City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. We got our screens up.

We're good to go.

All right, folks. It's 6 o'clock. Let's call the and welcome to the City Council meeting. Let's call it to order at 6 p.m. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the Pledge. Thank you all. Okay, roll call. I see all council members are present. Any report out on closed session?

No reportable action.

Okay. Any conflict of interest declarations? Seeing none. Agenda review, changes or deletions? No changes, Mayor. All right. I'm going to move it. We have no recognitions tonight. Student liaison report. We did finally get somebody. The time frame came to the end and we had one and it's probably going to butcher this name, but Brisa Cardenas is going to be our, she'll be the sole one and she will be here starting on the next meeting. So we will have a student liaison report. And let's move into also one thing we've got to do tonight. The public hearing for the going to districts is going to kick off at 630. So we may have to adjust but we'll see if we can get through public comment with the amount of folks that we have. So we'll move into D one. verbal comments. Any person wishing to speak on an item not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda. Three minutes are allotted to each speaker. So let's roll right into public comment. Do we have public comment?

I want to know why staff's working from home. You guys complained at the last meeting you can't get your work done, but obviously you can't do that when you're at home. That's just weird. I don't know why we're even still working at home. And then don't come here and cry about it later. And why haven't we hired an engineer for our city? I feel like with Esmeralda coming, that's a big project and we should have an engineer. But it also makes sense that it's harder to fire an employee who raises any issues, so it's probably easier to keep your contractor. I don't know. That's just a concern. We haven't had an engineer for a long time. And then lastly, you know, I'm here to just speak directly to Todd. My family has always supported you. I remember what you said when you first ran for council. Do you? Probably not. You told me that you were tired of what was happening in our city and you were committed to preserving and protecting Cloverdale. That's why we voted for you. That's why we support you. It was not because of a political party affiliation. In fact, I don't even know if you still identify as a Republican and I don't care. We supported you because you were a dad, a husband, a coach, and a lifelong Cloverdalian who wanted to do the right thing and bring balance and fairness and accountability back to local government. You wanted to ensure that our tax dollars had precise oversight. That's not currently happening. Did you forget all of those conversations? Because I didn't. Look at who you've surrounded yourself with. Look at what the Esmeralda discussions have done to our community. Look at the personal attacks directed at community members, even from myself. I am guilty of it, and I'll continue it. Look around and see what's happening. What we're seeing today is exactly the kind of division that you set out to stop years ago. A lot of people in this town talk, and most won't say it to your face, but you and I have always had that mutual respect and boundary. And I hear the same comment over and over. I don't know who he is anymore. And I start to feel the same way. I've always been upfront and honest and outspoken with you, and I've always believed you are with me. We've had good conversations, difficult ones, and even ugly ones, yet we've always remained mutually respectful. I want to ask you a simple question. Where did you get lost in this political arena? Are you still the same person who ran for office to protect and preserve our community, Cloverdale, or have politics changed your priorities?

Any other public comment?

Good evening, Rob Kozlowski, resident of Cloverdale. City Council, thanks for your work. I did want to remind you that in 1978, Prop 13 was passed to prevent excessive property taxes for California homeowners. In June of this year, I guess the emails got lost there, Mr. Mayor, I did ask the Mayor to take the lead on passing a resolution in favor of the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to save Proposition 13 going forward. I did ask the mayor to support us property owners and rent payers around Cloverdale and try to protect them from ongoing excessive taxation in the form of higher property tax and escalating rents. There was an interesting article that Dan Walters wrote in the Press Democrat back on May 12, 2024. He wrote, since 1978, public employee unions and other beneficiaries of government spending have repeatedly tried to repeal Prop 13's barriers. and make it easier to enact new taxes. Cloverdale has a history of raising taxes, either directly or through fees, trying to raise taxes by using lower voter thresholds and hiking the costs of regulations. This trend needs to be reversed, and yes, Prop 43 is one way to do that. Furthermore, as rejected public records requests have highlighted, greater oversight for existing tax collections and debt retirement are required. The city has a spotty record on ensuring the city council's own demands for transparency and the legal requirement stated in the approved measures to report on collections and spending. Oversight in the form of audit reports is needed. For example, oversight is required for Measure P, or the marijuana tax. Oversight is needed for Measure R, or the permanent utility users tax. Measure DD, the three-quarter cent sales tax, requires oversight. Revenue losses attributed to water leaks and faulty water meters, impact fees on new developments, debt retirement, and the associated savings that is supposed to materialize in order, residents were told, to have the loan interest paid back before the end of life of the city's two solar systems. Hence the necessity for the city of Cloverdale going forward to approve a resolution in support of Prop 43, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act. Please protect the hardworking residents and preserve the tax benefits of Prop 13. I thank you, working for the citizens of Cloverdale, and I would like to thank you for making sure we don't have government overreach and push a resolution supporting a local Taxpayer Protection Act and proactively support Yes on Prop 43. Thank you very much.

Hello.

My name is Jennifer Sullivan, and I'm a resident of Cloverdale. Public Records Act requests are apparently overwhelming the City Hall. At the Finance Administration and Police Subcommittee, City Clerk Mike Maloney described a staffing model that cannot be kept up. Vice Mayor Todd Lands in the city had already resorted to closing city hall doors for much of the day and even suggested shutting down two or three parks for six months and redirecting staff. But PRA requests are not the problem. They are exposing the problem. Angela Cordova's PRA requests produced more than five years of Chamber of Commerce records. Roughly $250,000 was billed by the Chamber to the city and paid with public funds without the underlying accounting needed to show how those charges were calculated or how the money was spent. For that $250,000, the records do not show who performed the work, hours, rates, calculations, or how expenses were allocated to the city. Oh, and there's no funding agreement. Other spending is easy to identify. We found more than $31,000 in tent purchases, rentals, and equipment. Nearly $49,000 to Studio B for a Clover Ready website. rollout and social promotion work, more than 26,000 in chamber software and database subscriptions, two iPads and two MacBook Airs, a refrigerator, and more than 17,000 in Jay Segan Presents charges for the 4th of July entertainment and production. How did this slip by? Where is the oversight? Now this city... Now the city is preparing to approve Esmeralda, the largest development in Cloverdale's history. It's a 266 acre project placing decades of phase development infrastructure mitigation and compliance review on city staff. Much of it is ministerial with no public notice or appeal. Who pays for the 25 years of city staff engineering legal and consultant review? Is the developer guaranteed to pay the full cost or will some or some will become city overhead. Supporters keep pointing to all the tax revenue Esmeralda is expected to generate, but who will track it? Who will verify hotel TOT sales tax, development fees, and other revenues if they're accurately reported? Who will audit the TOT sharing calculations, infrastructure credits, and other financial obligations? Who will track the environmental mitigation, contamination controls, development agreement? If PR a request can overwhelm Cloverdale's capacity and roughly 250 and chamber payments cannot be fully account fully accounted for from the records produced, how will this city provide competent financial and regulatory oversight of Esmeralda?

Good evening, Daniel Frankston, Cloverdale. I just want to chime in on something that Jennifer said. I went to City Hall, I guess last week, maybe earlier this week, to pay my cannabis tax and stumbled across a PRA training session and noted that there are scores of Public Records Act requests that are being made. I've noticed when I do Google searches now, They offer to provide you with a Public Records Act letter if you'd like to submit for additional information. So I can understand both between the concerns that the citizens have and the ease with which public records requests can be made, that that places a tremendous burden on the city to do that. And I know it's difficult. And that harpens me back to why I'm here, which is I recall back in June, there was a presentation in which it was indicated that Sonoma County has one city that has only one city clerk, and that's Cloverdale. And there was a presentation setting forth the need for an assistant. It's been four months. Nothing has moved on that. I did submit a letter in support of that. And I would urge the city council to move forward. You guys are obviously overworked. And you need some help. And I think getting Mike an assistant that could step in there and take care of the PRAs, but also assist him and the community development would be a great asset to Cloverdale. I'd encourage you to do that. Thank you.

Any other public comment?

I'm Paul Perry, a Cloverdale resident. I want to go back to Esmeralda's environmental content on this site. It seems strange to me that this group has been eerily silent on what their methods of construction and what they're going to do when they encompass all the toxin materials that are nearly 100% on their site. They're developing the whole site. They're going to rip the whole thing up. It's all going to be exposed to the environment and to the people working there and to the people that live close to it and across the river. The environmental cleanup is required to open up the earth in some form of method, either by deep excavation and D8 re-compacting to make structural fill to build buildings on, or you have to drill piers, which are going to be deep, and like, say, 20 feet, and 10 per unit means 6,000 drill piers underneath all these things. All that soil has to be tested for contamination because you're bringing it up from deep. So whatever method they're going to use, they're going to run into it. They're eerily silent on this, and they haven't shown up. I've been coming to all these meetings. I haven't seen the Esmeralda group here at any of these council meetings. They haven't done another forum. And so let me get through a few more things here. So they're just eerily not present. We know that... Michael Yarn has only talked about this once, and he says, we will deal with the toxins as it comes. That's the only thing I've ever heard him say, and the only thing I can ever find on the website. Well, that's a pretty naive comment, considering that the Gelati brothers, who's their preferred contractor here to develop, they're not allowed to move open truck bed soils that are possibly toxically contaminated anywhere off of this site. That's against all California environmental laws. You need special subcontractors that have sealed trucks to remove the toxins off the site, and there's only two places to hold it. That's Rancho Cordova in Sacramento, Pleasanton, and that's a sealed truck. inside warehouse to hold the dirt before they move it to the only EPA-approved dump site is in Kern County, Southern California. But they have to prepare Kern County with bioremediation enzymes in the soil where they're going to dump this toxic soil so that over time it can be remediated. That's how it's done. They don't have any proposals for bioremediation on this site. They're just going to spread it. They're just going to rip it open like all contractors do, dollar signs in their pupils, and just not tell anybody, and we're going to all have the consequences. The dust control, we've heard that before. The flood control, there's big concerns on what they're opening up here, and I've got a lot more to talk about, but I've got to stop.

Do I have any other public comment? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Moved into item D2, written comments. Written public comments on items not in the agenda submitted in accordance with the public comments. Submission procedure below will be listed in order received. Those are on Cloverdale Agenda Center. They are all on there for people to see if you get on Cloverdale Agenda Center. We have no presentations. Let's move into F. All items under the consent calendar will be considered together in one action of the city council unless any council member or member of the public requests that an item be removed and considered separately. Do we have anybody from the council that would like to pull an item? Seeing none. Anybody from the public like to pull an item? Seeing none. All right. Do we have a motion for approval of the consent calendar?

Make a motion to approve F1 through F5.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. No. Motion passes 5-0.

All right. Now we hit our mark before 630 at 618, actually, and we can move into public hearing. Public hearing item G1.

Ms. Mayor, sorry, we have to wait until 630. We do have to wait until 630. So if we could go to H1 in the meantime.

Okay.

Thank you.

All righty. Do we want to move into a new bit?

We can move on to each one and come back to Okay, let's move into h1.

Consider a resolution declaring the existence of a local emergency due to the flooding risk created by anticipated El Nino winter storms.

Thanks Mayor. I'll start and Derek and Eric are both here for any more specific technical questions. But the item before you tonight is a resolution to declare the existence of a local emergency due to flooding risks created by anticipated flooding. El Nino storms. As I'm sure the council has heard, scientists and meteorologists are predicting a very strong El Nino system coming this winter. Perhaps the strongest in 75 years, some reports say. And usually what El Nino, it means different things in different places, but in Northern California, it usually means significantly more rain. And, you know, I think the models out there are pretty unanimous that it will be more rain than normal. Some of them are anticipating even up to 75% of, excuse me, 70% above normal. So under state law and our municipal code, we can declare an emergency due to the existence or the threatened existence of conditions that cause extreme peril to safety of persons, property, public health, you know, within the city. And El Nino and heavy rainfall has the potential to do that. Obviously, the city is right next to the Russian River, which has a history of flooding. And there are a number of ways that can impact the city. First of all, flooding as the river rises, the creeks and small streams that run throughout the city are can't uh drain into the city into the river the same way so you have more localized flooding throughout the city but there are also a number of facilities next to the river that have the potential to flood like there's a pg e substation obviously that would be problematic if if that got flooded uh our water well field to the at the north of the city is adjacent to the river um, that can have serious impact on the wells, uh, our wells there, uh, in a number of ways. Uh, you know, just one example is when it's high river flow, there's more in it, the water's dirtier, it takes more effort to, uh, clean that out. And so our, our screens and other things, um, have to be replaced more quickly or can't keep up with it. Our courtyard is right next, as you know, is right next to the river. And so if that floods, that's problematic. Our emergency equipment is located there. We can move a lot of it in anticipation, but not all of it. And then the airport itself is located right there and has a history of flooding. And so... These are only just a handful of the potential impacts. It's not every single one. I'm sure all of you can think of many more ways potential flooding would have that. And I'm sure many of you have lived through the impacts this can have in the past. As you know, heavy rains in 2023. The city had to take some emergency action along the Russian River to try to help protect, to reinforce the bank and try to protect the well field that was up there. And so in anticipation of those potential impacts, and to help the city better prepare, the city is proposing to adopt this emergency declaration today, in part to help us try to mitigate these impacts however we can. One issue with the Russian River is that there are a lot of vegetation that has grown there over the years. There's a lot of gravel and similar debris that builds up in the river over time. And obviously, the more that builds up, the less the river can carry. Also causes the river to meander and collapse. do other things that increase flooding. And so in an ideal world, if that is all removed, the river flows quicker and more directly down and within its banks without overtopping. So this resolution is really a statement of the city's concern. and that this is an issue that's of great importance to the city as we go into the next step of working with our partner agencies to get necessary permits that may exist or to look for funding that may exist to try to work on some of these mitigation efforts that we can do in the short time, if possible, between now and the rainy season. I want to stress that this resolution by itself does not authorize anything. It does not authorize any work in the Russian River. It does not authorize the city to purchase any equipment or do any work. All of those things would be subject to either existing rules. If we were going to purchase something, it would have to be budgeted and within the city manager's authority or we'd have to come back to the council. If we, you know, sometimes you hear cities are making emergency rules or emergency declarations or emergency purchases, all of that would require us to come back to the council for approval. And so this is, I don't want to say this is only a messaging bill, but this is really a way to signify how significant this is. And, you know, Our understanding is Supervisor Gore feels similarly and is going to be bringing forth something very similar to the county because obviously right on the other side of the river is the county, below and above us is the county, so anything we do would really require cooperation with the county because we don't want a situation where we're just pushing the flooding onto the other side of the river. So with that, I see Derek, I think he may be able to speak more accurately about some of these specifics.

Yeah, thank you. So this really aligns with a recent notification from the Fish and Wildlife allowing municipalities and people who manage land to do the work they need to do preemptively for this storm and kind of do it on a notification basis with their permitting process. They're kind of being extremely lenient with what can be done in these creeks and waterways to prevent flooding in the area. um like alex said in 23 we had a lot of issues with water the river's getting wider and wider so it does we're worried about it threatening our well fields we did a bank reinforcement project in the middle of winter in 2023 stacking rocks on the side an emergency declaration would have really helped shore up that. We went through a lot of paperwork and a lot of discussions, but what we did was necessary. And with the age of the city, a lot of these waterways are level with the river level when it gets high. So we're seeing a lot of sediment wash back into our storm systems, which is extremely costly and difficult to take care of from the city. And we also have many neighborhoods that work off of sheet flow. There's no storm drain system underneath these neighborhoods, especially like the Tarman tract area, which we're trying to remedy that situation. Being sheet flow and being old, we get a lot of infiltration. So we have a lot of old piping in there. So when the soil gets saturated, we see a lot of broken pipes. And it is very detrimental to these neighborhoods when we see middle of winter, broken water mains, and we got to get in there. It's already flooded and it's flooding more. the emergency declaration definitely helps with that and gives us some backing for when we're asking FEMA for money. The fact that this emergency declaration is taking place, you know, that's the first step to saying, like, we're preparing. Here's the cost to prepare. Here's what we're doing, especially the California Fish and Wildlife being on board with, you know, allowing people to do these river cleanouts, so. of just in a nutshell i know we have some people from the public who would probably are going to come and comment on the same if you have any questions okay

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank Vice Mayor for bringing this topic out. I think it's really good to have this discussion. And I just want to acknowledge Director Montagnier and Superintendent Galvan for all the work that they do preparing for these things every year. Certainly this year sounds like something that I think with the situation going on with the aggregate in the Russian River, as well as some of the infrastructure in town, it's especially important. My question would be, I have a few things to discuss, but is there anything beyond what we would do to prepare in a regular year without knowing what exactly could be a potential emergency? I mean, I'm sure we have infrastructure we want to protect, but we don't know if there is going to be one. But is there anything that this would help us do that would be not our normal procedure?

Yeah, uh, I mean, being able to lean on this document right when, when we do stuff, we say we have declared an emergency. It's kind of those stages we take, especially with FEMA funding, but. You know, acknowledging that, you know, we're saying there's an issue and we're going to go in and fix it, especially. When it comes to the river bank, the wells and all that. Um, if when we do declare this an emergency, it gives us kind of. Not an open ended ticket, but we, we kind of have a wider birth for saying, like, we're going to prepare for the worst. We're not going to just. Do what we think we're going to get us to the next stage, right? We're going to try to mitigate the issue. Right, so we'll go in and do more of edge management more. You know, so remove things like that, and especially with the, the fish and wildlife being on board saying, like, yeah, you guys can do total vegetation removal. In these creeks and areas that that helps a lot.

And is the vegetation removal, is that done in partnership with Riverkeeper? Do the cities allowed to go in there and take care of everything fully in all areas of the river?

So not all areas of the river are defined in that. We'll be talking to the Fish and Wildlife. But all these feeder creeks, all these little drainage and everything that go through town, we'll definitely be able to get into all these without a bunch of.

So a lot of the work is, yeah, there's not just the work in the river, but the work within the city that certainly we have full access to. And I just wanted to share, I did reach out to Carlos Diaz with Sonoma Water. He gave us an update on the Alexander Valley feasibility study. And I do have some printouts for staff and the council that I wanted to share is this is... schedule and some information they did just complete the first or not complete excuse me, but the first phase of the Alexander feasibility study is progressing and focusing on establishing a baseline hydraulic hydraulic and geometric Geomorphic conditions to provide the analytical foundation for subsequent planning and identification of potential opportunities and you know, they're identifying you know our hundred-year plane where Our wastewater treatment is within that now and sort of a 15% buildup of aggregate within the Russian River. So that is something that right now I think I'm very confident that they're aware of our situation and have identified the opportunities that exist within our city and look forward to connecting them.

Yeah, definitely removing the aggregate deposits in that area is going to help a lot, especially with our wells and that fine sediment that we're seeing just shoved up against that bank.

And, you know, the aggregate managed plan, they're looking to update that and just make things easy to, I mean, it's a tough situation about aggregate in the river and doing it responsibly. So, yeah. It's kind of, you know, yeah, it is very complicated as far as what needs to get done, but the Napa River had their restoration project finished nine years ago, and, you know, I got to tour that different sites that they... created berms within the farms, opened up riparian areas and opened up the floodplains and allows the river to breathe. So there is a long-term solution for us that I see is in progress. So I just, I think it's good that we all partner together and they'll gladly connect with our staff and possibly do a presentation coming up if that's something that they can reach out when they're ready. Thank you.

Anything else? No. Comment?

I'll just say, obviously we can't, we're not in control of Mother Nature, so what are we doing up front? I know we do sandbags.

the community are we being proactive and cleaning all the storm drains yeah we're getting as many storm drains as we can you know feasibly with the staff we did outsource some storm drain cleaning earlier in the year we're looking at doing that kind of on short order vegetation management we're reaching out to some contractors that we feel are you know have the specific skills that we need to kind of gingerly remove this vegetation from these these areas in town

Derek and Eric, thank you guys for everything you're doing on this. A little bit of history on this one for Council Member Marquez. In 2021, we did some work in the river, some in-stream maintenance and some vegetation management, and the people that were involved went everywhere from us, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, public infrastructure from the county, the county supervisors, county biologists, Russian Riverkeeper, anyone that has an NGO or any skin in the game environment, they were part of this conversation. So it's great. And there's a lot of parameters that they set and you negotiate to figure out what you can do. A lot of it involves, you know, with your vegetation management, how much it overhangs the water area for fish habitation and things like that. the sediment removal or the aggregate is going to be a different thing this time because last time that wasn't allowed and in 2023 we learned a big lesson with that when it started to push out well seven from the big sulfur creek and we were very reactive when our our water head of our water apartments literally called me in the middle of a storm and said, we're going to lose a well if we don't do something today. And we're lucky that we have a construction company in our area that had big rip rap. And we just said, well, we're going to have to take the fine and fight the battle afterwards. And we stopped the damage that it was creating. And so thanks to the city for all the paperwork that you guys did on that and being reactive. And so being able to be proactive now in 2026 is a wonderful thing because you're affecting our levy system that protects your homes, the roads that go into our water department and protects our own facilities. You have homes and businesses along the river. You have PG&E. You have our wastewater wells, which are now in the 100-year flood zone, and we need to be careful of that and find out ways to stop that. You have an airport that, for emergencies, will not be accessed because now it floods every year because of the sediments buildup that has not been removed over the last 20 years or 30 years. So this is a great move. Supervisor Gore and I have had multiple conversations. He's excited. He's wanting to get this on his desk so that the county can start working on their part so that we can work on this as a collaboration.

Put riprap in there. They said, we don't do that. You have to get your own grant money. So we're trying to be proactive and keep the creek clean and part of the river. And then I had a meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers last week. and to see about cleaning out my creek with its eight feet to nine feet deep of sediment that two years ago, it was breaching, almost breached my levee because the water has nowhere to go. There's no storage in Big Sulphur Creek anymore. And I'm asking them to allow me to remove the sediment in the creek. And so it behooved me to see you guys remove your rock first that's going in. Because if I take mine out, it's going to force rock further on down the line. If we can do this in conjunction, in my opinion, I'm not a biologist or engineer, but I'm a contractor, licensed A and B. It has been. But anyways, if you guys can take your rock out, I can take my rock out. The river will flow. At least if you can take your rock out, my rock will move down the way. But I do not want my property being flooded. I got clear... When we bought the property, there was a lot of talk about being contaminated. We have phase one, phase two, saying it's pretty much all cleaned up. And before me, Gary did a good job keeping things contained. So I just want to... I'd love to develop that property in the future, but right now I just want to maintain it and keep it intact. I don't want to lose any more property. So if we can work together on getting the cement removed, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

Any kind of response, sir? If you could leave your information with our city manager, I think it would be good to get you in contact with the feasibility folks that are going to be eventually identifying different sites, you know, within the watershed. And that's the idea is to like build berms, open up spaces. So it would be good to get you connected with them.

So I'm going to give you a little sermon. I think we're putting on this earth to be good stewards. And to be sitting and letting things go to waste or go to stand by and watch it waste away, that's not being a good steward. And to go in there to strip mine and clear cut forests, that's not being a good steward. But to maintain the creeks and the rivers and manage them, I think that's what we need to do. And so... I'd love to see that creek and the river. The other thing is I talked to Fish and Wildlife. They said I can go in and clean the brush out. They said they wanted me to leave the trees. We have a little beach along the river. We front the river also. And they said I can clean the brush out but not the trees. But I guess in the old days when the Army Corps of Engineers and Soma County Water Agency worked together in the 80s and 90s, Army Corps was to remove all the trees and the Water Agency was to remove all the rock. And I guess they had good fish counts at that time, so... Again, I'm not a biologist. I'm not an engineer.

It was the Army Corps that planted all the Arundo II in the Russian River, and that was not a great idea. So, you know, times have changed. And I think there's an opportunity coming up with the feasibility study that if we can identify your property. have that included as a potential site. And I think, you know, that's the idea is that they're going to see what works within the budget. And if that's a space they could open up, you know, these things would be covered under the budget of the feasibility study. So I'm not promising anything, but I think it would be good to get you included. So can you leave your email and name? And I didn't catch your name, sir.

Curtis Clemmer.

Curtis Clemmer.

Yeah, we have, we have it. We have it. And so does this manager. We have it. Okay. We work with him quite a bit. Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

Right, any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, any other comments from the council? All right, do I have a motion for this?

Make a motion to adopt a resolution by title only, entitled Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to Flooding Risks Created by Anticipated El Nino Winter Storms. I have a second. Second that.

All right.

Motion was made by Vice Mayor Land, seconded by Council Member Lasky. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion passes 5-0.

All right. Thanks, you guys. And we are going to move back into item G, third public hearing on transition to district-based elections, presentation of initial draft maps and sequence of elections. Thank you, Mayor.

I'll give a brief introduction while the consultant is being promoted and his presentations coming up. But as the council is well aware, we are in the middle of transitioning to district based elections where council members will be elected from individual districts within the city rather than at large. At the last meeting public hearing where this was discussed the council gave direction to proceed with a directly elected mayor. That means that we will have the directly elected mayor elected by the whole city and then four districts where a council member will be elected from each district. So there are draft maps available on the city's website and that the consultant is going to go over today with options for the council to take a look at. The council is asked to provide direction on them. If there's one that you like, that's ideal to provide, you know, that direction to us. If not, if they're simply you know, maybe there's a suggested edit to one of Hey, let's can we move the line slightly here is important to give that tonight so that Justin can make those adjustments and bring back revised maps at the fourth public hearing, where the council is gonna be asked to make a final decision and introduce an ordinance with one of these maps. The other element to remember is that not all of you get elected at the same time. And so we need to decide which district is going to go first. Because there are three council seats up for election in about two months at the November 2026 election, which will occur at large. In 2028, what will happen is the mayor will be elected and then one council district will be elected. So we need to, the council needs to decide what that one district, which of the four districts will be up in 2028. And then in 2030, the other three will be up for election. And then in 2032, we'll be back where it's one district and the mayor back at that time. And so with that, I believe Justin has been promoted and I'll turn it over to him.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here tonight to present on the maps. Just to kind of add a couple of dates to our calendar. Following tonight's hearing, if there are any requests for revisions or new maps, those will be released on September 16th, a week before our fourth public hearing on September 23rd. If there are any community members that wish to make modifications or changes or... potentially suggest anything. The deadline for all that is Monday, September 14th, just to give us that time to process it so we could be posted on the 16th. Following this 23rd, we hope that on the 23rd, we'll select the final map and we'll have that map adoption on October 14th. And then following that, as our attorney mentioned, Alex mentioned we'll have our first election in 2028 for one seat and the remaining three in 2030. Just to kind of give you a heads up, after that 2030 election, there will be an opportunity for redistricting using that 2030 census data. And at that point, and if there are any changes to population, if there are any changes to the districts wanted by the city, we'll look into that at the 2030 redistricting. Looking, just to give you a brief reminder, these redistricting rules are what we used in preparing the different draft maps for today. So each of these maps does have equal population within that 10% deviation limit. That's total population, so you will see there are some differences between the districts when it comes to citizen voting age and other voting population. In addition, we have our middle criteria from the Fair Maps Act, including contiguity, attempting to avoid division of neighborhoods and communities of interest, trying to follow easily identifiable voters so that voters know which districts they live in, and compactness, not bypassing one group of people to get to a more distant group of people. And then finally, our prohibition in the beginning of the third column, we did not draw any of these maps using any sort of political data. And I do not know, and these maps were drawn and analyzed without knowing where any current council member or any resident of the community lives. In addition to the maps here in the presentation, I do have our interactive review map pulled up. So if we want to look at more detail on any of the maps or compare any of them in a particular part of a city, the interactive review map lets us do this. We can even search for addresses in the interactive review map. So looking at the different draft map options, we have four maps for you today. In MAP 101, what we were looking at doing was really keeping those contiguous neighborhoods together, the downtown Cloverdale area, the Clover Springs community, the higher density housing, particularly in District 3, kind of the alphabet streets east of Cloverdale Boulevard, into separate districts. What this does, of course, mean that area two is a little bit longer because it really is an area to the west end of the city. We can really see the difference when we look at our second map, map 102. In map 102, we kind of link the two most densely populated parts of the city, the downtown and central areas, kind of right in the central part of the city. One of the differences we wanted to show you options with was the area around the county island, kind of the gap between the southern and central and northern portions. In map 101, that area, served as a dividing line between districts four and three. In map 102, we take district four around that county island. So if that area were annexed, it would be very clear which district it would go into. In contrast, another option, Map 103. In Map 103, we have our most densely populated district in District 3. That includes a lot of those multifamily housing, apartment complexes, as well as the very densely populated areas in the central part of Cloverdale. This one also links the northern, southern, as much as possible, those areas to the east of the 101 freeway. So that all that area is in District 1, north of the county island, or in Area 4, of course, south of the county island. In order to get this, we do have a slightly higher population deviation, 8.5%. And that's mostly driven by District 3, including a lot of those very highly populated, densely populated census blocks. And then lastly, in map 104, I really wanted to look at an option that uses Cloverdale Boulevard to a large degree. So area one is primarily east of Cloverdale Boulevard, area two west of Cloverdale Boulevard. And that really sets the idea that that downtown area is actually divided into the areas one and two in this map. That densely populated area in the central southern portion is also divided between areas 1 and 4. Again, this is another option that wraps District 4 around the county island. However, this is an option that does divide the Clover Springs community in order to achieve that. Again, we would love to do everything in a single map, but we do have trade-offs just driven by different communities and where they're located. um and so this map really prioritizes that using the cloverdale boulevard as the key dividing line As Alex mentioned, our sequence of elections, we have one district, District 1, put up in 2028, and 2, 3, and 4 in 2030. This is just a sample to kind of illustrate what the potential options are. We're really in this weird position in law where the law requires us to put a model sequence of elections on the maps. However, the council will have an opportunity to revise it before making their final decision at the next public hearing. So think of this as just kind of a guideline. One district in 2028, three in 2030, and all the districts will kind of then be in effect following the 2030 election. And so our discussion tonight, we're hoping to hear what you think about the different maps. If there are maps that you like or particularly dislike, we're happy to focus in on one or two maps that maybe serves the best discussion for the next hearing. If there are any modifications or changes, we'd love to hear that tonight so that we can get back and work on them for the next public hearing. Ultimately, our goal is to bring you back at the next hearing, whatever the map that will serve the community the best would be. And so I'm happy to answer any questions. I have the interactive review map pulled up as well, but I thank you for your time.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DO HAVE MY THOUGHTS ON I DO HAVE MY THOUGHTS ON I DO HAVE MY THOUGHTS ON A COUPLE MAPS THAT I WOULD A COUPLE MAPS THAT I WOULD A COUPLE MAPS THAT I WOULD LEAN INTO AS WELL AS A LEAN INTO AS WELL AS A LEAN INTO AS WELL AS A SEQUENCE. SEQUENCE. SEQUENCE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE STATING MY OWN PUBLIC BEFORE STATING MY OWN PUBLIC BEFORE STATING MY OWN THOUGHTS ON THIS.

Hello, Dana Starr. So on the maps, I get that District 4 is pretty much going to have to be the way it is because of the cutout and, you know, the rest of that. I can't say whether I have a preference on how the first three districts work, mostly because I haven't been a longtime resident and I don't actually know where neighborhoods really are. And I would prefer to have somebody give me a briefing on these neighborhoods that are supposed to be what the whole point is about. You know, they say, we're supposed to keep whatever this grouping of people that are of similarity, whether it was the grade schools division or however that would be, but we don't have that kind of division. So we have a different kind. But what I don't know is where those streets divide. Is Cloverdale Boulevard the dividing line? Is Foothills the dividing line? Or is it more that the north end of town doesn't have any real division and that we keep four and one separate and then split two and three right to left below. But I can't say how I would do that because I'm not sure where this population you're talking about that is supposed to be able to be held as a whole in itself, where it actually breaks down. So that is what my concern is about, and I don't know the answer for that because I don't have the information. Are we to give comments at this point on the sequencing as far as the voting for the districts goes, or is that a separate step?

Go ahead, Dana.

I'm really confused why we have to go only one district and the mayor the first time and then three separate. In my mind, fairness for the community would be to do two and two. And that somewhere we have to have either in the front end or on the back end of when this transitions, have to have a shortened period or an assignment or whatever. I'm not sure what the legal answer to this is. But to me, I would want two districts each election. And that might be, and I would say pick those before you figure out any maps, because I don't want to see the gerrymandering happening. And that would be like one in three. first and then two and four after that and the mayor thing happening right up front for whatever cycle you decide separate from the four districts does that make sense to to anybody okay thank you public comments closed on this item

And, you know, I think the sequencing, I'll speak to that first. I agree with Dana as well. You know, two districts, two districts, each election. I would lean into a two-year mayor, so that would be up. We'd have three positions open every election. I think that's my preferred way of doing it. If we were going to go with a four-year mayor, I think that we would do two in 28 districts. and then have the four-year mayor in 2030. But I would lean into two districts, two districts each time, two-year mayor. We have three positions open every election. I think that would be certainly the best way to do it, in my opinion. Looking at the maps, I have some feelings. I would really kind of cross out 104 and eliminate that. I see benefits to 101, 102, and 103, so I'll just kind of leave it loosely with that.

I like the idea of two districts voting every two years. I also like the idea of a two-year mayor, you know, in case people don't like the mayor, they're not stuck with him for four years. I actually like all the maps. I think all the maps have potential.

Mark, go ahead.

Okay, so first I will... Speak to Dana. The reason that it's set up the way it is is because of the way the election process is currently. So in 2026, there's three people up for election. In 2020, there's only two. So you'd have to force somebody off of the council to do it the way you want. And even if I agree, it's not the way that we can do it. And so I wish we could do the two and a mayor the way it's set up. However, because of the way it's fallen when we are having to do this, I don't think that's possible unless somebody don't even know if it's possible even if they gave up their seat I think that has to stay the two and three the way it is so that's that's why on that as for the the maps since I've been here probably the longest and understand a lot of the subdivisions and the neighborhoods what I would look at Justin is map 102 and what I see that we need to do is one of two things We either need to incorporate the Ottoboni, Chelsea Circle, and Sherwood Circle into a zone two on the south side. And I don't know if Lyle Lane, any portion of that on the east side of Cloverdale Boulevard is city. I think it's all county. However, that borderline is where it needs to be is on Lyle Lane. And that would balance out our numbers a little bit better. Or if we didn't want to do it that way, which I think that's the best way. However, the next option would be to incorporate King Circle and the hill right there, Vista View, into zone two to balance it out. So one either to the north or to the south, it needs to be balanced to make the numbers match in the percentages. But knowing the neighborhoods, if you accepted Ottoboni, Chelsea Circle, and Sherwood into zone two, it would fit better for the way the neighborhoods are set up and the zoning.

Thank you. We can certainly produce, we can certainly look at that change and bring you back a new map.

All right, Justin.

Let me look here.

I kind of had the kind of the same thought here is I don't understand and this is map 102 also is I would like to see it just seems like we need to get Rosewood brick side and all that like like the vice mayor said on the south end. I think that if we brought district two down to and and Right. Yeah. Down to the county pocket. There's that what they're calling the so shady lane to the west and encompass that out of Bonnie and Chelsea circle right there. I think that would even these out. I like District one up there with King Circle and the whole north end of town. And then and also these are pretty even on population, correct? You said? With the way you have them now without any adjustments, you said they're pretty even on population?

Yeah, so 102 is at a 4% deviation, which is well under our 10% limit.

Yeah, and I just think the reason we're kind of going with this is to get some of the neighborhoods in there, and that would be my suggestion. This is Map 102. It's like I said, bring it down to and incorporate Chelsea Circle, Auduboni, up to the, what is it, the district, not district, but the county area. COUNTY POCKET THERE. SO MAKING THAT LITTLE SECTION THAT'S PURPLE NOW AND IN DISTRICT FOUR BLUE, I THINK THAT WOULD EVEN THEM OUT. THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. I LIKE THE WAY THE NORTH IS BUT I THINK WE NEED TO INCORPORATE THOSE INTO MAP 102 AND THEN I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH MAP 102 ON THAT.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JUST A LITTLE ADDITION TO THIS. YOU HAVE THE ENTRANCE TO OAK in zone two and the majority of Oak Brook Lane in zone one. So I think that we need to make sure that Oak Brook Lane, the Candy Cane Homes up there all need to be on the same zone to make it fair.

So bring that up.

Yeah, we just bring, where Oak Brook Lane is, you see half the line there is currently in the zone one and we need to make that, incorporate that whole road so that it's zoned correctly.

I believe as it currently is, that's because that's one census block along the freeway there. But we can certainly look at options and bring you back something.

Any other things?

Thank you, Mayor. Justin, the question that I had is just kind of, you know, population compared to voter turnout. And, you know, I'm seeing a lot of discrepancy there. And I'm wondering how much leeway do you have to help balance that?

So the law requires specifically that that total population number be the key balance. Now, it says that if you can, if you want to look at trying to somewhat equalize registration and turnout, you can do that as a secondary requirement. goal. But, you know, obviously, for example, at the state level, there are districts where turnout or registration is twice of other districts. And we've tried to avoid that extreme. But certainly, as I'm making some modifications to MAP 102, I can look at that as something that we can try to see if we can get some more balance on there.

Yeah, I certainly feel like, and back to the council too, as much as we can work within that parameter, I definitely would like to see a better balance with voter turnout as much as we can. Any other comments? None? Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Question to our attorney. As far as the sequence goes, what are our options regarding, you know, if we were to, you know, roll these out, you know, as they come to put us on a track to have two districts and a two-year mayor, like how can we roll into that?

Unfortunately, it is not really a feasible option. So because we have three people up for election this year, Those people, by law, their terms are not shortened. If they resign, someone is appointed to fill out the remainder of that four-year term. So it would continue on indefinitely. You have to have four. That would be up in 2026 and in 2030. And... the mayoral position, we, if we're going to transition, we need to have the mayor, um, uh, be, uh, that happened right now when we transition needs to be part of the transition process. So you could certainly have it be a two year term, um, that wouldn't change the, the one versus three. It would just make it. So in 2020, you know, you'd have the mayor and one council member in 2028, and then the mayor and three council members in 2030, um, But it would still remain that one to three shift. And this is, you know, Windsor has this same sort of awkward distribution. I think it makes an awkward situation much more awkward. It does. I mean, one, so two things. One, it may be, this is, I do not know this for sure. It may be possible for the voters to create in the future, you know, a I'm not sure, you know, a two-year term for a specific district. I don't know. We could look into that. I'm really not sure if that's possible just because then that one district would be treated differently than all the other districts. I agree it can feel awkward. Another way to look at it, Lo, is, you know, especially if you have a four-year situation, you're getting the whole city gets to weigh in when the mayor is elected on sort of the direction of the council. And then if most people are weighing in the other two years, like it is an opportunity for every two years to get a pulse check from, you know, almost the majority of the city every two years. Not exact, but I agree it's awkward, but there are some benefits of sort of this split, an equal split.

And what's our timeline as far as the rest of this process goes along?

So we have until basically late October under our additional, the current timeline. We can certainly extend that if necessary by some amount. We got a 45-day extension. The plaintiff indicated at the time that if we were making good progress, they would be willing to give another 45 day extension, 90 day extension is the maximum authorized by law. So we could certainly reach out to them about that. One caveat is that the fourth public hearing, let me double check this right now, but the fourth public hearing has to occur I believe within 45 days of this third public hearing. Justin may know that off the top of his head.

So it requires that two public hearings post-maps are held within 45 days of each other. Typically that's the third and the fourth. Although if there was, for example, a need to add an additional hearing, it could be those two. But typically it's the third and fourth. And we already have another meeting scheduled in two weeks. And I want to bring back those revisions to you as soon as possible so that we have the most time to consider them.

I think what else that I feel is important that we get the message out to the public. You know, I think, you know, having a couple people speak on this, I think really once it happens, then everyone's going to want to speak on it, but it's going to be too late. So I think if we can get the word out and, you know, because I – Sitting up here on council and also, you know, being in the election, I don't want to make this decision. You know, and I don't think that's the right thing to do. So, you know, as much as I'm going to make this decision. So I would like to definitely get a lot more public feedback on this. And I think in the meantime, reach out to Windsor. Is there any other cities that rotate on that schedule?

I'm sure there are many. I just, I know that's a local jurisdiction also. Look if any of the other Sonoma County cities.

I'd like to reach out to them and see how they're doing with it and then, you know, throw some ideas out as far as some of the possibilities between now and then.

I have a question. So the mayor can run from the whole city, correct? So any district?

Correct.

Okay. Just wanted to make that clear.

So tonight, Alex, you need... We need, if there's any other direction you want on map changes, that's what we need so Justin can... make those changes and publish them in before the next meeting. We don't need any decisions on that. If you have, you know, we, we, um, chose district one just cause we were required by the law that pick one to go, you know, sequencing, unless you have some feedback on that, that's what we'll keep for the next meeting. Of course you can make those changes at the next meeting and decide, Nope, we want to be district three or whatever.

Any other questions or comments? Any other questions or comments? All right, so we're good on that item. Awesome. Let's see here. And now let's move into council member reports. Item I.

Thank you, Mayor. To report for this council meeting, just want to give you an update on the legal aid situation with updating our rent stabilization ordinance and creation of a closure and conversion ordinance. I met with Caitlin Vegby, and... She was recommending that we keep an eye on the city of Sonoma as they're doing workshops related to this. Then also Petaluma is actively testing there. So that will kind of give us an idea of our potential draft that if we need to strengthen anything and that could potentially come to head in December. So right now we'll just kind of keep an eye on Petaluma and Sonoma on that one. And that's what I got.

I have nothing to report, but I am attending a Russian River Watershed Association board meeting tomorrow morning, and the following week I have an Ag and Open Space Advisory Board meeting.

Mr. Mayor, no, all my Board of Directors meetings were canceled for some.

Gotcha.

Nothing to report. Gotcha.

And I also have just a couple of things I wanted to say. We have the Cloverdale car show coming up here this weekend and also the 9-11 memorial at 846 a.m. down at the firehouse. So if you guys wanted to come and join that, it's going to be a pretty big ceremony. So other than that, nothing to report. Legislative. Nope. City manager attorney reports.

Thank you, Mayor. On our website now is a proposed tentative schedule for Esmeralda hearings. So the way it's laid out right now is October 1st Planning Commission, October 7th, and October 14th at the council meetings. The first two meetings, because of anticipated size, we're organizing for the Vets Hall.

Detail in this document, but sort of provides the general sense of time for people about approximately how much time they have to do certain things.

All right. Council direction, any future agenda items?

I have one. I know that some members of the public have expressed concerns about... Council member?

Oh, never mind.

We couldn't hear.

Oh, sorry. I know that some members of the public are concerned and they would like to, if possible, get more solid accounting from the Chamber of Commerce. And so I was hoping that maybe we could have a discussion next meeting about, you know, whether or not we could possibly do that. And maybe, you know, for more transparency, and maybe in the future, we could also have the same discussion about what we can do so that the public feels like they're getting more, you know, in the future, not just the past, that they're getting, you know, good accounting from the chamber so that they can see where the city's money is being spent with the chambers.

I would support that. I think we didn't have an opportunity to do it during the budget.

Are those records all public?

So the records we receive from the chamber are generally public, and they've been released in response to public records requests. item that has been requested of the chamber by members of the public is something that is public. Everything the city has is a public record. And the city manager has released those in response to public records requests. And certainly if it's the direction of the council, I assume the city manager could go over those with the full council.

I just think it would be great if we could have a discussion because also the public could come and make public comment and you know it could be like a focused session and also we could talk about what to do to make it more transparent in the future because I think some people are feeling like they're not getting enough accounting information and they feel like you know they want more transparency so I just think we're representing the public and if possible you know we should be able to help them with that.

And I guess for clarity, can that be something like requirements that the city has on the funding that we give out to the community or maybe the process that we account for it as far as I think it was like, you know, making sure we have funding agreements in place and things like that. So I think strengthening our process might be something that I would think could be attached to that item.

Any comments? I agree. I think that would be a good discussion. That way we all could, you know, come up with good ideas to, you know, try to lower the temperature and get Cloverdale back on track where people are not, you know, worried about what's going on in the chamber.

I agree with a lot of it. I just want to kind of do a couple little clarifying things. There's some information when we give city money to nonprofits with a contract that if they are meeting the terms of their contract that they have, and it's the council's direction of what we want to see. We're the stewards of that money, really, to say whether they met their obligations or not. And we do that every budget cycle, and that is how they get their money. And so it is kind of up to us to make sure that they are doing that. They provide all receipts that are legal to provide to us. However, when it comes to things like payroll and things like that, that is private information that we are not privy to. they can't legally release and that is where these numbers come from that people are complaining about but I don't want to get into that part of it so if we're going to do anything like this I would suggest that it becomes at our budget session and that we do it for all of the people that we are giving the public funds to to support the programs that we have instead of just one group because I don't think that's fair I think that we're trying to single out somebody because there's a lot of noise on social media when is our next budget session

next year we'll revise the budget talking about a meeting that like even next session because I just feel like there's a lot of people that seem to be upset and if somehow you know we could work it out where they seem to be getting some of their questions answered and maybe we can set up things where things are more clear with the chamber in the future I think if we wait for a budget meeting in a year that's not going to help lower the temperature

I can add a suggestion just to clarify the item you know it's kind of I think a manner of approval that once you know that we have a way to account for our public funding and I wouldn't say that we could have this conversation without making it about any one group I think you know without getting into any discussion I think it's a matter of importance that's an immediate need the budget was fast-tracked and approved and so I think We want to have something that's going to prevent a budget from being fast-tracked without full council approval or the community really understanding what was approved. So it's, you know, yes, the council approved, but we want to have some, I think, things in place that are protections for our community.

I agree, and I don't think that should have to wait a year. You know, especially because there's people that are upset, and I think if we could get more transparency, it would help. Okay, we're turning into a discussion.

Do we have support for this for you guys? I support it. Okay, my final comment on that is, my my i'm in support of it also i'm going to go with that too but here's here's my reasoning behind it real quick is there's been a lot of uh a lot of noise like you said on social media and uh and now that we have um attorneys involved i believe that it would be a good idea to do a quick little once over on how things are done through the chamber through our non-profits and all that can also go down. Well, I don't want to bring it to a subcommittee, but I think it would be a good discussion. And like Councilmember Morgenstern said on this, it may lower the temperature. Some people that can actually get the answers they're looking for on this. And if that helps lower the temperature, I think it's a good idea. So I'm in support of that.

So just to clarify, I guess, because I heard you say, and I heard a couple different things. One is this, Councilmember Marquez said that this would be sort of forward-looking for all of our organizations about what we want to require and that sort of thing. Not necessarily on any specific organization on the past, but sort of I think what I heard was forward-looking about what we want to require in the future for nonprofits that we...

I think potentially to put something in place as a possible action that could be implemented before the next budget process.

And then was there a desire for this to go to a subcommittee to discuss?

There's no desire for it to go to a subcommittee. And I don't want to just look to the future. I think people should be able to come and ask questions about what's going on now and get more answers because that's part of the problem. People are not feeling like they're getting their answers. answered and I think it's a problem and if everything was more transparent and we could help them get their answers, I think people would feel a lot better. There'd be less complaints and it would, you know, I just think transparency is a good thing.

And that's very, I'm just trying to understand what the majority, the three of you.

A discussion on how the city, if we have scope of work for these people, how that works. the funding that they do get, and then also the legal paperwork that we do have to give them. Like Vice Mayor said, we're not going to be giving out payroll, and we're not going to be giving out private things. But if we do that on what the city can do, which we have given a lot out, and just maybe be clear to the public on what they can and cannot get legally on that. And I think my reasoning behind that is we do have two attorneys involved now, and I think now the city needs to hear what we can and can't do. So, yeah, have a discussion on the agenda. They can come and ask their questions.

So we're looking to have a discussion to set policy when we a nonprofit comes to us what they're. required to do, right? Correct. Yeah.

I think that's with Council Member Lasky saying, like, you know, having requirements that the city would have in place on how we distribute our funding, community funding, you know, I think it's, yeah, and discussing the manner of approval.

So maybe we will go over what the current requirements are. Correct. and what we can require, and then the council can provide feedback on whether there's additional things they want to require in the future.

And I think if there's a proposal of some additional items in that presentation, that would be appreciated.

Okay, I think that's good. I just wanted to make sure it was clear what, I think I saw three or four head nods for that. Thank you.

All right, anything else? Seeing none, let's move into M. We're gonna adjourn the meeting at 7.32.