questionnaires, there's often many questions I will not answer because I don't know, I don't have a correct answer. But I'm just saying that it's like I think we want, you know, the best effort maybe that that's what should be a best effort that questionnaires are completed by every one of the mobile home owners.

Depends on depends on what kind of questions within the questioner. If the just only five or 10. Yeah, could have been easier. We do have the question. Yeah, we have the page page.

It's page four and five. So again, the information that's collected on the questionnaire is going to be the information on the households themselves to help um understand uh income, uh handicap, what's their rent, things like that. That's what is proposed in that questionnaire. Again, um the question is more of do we want the specificity on how the information is collected because a lot of that information will be collected regardless and incorporated in into the report

into the report. So what more I guess I'm confused.

So the question so the so the information is getting provided the example ordinance the proposed ordinance or the draft ordinance that was provided by tripart committee specifically stated more specificity that there needs to be literally a questionnaire provided to the households. It's going to contain these specific things and that questionnaire that they got would then be provided with the actual report. So at the end of the day, you're going to see each individual household's report. That's what that means. Versus the report itself will have the data that is collected in a summary of that data. It's not going to have an individual household's information. So, if it were me collecting that information, I I would then want it all together in one place and not individual questionnaires for me to have to look through. I mean, that would be, you know, that's the only way you're going to be able to assess that. So you want to know, you know, you want to be able to put get all the data and know and you have, you know, like whether it's a spreadsheet or AI is doing it or whatever. I mean, because there's all of those aspects that AI could be doing all of that of how you collect it. So they could someone can do the data input and then it can be brought together in one report.

Yeah. And also questionary also reflect you know general you know the feelings from the each residents it's very positive and I come back to what I stated earlier is I still think that this is something that you could engage the homeowners association for whatever respective park we're talking about um to actually collect from their membership um the residents and provide that to the consultant to include in the

RI. Wouldn't Wouldn't this also be the opportunity for your desire to get some social data?

Yeah. And then possibly if it gets turned into the consultant, it's his obligation to fold it into a a readable format. And we can also have the questionnaires as an attachment at the end. And it can be our choice whether or not we want to. I mean, if we if it's if the if the questionnaire is going to go beyond, you know, if it's going to get into the the the intent of the social aspect of it, then, you know, that could be attached but we have the chance to read it but in terms of the act the data that we need to see a spreadsheet on or whatever could be indeed part of the report.

Yeah. And when I've worked with consultants in the past that are collecting data from real people generally you you know versus from you know you know a report on data but you're actually talking to real people. consultants going to have a generally they have a format that they use and they're going to give you the data that is data that can be actual you know like 75% of of the population is this and 25% is this and then they're going to be able to to bring a report to you that's going to say and of comments in in this area these were the most common comments that came up or something like that I mean consultants know how to take all this data and pull it together and present it to you in a report that allows you to be able to make sense of, you know, kind of what the population is, what their needs are. And so I think you have to hire the right consultant that knows how to do this.

Yeah. Interpret these kind of, you know, info data. So, I'm hearing that this is a possibility just to incorporate it in a a draft ordinance just based on the consensus. Yeah, I think we want a we want a questionnaire of and how it's how it's done I know is the issue. We we can and then we can work on that and then that's can be part of that discussion. I would be working with the consultant and saying how do we you know how do we how do we gather this data that that's what I would be doing.

Um and then the last question in the public outreach is require an informational meeting held by the applicant for the affected mobile home owners and residents before a public hearing is actually held. And that would be a requirement Yes, I would say yes. I see. Yes. Okay. I saw your head shake. It's good to know if we have a consensus or not. He He put his thumb up. All right. Okay.

All right. um enforcement tools. Um again, we just require a written agreement. Um so when looking at concurrent projects, we usually have conditions of approval. Um and um if there's environmental, we have mitigation measures and things like that. We have certain uh requirements that have to be done in order in order to the project to proceed. Um these are um examples of what I provided you in the report is are examples of um in these other jurisdictions where they're providing uh recorded documents or a written like affidavit that they have complied with these requirements in this relocation in order to move forward with uh specifically building permits or being able to construct their contract. So that is the enforcement tool um in that sense and then um or you know our written agreement is then recorded. Let's say the property sells things like that. It's it's a basically runs with the property um which these entitlements do. Um the city does not record um approvals on properties. Um other jurisdictions I've seen do. So, taking a step back, do you want to record this written agreement that the city currently provides or requires um and or do you want to require some kind of affidavit or um information that's saying that they have complied uh with all the mandates for a closure? So, payment of relocation assistance or moving the properties, things like that.

I'm fine with the written agreement. I'm fine with the written agreement, too. Okay. I I

um I'd like to pose the question to our attorney. Educate me in 30 seconds or less on the values or not the values of an affidavit. I think the affidavit is just so that you have something to in if if compliance wasn't complete then you would have essentially them um perjuring themselves. Um and so you would it would be u potentially useful in any court case against them based on failure to comply with

and if it's simply recorded but it isn't uh completed as committed to the recordation of the agreement. The reason why you would record it, it would be to give notice to a subsequent owner of the property um and bind that subsequent owner because otherwise your contract is only with the owner that um that went through the approval process. If they then sell the property, you can only go after the owner who no longer owns the property. Um okay,

so the recordation would potentially allow you after two parties, one the original applicant and two the current owner. I will defer to my partners. Does does the city record entitlements? No, we do not. does record, you know, subdivision improvement agreements um that require a developer to to um construct improvements and um deed restrictions, for example. Those are also

So like an affordable housing agreement, that would be a recorded agreement that we do. That's an example of one. Yeah. So I would just like it an agreement that will protect us for, you know, ensure that if there's another owner that they're responsible for it, too. That would that would be the record. Yeah, that would be a Yeah, that would be it would be safer to record that. Yeah.

Okay. So, I heard to um amend the written agreement to make sure that it gets recorded, but I did not hear consistent on the the any kind of um affidavit or anything like that for compliance. Okay, sounds good. Reconsideration. Do we want a refocation process? So, approve it and change our mind. Well, now if we're doing the concurrent, I I got to get back to this. If we're doing the concurrent and it's coming to city council directly, then who would they appeal to?

It's it's not an appeal process. It's a revocation process. There um we do have a revocation process for entitlements. Um and there are specific findings that have to be made. Um, yeah. I want to say so potentially revoke the use permit. I've seen it somewhere. I just can't remember. You've seen a revocation process for a conversion permit? No, I've seen some Yes. All the different all the other jurisdictions had a revocation process for a closure if they failed to comply with

if they failed to comply. So the findings that are typically made for revocation is failure to comply with your conditions. Well, I definitely think we need a revocation process. It would just be specific to this type of project. Yeah. Process. Yeah, of course. Mistake or missing any information, made a wrong decision. Definitely we should have reconsidered. Well, it would really this is different. Yeah, this is about if the the park owner doesn't comply, okay,

with all of the mitigation, for example, the mitigation requirements that the council approved. They were unable to provide adequate the assistance that the council ordered. then this would give them a due pro due process, a notice and an opportunity to be heard before the approval of their closure was revoked based on their failure to comply.

And so what this does to me is then we're not kind of requiring them for all the mitigation to happen prior to doing the building permits, but if there doesn't happen, then we can actually then revoke the closure. It's another way of doing that in some sense if if any way can help the city or in favor of the city or what is for you know. No, I mean I think it's it's it's probably something that's worth including in our revised.

I support that based on our city attorney's recommendation. I'm supporting as well too. Yes. And and do you have support then for this? Yes. How about you, Jack? Support. I support. Okay. Good. There we go. Yeah.

All right. Last slide. All right. Um so we talked a little bit about um concurrent processing and with that there may be um times in which the uh mobile home park owner does not have a development project moving forward and things like that. So these two items are kind of tied to that. So the second one being specifically what the city attorney talked about um when we were talking about concurrent processing is that um the tri park committee ordinance provided for an additional finding for the closures that is not uh heard concurrently. So there was another finding that needed to be made um that so that could be incorporated into this to provide options if there is no project being proposed. The other is um a provision for exemption from relocation assistance requirements if um based on reasonable use or an economic value component. That one's a little bit more complicated. Um but basically there is an opportunity that we can provide in the ordinance to um if they meet certain findings, they would not need to provide that relocation assistance. And this is something I think you know this is something that the tri parks ordinance had and it's really beneficial I think to the park owners

and to the city because the city doesn't want to be in a position of preventing someone from leaving the market that simply is financially unable to continue operating. So I I think that we would propose these in in the ordinance that comes back and have you guys take a look at something like that. I would recommend them both. How about Gurnie's? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. All right. That concludes my slides.

What happened to the uh Did you just bypass the affordable housing fee slide? Um or is that covered because of the way we do business already? Correct. So the affordable housing line was specific or that that part in the matrix. Um there was no um proposal um as part of it. So I was just if you don't want to keep what we have, we can change it, but that was the only we were the only ones that had anything in regards to that line. I just wanted to make sure you were able to touch on every slide. So, okay. Thanks. Um, no, I did I just didn't add it. I thought you had enough.

Yes, excuse me.

Could I just wanted to give one more charge to staff? Um, I think the expression was made earlier about clear, precise, minimize ambiguities. So I believe those are virtues that our legal council always likes to have. So I challenge you with making it clear and unambiguous. Please and I think just I'll just add on to that. I think one of the our tasks will be to identify very clearly what we're what's changing based on this input the input why and so that everyone that's involved in this process can understand those changes and provide you feedback on those changes kind of pros and cons and what you know what was asked for and what we're showing. So um and we did commit to working with everyone involved so we will set up meetings in between and and talk the best we can to make sure that everyone's hearing what we're doing and incorporating your comments and what we bring back to you. So that's our charge. Um that's what we've told you from the beginning that we'll continue to do that.

And just to be clear, when this comes back to us in January, like February, March, February, March, sorry, beginning of the year. I was saying beginning of the year before. I'm sorry about that. We won't we won't make it January. That's just around the corner. So when that comes back to us there, it will come to us as with hopefully on some of the ones where we had less consensus and we're not and need some support on with some a few options. Again, yes, we'll provide you kind of more based on the questions of the the why, what what's the value of that.

Yeah. Um my other question for you I'm feeling that may be helpful is to actually like step through the process in what would be proposed to step through the whole I think that that would be fabulous from what's needed to provide for each thing. I mean, as you know, I had tried to do my little timeline on a piece of paper here of like how this, you know, like, you know, like how does this all end up, like how does this actually happen? And and I think that that really helps people be much clearer on kind of like identifying what issues might take place when and why. So, that'd be very helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

All right. So, oh, it's back to me now. Did you have a comment? I I still have the one question and we go back and try parks, you know, committee. You know, you can choose not to answer my question. I just curiosity because this organization similar like a group of the people but uh they collect the those kind of donations and hide the lawyers protect their interest. Uh what kind of this kind of organization because they have some the transactions money in money out.

Oh you mean what is what is the structure of the organization? Yeah. So the or it's part of the advisory advisory committee or for the city government or HOA or what kind of the organization when who designed this kind of name for them and again I already told you you can choose not answer my question because already in the maybe beyond uh today's the meeting. Yeah, I I think what I would recommend is that uh we could we could talk to the tri park committee to schedule a meeting with you to sit down and talk through your questions

um and with all any council member that is interested um to make sure that conversation happens. Yeah. And also never say uh enough saying that thank you for this kind of a committee. You know you bring on all voices and fight for your interests. You are heroes. Thank you. But we don't know now you know what kind of I just concerned you know.

Yeah. And just we're going to close the meeting but just want to thank everybody's staff this and the council all the I know all of us have been uh spending a lot of time in front of our computers or in front of the written printed out documents and all the work that the the Tri Park committee has done and all the work you know everybody has done what the park owners are have done in response to this. It's it's an very very important issue that we want to address in a way that we are thinking of you know the you know certainly the people that own their mobile homes and the renters there but of course also the mobile park owners as well too. So I think that we are trying to keep all of that into consideration because we know that businesses need to be able to function and that they that you provide a important facility for the for the mobile home owners. Uh so we're really trying to come up with a really fair approach but that protects people because I think we are we really do value this community. So but thank you. Thank you everybody. I know it's been a long night and we are now going to adjourn this meeting.