City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, we'd like to welcome you to our August 19th City Council meeting. I am very pleased with the turnout. I would love to see this for every council meeting, but I don't believe it will happen. So we're starting at 6.02, and at this point I'd ask everyone to stand and participate as you can with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So with that, I would like to ask for roll call, please.

Vice Mayor Lowe? Here. Council Member Gurney?

Here.

Council Member Ding?

Here.

Council Member Ferraribas? Here. Mayor Wendlander?

Here.

Thank you.

I was remiss. I do want to make the announcement that this evening we are happy to pay notice that we have live Spanish interpretation for tonight's meeting provided by Carolina Pino. So thank you, Carolina. Very good. Thank you. SO WITH THAT, I DO WANT TO REPORT THAT WE DID HAVE A CLOSED SESSION, AND I DO WANT TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE FROM OUR CLOSED SESSION. I AM VERY PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT AFTER CONSIDERABLE DELIBERATION AND TIME, THE COUNCIL HAS SELECTED A PERMANENT CITY I'd like to rewind that sentence, if I could, back to city manager. I believe what will be in line will be changing the nameplate from Kristina Liljevic as the interim city manager to the Kristina Liljevic permanent city manager. Congratulations. IT DID NOT HAPPEN WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS FROM MR. GUIN'S DEPARTURE, WHICH I'M DISAPPOINTED IN, BUT WE'RE VERY HAPPY AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. AND FORMAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN SEPTEMBER 2ND, NEXT MONTH. SO VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. SO NOW I WILL TRY NOT TO MESS THIS ONE UP. We're moving on to the approval of the agenda. Do I have comments from anybody up at the dais?

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

I would ask that we could, on the agenda, just reorder 9.1 and 9.2. As everyone knows, I'm going to have to recuse myself from one of those. That would mean me having to go home and then come back. And so that didn't seem to make much sense. So with respect, we would like to. Sure.

Any comments beyond that? Do we need any vote for approving this switch? So please.

I move to approve this change. Second.

Second? I second. I thought you were seconding.

Very good. No discussion. We'll go right to the vote, please.

Vice Mayor Lowe? Aye. Council Member Gurney?

Yes.

Council Member Ding?

Yes.

Council Member Farrarivas? Yes. Mayor Willender?

Yes.

Thank you. The motion carries unanimously.

Very good. So at this time, we are moving on to the opportunity for the public to speak on items that are not appearing on the agenda. We will be giving you an opportunity to come forward to the podium and speak up to two minutes. And at this time also, we are allowing 10 individuals to come up and speak. Should there be more than 10, there'll be another opportunity to speak at the end of the hearing. And I also just want to remind everyone that on these items, because they have not been noticed, we here at the dais will not be able to comment, engage in any questioning, or take any action on. But with that prelude, I welcome the first speaker. And if you feel comfortable stating your name, please do so.

I believe the improvement of the pay for city council is not on the agenda. It's on the agenda. Okay, never mind.

Very good.

Good evening, my name's Ronnie Joe Grooms, and I just wanted to express some food for thought regarding some of the graphic design that I've been seeing produced from the city, that we used a few very obviously generated AI-generated images for some very important community events. And I know this technology is very seductive, it's very easy, it may also be cheap and convenient, I, in my opinion, it also looks that way. And so I would say reconsider using this artificial intelligence image generating software to create your public messaging from the city. It sends a message out to everyone else that that's what they should do too. You have a very robust graphic design community here, artists, illustrators, photographers. we can do a lot better than AI-generative art can. So just in the future, maybe just take a beat and see if there's another strategy. And I'm happy to help with that and provide some really important information that younger generations are having an equally kind of repulsive response to these sorts of images. So food for thought. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

I'm trying to get this here. Josette Broziker, 1110 Loma Court. Last night there was a study session about the proposed project at the General's Daughter Ramekin site. I would like to point out why this project highlights something the city really needs to think seriously about. The parcels zoned residential, with the developer using a density bonus to reach 46 housing units. He still has to supply only seven units of affordable housing. This is the way the law is written as it applies to the density bonus. The 25% of affordable units is based on the number of units before the density bonus is applied. I have also heard rumors that the city is thinking of lowering the percentage of affordable units required for any project so that more housing can be built by developers. so i would ask you to look very carefully at all your residential zoning in the in the general plan the one thing we have we have very very little of is deed restricted low income housing for our community and is the one thing we need more of i would suggest that knowing how the density bonus works you really consider any changes to the percentage of affordable housing required very carefully and I would also suggest that you look very carefully at all residential zoning in the general plan to see where the density bonus will come into play in the future. Now I come to the Sebastiani parcels. The idea that the developer will control the zoning by having you build it into the general plan for them at no charge also does not help the city serve its residents. It does not in any way support the building of deed-restricted low-income housing. It only serves the developer by allowing them to build what they want. with little or no benefit to the community. I would suggest any zoning changes to these parcels in the general plan be done to create as much deed-restricted affordable housing as possible in an ecologically sound and well-thought-out plan. And, of course, we do not need another hotel with no thought of supplying housing that additional employees can afford. Thank you very much for listening.

Very good. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rachel Glitz. I'm the Executive Director of Cancer Support Sonoma. I've met a number of you, but not all of you, but it's nice to see you. Thanks for having me. I'm really here just to thank you. We received discretionary funds from the city, and we are so grateful. They made a huge impact for us. As you know, we are the only provider of care for people who are facing a cancer diagnosis who live in Sonoma Valley if they want local care. We don't provide medical care, but we do provide serious amounts of support, wraparound support And your funding helps support a wellness event to help people learn about integrative oncology therapies, the kinds that we provide, but well beyond what we provide. It was extremely well attended. It's on a video so that we can share it with those who couldn't attend. And we're already, just got approval actually from our landlord today to hold a similar event next year because it was so successful. So I really, really appreciate, we all do, our board chair Scott Murray is here somewhere. There he is. We really appreciate your support. It makes a huge impact for our organization and therefore the people of Sonoma and surrounding Sonoma. So thank you so much.

Very good. Anyone else would like to come forward?

Hello my name is Joyce Carlson I'm a longtime Sonoma Valley resident and I am here about the 3rd Street West and Perkins temporary roundabout that was installed about three weeks ago or so I know there is a meeting next week about it which I will be there as well but I want to start off thinking the thinking all of you guys for being here I'm grateful for your guys's service and and also to thank the Sonoma Index Tribune because that's how we found out about it. We live right there, so we knew about it from experiencing it, but that was the first word we heard officially about it. There was no communication from the city or from the traffic committee or from anyone in the government that said, this is a proposed action, we'd like to have input about it. And I don't know how that's possible. That borders right on a historical area, like Barachi and those different streets. They were named after officers of General Vallejo's. I mean, I don't understand how that was possible. there is a more practical way of having traffic slow down on that street there could be stop signs there could be two three-way stop signs especially at robinson's where all the seniors that live in that housing back there that's a much wider street and a much more appropriate place for a three-way stop sign there could be speed bumps examples of the exact same thing is on napa road You know, as you're approaching, if you were coming 8th Street down to Napa or vice versa, they had issues with speeding. So they put in speed bumps and... They lowered the speed limit a little bit, and they put in stop signs. That mitigated it. That current roundabout is too large for that space in the three-way between east-west on Perkins and north-south on West 3rd Street. Witnessed several incidents where there were near accidents where people were completely going the wrong way on the roundabout. They were coming into our lane on Perkins because it's such a narrow space. They have to impede on. To the Perkins drive to be able to mitigate it and I would just ask. to have someone look at this and it's not a good idea for 3rd Street West and Perkins Street I don't know how that was even allowed because of the school that's right there st. Francis there should not be that roundabout there so I just ask you guys to please look at it and I will also go to the traffic safety meeting but I appreciate it it's dangerous thank you for your thoughts thank you

It may not be apparent to the audience, but it does not appear that our two-minute timer is working well. So the good news is that I don't want to count to 120, so I do have something here that it has been suggested does work, but just be respectful. Please come forward.

Good evening. I'm Diane Thompson, 559 Barachi Way, and I wanted to comment also on the Third Street Bicycle Boulevard. I'm not opposed to traffic circles, and I think you've heard quite a bit about the traffic circles, so I wanted to express my concerns, which have to do with the speed of the project, the public engagement or lack of public engagement in terms of direct notification to the neighbors, and direct involvement of the neighbors in understanding and commenting on this project. And also I was not able to find a final plan that was legible online. So it's very difficult coming into this kind of at this point to find good information. I know it's been around for a while. You're very familiar with it, but we as residents are not. So I would ask you to slow down and hopefully do some public outreach with the neighbors. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is George Petrou. I'm with Music in Place, volunteer coordinator. I wanted to thank the city for spending taxpayers' dollars in a sensible way. You put up a canopy over the amphitheater for the comfort of the community. Thank you for spending money wisely. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Are you implying that we don't always spend money wisely? I might have to marinate on that for a while. Anyone else? Seeing no one moving forward, I will close public comment section and we'll continue on. Right at this point is an opportunity for a meeting dedication, and I do believe my cohort has a recommendation.

Thank you, Mayor. And also, I'm honored to have this opportunity. I would like to dedicate tonight's city council meeting to our longtime community member, Steve Wolf. Steve Wolf passed away June the 3rd. And he was 86 years old. And also, this year, exactly 50 years, he moved to our Sonoma. He has so many achievements I would like to review and share with everyone. However, this is four pages. I cannot. I would like to ask everyone, using your own way, to review on the Steve was with us and how he care our in the community. He has so many titles here I can itemize. For 50 years Steve Wolf was a part of the fabricate of the Sonoma Valley as a businessman, real estate broker, builder, planner, mentor, volunteer, storyteller, and a deeply engaged in the member community he loved and also except for this I know he also is Commissioner for groundwater sustainability agency Advisory Commission and also he mentored and the two boys one of them still was very close to the Steve all these things we should remember again Steve will be missed by all of our community. Although it's a huge loss, but we can carry forward his spirit to shining our valley and the city. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, this is the opportunity for my fellow council members to give updates or comments about their activities since we last met. So I'm going to start on the left side.

Good. We like starting on the left. So on August 6, I attended the Snow McLean Power Board. And both some very good news and some a little concerning news. So one is that there was a study done at the Brent School of Environmental Science and Management And that study looked at Roseland in Santa Rosa, because they were looking at a low-income community, to assess what the cost of transition to electrification was going to be. And I won't go into, and we have a friend here, I won't go into all of the details. Yes. But the transition to electrification could be very costly, especially for individual homeowners and also for small businesses. One of the areas that is going is, but the highest cost overall, just so that people are aware of it, is the distribution cost. So there's a, you know, when you get your electricity, there's the place you pay for your electricity, but you also pay for the cost of that electricity to get from wherever the electricity is generated to your home. that's the distribution cost and PG&E is the distributor and that's where the highest cost of transitioning is to to make sure that we can connect to all the new renewable source sources the other area that's a very high cost is for businesses for restaurants because the cost of transitioning gas ranges to electrification is also is also high and certainly for homeowners as well too or people that are living in apartments and people that own apartment buildings. So I'm not going to go into all the details, but the full report is on Sonoma Clean Power site. But the next session, which I think is the most exciting session about this, the good thing about it is I think it's really important to understand what you're really up against and know the numbers and be clear about it and be transparent about what the cost of doing this is. And the next session is really going to be about what are the ways that this can be financed How can we be innovative to get this moving forward? So we got the kind of the like sobering news at first of the cost of it, and next we're gonna go into the creative, innovative sessions of like how are we gonna address it? The good news, good, good news, is that there is, I think I've talked about this before, Sonoma Clean Power has a rate stabilization fund. So anytime that they are making money at Sonoma Clean Power between the cost of the electricity they buy and what rate payers are paying. We have extra money. We put that into the rate stabilization fund. We were looking at the possibility that there was most likely going to be the cost of Sonoma Clean Power was going to be as much as I think it was 3% higher than if you were to buy the PG&E bundled services. So Sonoma Clean Power is going to, through December of 2026, be delivering approximately $6 million back to customers so that the Sonoma Clean Power rate is in line with the PG&E bundle rates. So that's the good news. Then we also did an evaluation of the CEO, Jeff Cyphers, who, if anybody has not met him, is really quite an exceptional CEO, leader, and innovator. So we had his evaluation. He came in asking for his increase to be 2% above of what COLA is, and we argued him down and gave him 3%, because we felt that the work that he did is so exceptional, and he had met most if not all of the goals that he set forward for last year. So that's Sonoma Clean Power. The next thing is, so just two other meetings that I attended was, and other people I'm sure are gonna mention this too is, I was able to be at the first part and meet with one of the students from the Haas Business Executives MBA course, and they were here, and that was lovely to have them here, and I'm sure we'll hear a little bit more about that from our mayor. And then also today, that was on August 12th, and today I attended a the finance committee meeting here today. So I do want to announce that La Luce Center and the Redwood Credit Union are inviting the community to a day of finance, Dia Financiario, which will be a free event designed to help community members kind of look at the year ahead, look at how they might need to align their finances, learn about resources and support to help support financial well-being for all of our community members. So that's my report. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor. During the past two weeks, I didn't attend a commission meeting, because tomorrow, zero waste to Sonoma, and Friday, where the legislative committee is at a meeting. I will report the next time. But I'm happy to share my experience to receive a state treasurer, Fiona Ma, visit to here last Friday. She's such a wonderful, and also last year, she was here, and then the mayor, And Patricia also, we are in the hospital. But this time, he was so in rush here, so I didn't tell you. I know your schedule is so busy. Basically, I introduce our plaza, our bear flag, and look at the monument. And also in the cross streets, we look at the first beer flag, although that is a replica, but it means a lot of things. And she also was very happy because I showing her to our Depot Park, because over there, we will soon, we will build a Chinese pavilion to honor those forgotten Chinese laborers and made a contribution to the city. That is my short report. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Sandra?

Thank you. Last Monday, I attended the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting. And what I want to share with you from that is that we are going to have a field trip. I've been a huge proponent of getting a connection from the city of Sonoma, to the smart train. And at the moment, as you know, we don't have tracks that come here. I mean, we have tracks. They're just not connected to a train, one of these days. That's the underlying plot, by the way, of this thing. So on September 8th, it's a Tuesday. Pardon if we do this. We're not crazy. There's an actual mosquito flying around. We'll be leaving at 715 from the plaza to catch the 40X bus, which I was able to promote and make sure that it's got signage and thank you, it now has great signage. And we'll be going to the Petaluma station on Smart and then catch the Smart train to Larkspur. You could also catch the smart train there to Santa Rosa or up to Windsor. From that point on, it's sort of choose your own adventure. But if people want to join me, I will be happy to join you on the bus. And we'll go there and go to Larkspur, have coffee. I might take the ferry over to San Francisco, maybe go to a museum. Connie, if you want to join me, we can look at some art. and then come back. But I think that until we really start promoting it, people aren't going to understand that, you know, how wonderful it is to have a train. You probably have all been reading about Highway 37 and the fact that it needs improvements and it will also fall into the bay. So one of the things that will help that is making sure that we have another form of transportation that gets us into Sonoma Valley that goes east-west. So one of these days, hopefully in my lifetime, this will happen. But please join us. It'll be a lot of fun. And if you haven't been on the smart train, it's just fantastic. And it's free for seniors. And so all you've got to do is, you know, jump on the bus, Gus, get on the train. Okay. See you there.

Let's see. Last Thursday, we had the Tourism Improvement District, and just for information, that is a publicly noticed meeting, and the public is welcome to attend these meetings. I don't think I've ever seen anybody from the public there. And the Tourism Improvement District, one of the things that they do that's coming up is they award grants to what they call heritage festivals. And the Vintage Festival, of course, is one of those heritage festivals that they sponsor. And then the Lighting of the Plaza is another event that they sponsor for. and they are currently looking for sponsorships or organizations or individuals that want to sponsor the lighting of the plaza this year so something you may want to consider see they are accepting grants for events that will attract PEOPLE TO THE COMMUNITY DURING THE OFF SEASON, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE FALL AND WINTER PERIODS. AND THEY ARE RECEIVING GRANT APPLICATIONS THROUGH OCTOBER THE 8TH. OR I'M SORRY, THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER. THEY'LL BE REVIEWING THE GRANT APPLICATIONS ON OCTOBER THE 8TH. MOVING ALONG, THAT AFTERNOON I ATTENDED THE SNOMA VALLEY Library Advisory Board meeting. And the happenings there, you know, I think I mentioned last month that the manager of the library, Sabine, is retiring and many of you probably know Sabine. They're having a retirement event for her on the 3rd of September at 615 at Hot Monk on Broadway. And the other work that they're doing is they're looking at the strategic plan for the county library system. And they are developing comments and proposals to submit to the county library through that strategic plan process as well as the all library advisory board meeting that's coming up where they'll bring together all the advisory boards from the different libraries. And hopefully there will be some best practices that come out of that that everybody can benefit from. Let's see. You mentioned the Finance Committee. And today we received a presentation from a company called Cosmot. And those of you who regularly watch council meetings, they were here last year, made a presentation. about enhanced infrastructure finance districts, and so we received an updated report on that today. Very interesting, and I suspect it will be coming back to a public meeting at some point, but that has yet to be determined.

Another public meeting, because that was a public meeting.

Yes, another public meeting that nobody ever attends, but that's okay. We want to make sure you're aware of it. And with that, I think that concludes my activities for the last couple of weeks. Thank you. All right.

I attended the zucchini races yesterday.

Oh, my gosh. It's a hoot. That's all I'm going to say.

Who won? A zucchini race.

Very good. I'm going to make a few comments that are obvious, but I think it's something that we're all kind of proud of. On the 6th, we had our city party, and I'd like to think that everybody who attended enjoyed it, and those that did not attend should attend next year because it's a guarantee to have fun. As was mentioned by Patricia, that we had the opportunity to host about 70 UC Berkeley School of House Business Executive MBA students. And they came here and were curious in part about small government, how we handle it, what we do. And they were given a number of assignment projects that they kind of dispersed out in the community to do a little bit of research. Now, I must say they stayed at the Fairmont Hotel. Not happy that they didn't stay at a local hotel to get the TOT, but oh well. But I found it being very... encouraging because what we had is we had individuals that had started a career, decided to stop, take a breath, pursue an MBA in business. And I think what I saw were a lot of adults that consider themselves continuing or students forever. So that was good. This is a non-paid public announcement. On the 14th, I attended Mama Mia, again, a phenomenal presentation or performance by our local transcendence. Again, we are very fortunate to have them, and I would encourage everyone to support them. And we look forward to what may be coming next year. AN UNANTICIPATED MEETING TOOK PLACE TODAY. IT WAS A MEETING FOR INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT A LITTLE COTTAGE THAT SITS BEHIND THE LEAGUE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND INTEREST ABOUT BREATHING NEW LIFE BACK INTO IT. AND SO I WAS JUST PLEASED FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT THERE IS INTEREST AND THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER THREAT OF OUR RICH SONOMA HISTORY THAT MAY BE REKINDLED. And lastly, I too attended the Zucchini races last night. I believe I gave the announcement that it was world famous. It may have been a little bit of a hyperbole, but I said it anyway. I did hear a voice in the audience saying, who won? I'm about to tell you who won in just a minute. So we have two categories. We have the youth creativity category and we have the adult creativity category. And then we also have a judge's choice best in show. And we then had the race. So if I could be very quick at it, the third place for youth creativity was Cohen Pierce at the tender age of eight. The second place was won by Emma Wolf at 13. And then first place was by Emma and Nella de Alba, 10 and 12 years old. The adult creativity, starting with third place, our most recent Rotary exchange student from Sweden, Mai Morgensen with Lars May won third place under the adult category. Second place was Sheila Haley and first place was Nicole Jones. Judge's Choice Best in Show was won by Alexander Furnes, and he was seven years old, and the title of his entry was Rocket Headed to Zucchini Planet. So he was the winner. And real quick, for the race, we had the fastest zucchini, third place was West Echeveria Z-Wing. Second place, Abby Jansen with In Loving Memory to Community Member Kelly Cleaver. And taking the top was Liam Thompson from Sonoma with It's a Fire Truck. So at this point, I want to thank everyone that was part of that. Again, it's an event that is pretty special and continues to make me proud. So thank you. NOW, I AM GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT PRESUMPTUOUS, BUT I THINK YOU'LL FORGIVE ME FOR THIS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR CITY MANAGER. ANY COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS?

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. I FIRST WANT TO JUST RESPOND TO YOUR PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT AND LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT I'M... IS THAT BETTER? IT'S USUALLY PRETTY DARN GOOD. OKAY, IS THAT BETTER? Okay, I just want to start by saying how honored I am by your confidence in me and very excited about the opportunity to continue serving Sonoma. Over the past several months, I've really enjoyed getting to know the organization, our dedicated employees, our community partners, and so many amazing members of the Sonoma community. Incredibly impressed by the talent of the city team here and grateful for how welcoming everyone has been to me. I look forward to our continued work together. I'm grateful to the council for considering my employment agreement at an upcoming council meeting and the opportunity to continue to serve as your permanent city manager. Okay, a few announcements. August is National Emergency Management Awareness Month and I want to recognize all the emergency management professionals who work all year round when we're not in emergencies to keep our communities prepared. I want to recognize the many city employees who also serve as disaster service workers in addition to all of their regular responsibilities. Much of the emergency management happens behind the scenes through planning and training and coordination and maintaining resources. The city supports this work through regional different groups. There's an operational area coordination. There's an internal city staff emergency operations center working group, community partners group, and ongoing staff trainings to ensure we are ready when and if an emergency occurs. We also have a new movie under the stars series beginning Friday, August 28th on the Long Beach City Hall. It's going to start with The Incredibles. Should be super fun. The free outdoor movie begins at about 7 p.m. It's presented by the city in partnership with Spassiani Theater Foundation. Free popcorn, so that's a good thing. Additional concessions available for purchase and additional movie nights are planned for the 18th of September and October 16th. A quick update on the high efficiency clothes washer rebate program, which is a $200 rebate. We announced the program at the last meeting. There's about six rebates that we've issued, and we've got up to 90. It's kind of a first come, first serve thing. So there's lots of opportunity for that. There's more information on the city's website. So take a look at that. The city is also hiring for a new part-time recreation coordinator, so we're accepting applications through August the 28th. The position will support recreation programming, special events, community partnerships, volunteer initiatives, and public engagement. So if you know anyone, please encourage them to apply. We also have two Sonoma Sunday performances coordinated by Music in Place coming up before our next city council meeting. So Nicholas Beard brings Velvet Voice Jazz to the plaza this Sunday, the 23rd of August, followed by Marco Silva with Brazilian Bossa Nova and Samba on August 30th. Both are free performances at the amphitheater. And then finally, Tuesday Night Market, sadly, is nearing its end with a final market on September the 8th. THERE ARE JUST A FEW MARKETS LEFT, SO COME OUT AND ENJOY TUESDAY EVENING ON THE PLAZA AND SUPPORT OUR LOCAL FARMERS, FOOD PRODUCERS, ARTISANS, AND VENDORS WHILE YOU CAN. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU. AND TO OUR VISITING CITY ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. NO COMMENTS FROM ME TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ONE OF THE MORE ENJOYABLE ASPECTS OF OUR HEARING THIS EVENING, AND THAT IS FOR SOME PRESENTATIONS. and we have two presentations this evening. I'd like to think all of our presentations are justified. This one in particular I'm very happy to say is well justified. I do not see him, but is there a Mr. Bob Taylor? Please come forward.

That doesn't look like Bob Taylor. There's a ponytail missing.

So I will say that you need no introduction. You are very recognized even in the new haircut. And we want to thank you for all you've done. And I'm going to go into it further. But I also would like to give you the opportunity to make a comment if you so desire.

Yes, I do have comments, and I'll try to keep it brief. Trying to think of what to say has been very difficult, but I would like to say thank you to Mr. Mayor Wellander and former Mayor Lowe and former Mayor Gurney and former Mayor Rivas and former Mayor Jack Ding. And I just couldn't help myself. I'm sorry. And thanks to the staff and everybody that I've always worked with over the years past, present and future. And of course, my family, you know, my family, my daughter back there and my mother right here. my girl life partner girlfriend right there and many many friends and uh marco of course he's back there too um so i i don't know what to say you know but i would just say i enjoy what i do here you know i've been given um a really cool job in where that i get to help people in the public and and um fix things for people that most people don't know how to do and i just i'm pretty good at it and i should read my script because i'm way off now but but you know I chose this job because this is a rare tech job in Sonoma Valley where I get to be a tech guy and I learn and innovate and at the same time I'm very close to my family and especially when my daughter was younger and still going to school and I still got to drive her to school and I'm so grateful for that but helping people is what I enjoy and doing fun things and solving puzzles especially if it makes somebody's day and I guess thanks to everybody and I read none of it

WELL, I'M GOING TO GIVE, BEFORE I READ THE CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION, I'M GOING TO GIVE MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A WORD AS TO HOW WE APPRECIATE YOU.

Well, thank you. It wouldn't be a city council meeting without you, literally. You know, a lot of people don't see what goes on behind the scenes. Obviously, we thank our staff, but I almost feel like you're part of our staff and part of our team, and you're always so helpful and so gracious to everybody who comes here. IT MAKES SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE THAT WE CAN HAVE THE PUBLIC FEEL SO WARMLY INCLUDED IN WHAT WE DO. AND YOU'RE A BIG PART OF THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. SO THERE ARE TIMES, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ONLY THE CITY THAT YOU SUPPORT, BUT IT'S EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION IN THE COMMUNITY. THERE ARE WEEKS WHEN I WILL GO TO SEVERAL EVENTS AND WHO'S And so we see each other and it becomes kind of a joke that we see each other more than our partners. But anyway, so thank you for everything you do because it's not an easy, easy job. But two other things is that I don't know what you did with your ponytail. Yeah. Maybe I could use it. Oh. Yes. And last but not least, could you fix that light next time you're fixing things?

Fix that one up there.

All right. Anyway, Bob, thank you very much. Oh, I appreciate it. Well deserved. Yes.

Yeah, like Council Member Gurney, it's like for a while there was like, it was the same thing. I saw you more than I would see my husband. You were literally everywhere, but I guess I was everywhere too then. But still, I know you were every place. You could always count on Bob being there. But I think what I want to mention is not only were you there, you were just always just such a lovely presence. It was just such a pleasure to always see you. And you would always touch base. And even for a moment, it would just kind of make whatever event you were just that much friendlier. So thank you. Thank you for not only what you do, but thank you for who you are. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Yes.

I know that Bob is very quiet. Today you spoke a lot. It's the first time for me you can speak long. Anyway, although you speak less, but I know your brain is always running. And to figure out how to improve your service, how to serve our community, I so much appreciate. As the former board member, I had an opportunity to work with you very closely. And basically, you took multiple positions for this radio station. Engineering, chief operator, marketing director, and also accounts payable, accounts receivable as well. Yeah, so I so much appreciate it. And also, one thing I would like to point out, out in the local nonprofit organizations, we attract so many talented people. However, when they in the sacrifice, they in the time, they in the skill, they knowledge, And what they got is we really needed to think. As far as I know, and even right now, you don't have any retirement on the program. I think you should take care of yourself and the board when they continue and work out and let you work longer and without any big burden. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jack. Thank you.

Before I read the scripted plaque here, I just also want to give evidence that last Tuesday at the farmer's market, there was a crisis. There was a band that wanted to show off and sing, and the microphone did not work. And I couldn't help but overhear a comment as someone was approaching. I think a woman said, do you have a paperclip? And sure enough, the request was coming from for Mr. Taylor to take this paperclip, which I believe he used. I won't ask him to correct me because it makes a good story. But he was able to, within a matter of about 10 minutes, get that microphone to work. And as a result, we continue to have some delightful music. So again, your talent was on display. I'm jealous. Thank you. No, thank you. All right, the City of Sonoma Certificate of Recognition presented to Bob Taylor. In grateful recognition of your many years of service, unwavering dedication, and steadfast commitment to the Sonoma community. Throughout decades of involvement in Sonoma Valley, you have generously shared your time, talents, creativity, and voice in the support of local organizations, community events, civic engagement, youth, and neighbors. Through your leadership and service with KSVY and Sonoma TV, you have helped keep our community informed and connected, amplified local voices, supported local organizations and public institutions, and provided an invaluable source of communication in times of celebration, challenge, and emergency. From city meetings and community celebrations to youth sports, cultural events, and countless everyday moments, you have helped capture and preserve Sonoma's story. Often working behind the scenes, your skill, reliability, and willingness to show up have ensured the important moments are experienced, documented, and shared. Your enduring commitment to Sonoma, generosity of spirit, and belief in the importance of community have strengthened the bonds that make this place special. Your contributions, both seen and unseen, are honored with deep appreciation and lasting respect. Presented this the 19th day of August, 2026. Thank you, thank you. I would like all present and past mayors to be part of the photo.

And while you're coming down, I just want to thank my board and Juan back there, Roni Jo, and all the board members and all of the volunteers at KSUI that helped it all be possible.

And join us on the bus toward a smart train, Bob.

One, two, three.

Oh, by all means, please come forward.

Good evening, Steve Page. I'm proud to serve as the board chair for KSVY Media, KSVY Radio, Sonoma TV, and a variety of other platforms. And I want to thank you for this salute to our MVB, our most valuable Bob, which... I don't know if anyone wanted to take a moment to frisk him, but I think you would find in several pockets there would be black tape and bailing wire and the things that Bob used for most of the history of this station to keep the signal on the air with very little support and very few resources. And I'm excited right now over the last year we've recruited a really strong board. We just finished a six-month process with a new strategic plan. and have some really exciting initiatives that we are going to announce this fall. None of these would be possible without the foundation that Bob has created and maintained and created a pathway forward for us. So I just want to thank you and congratulate Bob.

Thank you, Steve. Can you be brief?

I want to thank Bob Taylor. I want to thank each of you, four of you, for being on the Wednesday morning show on the third Wednesday of every month. I'm looking forward to the next person to be on the show. And it's hard to overestimate just how close KSVY went to not being in existence at many times over the last 22 years. It happened because of Bob Taylor, and thank you, Bob, for that.

Thank you. All right, if I don't see anybody else that wishes to speak good, I will move on to our next item. We have a proclamation this evening designating August 26, 2026, as Women's Equality Day in the City of Sonoma. So at this time, I would love to have Jo Ann come forth to the podium and Say a word before I read you your proclamation.

Thank you very much and I thank the members of the council and this is another year for me to come here and say to you, women still are not at the point in this country and even in this beloved county and our beloved city where they should be in terms of equal pay or equal work, right? This year, however, I'm going to not go that way. What I want to do is to emphasize that not only are women continue to be on the low end of the economic bubble if you will but we're now having our rights attacked in this country and my age I never thought in the world that that would be happening all you have to do is look around and see the issues whether it's cutting down child care costs whether it's health care costs whether it's depriving nonprofits of those funds that come from the federal government and sometimes the state that are really essential to keep families together or whether it's a concern about voting rights so I don't want you to ignore that I'm going to come back again and talk about money next year, but this year I really want all of us to focus on are we going back, and that's what you'll hear in the proclamation. We on the commission, the status of women, think the data is pretty clear that despite the progress that women have made in this last year, year and a half, that we're going backwards, and it's something critical, and we have to all of us really pay attention. So thank you.

Thank you.

So then, with that, I'll be happy to read this proclamation. Proclaiming August 26, 2026 is Women's Equality Day in the City of Sonoma. We mark the 106th anniversary of the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secured the right to vote for women, And to secure this right, women were forced to conduct 56 referendum campaigns, 480 campaigns to get legislatures to submit suffrage amendments, 277 campaigns to state party conventions, 19 campaigns to 19 successive congresses, and get the consent of 36 states and more. And today, women constitute nearly 50% of our workforce, the majority of the students in our colleges and graduate schools, and an increasing number of primary breadwinners. And over the past three years, women's incomes have declined, and as of mid-2026, women working full-time earned 81% of what men earned down from 85% in 2023. Even with the gains that women have made, women's roles as equal members of our society and their rights are being challenged and reversed in multiple arenas, including the fundamental right to vote, access to reproductive health care, and protection from being the subject of personal violence. And more work remains to be done in many areas that directly impact equal pay for equal work, including access to quality, affordable childcare, affordable housing, comprehensive health care for women, and mental health care. Now therefore, be it resolved, the City of Sonoma proclaims August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day, marking the 106th anniversary of the enactment of the 19th Amendment, celebrating the achievements of women and recommitting to gender equality in Sonoma and all women's fundamental rights. I witness whereof I, Ron Wellander, Mayor of the City of Sonoma, have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Sonoma to be affixed this 19th day of August 2026. One, two, three. Thank you. Moving on now to the consent calendar. And these are items considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are pulled by members of the council or staff requesting specific items to be removed for separate action. So at this point, I'm asking staff or council if they wish to pull an item. And Mr. Gurney.

On the advice of counsel, I would like to pull item 7.9. Very good.

Any other request? So with this, I need a motion to accept the consent calendar having pulled that one item. Oh, yes, come back. Anyone wish to from the public to make comment on this item? Seeing no movement, I'll bring it back for a motion.

I move the consent calendar with the exception of 7.9.

Second. For the discussion, and the only comment I want to make that doesn't warrant polling is just on the 7.6 item that has to do with the solicitation of OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, I'D JUST LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE CITY MANAGER PURSUE THE OPTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE OF SOLICITING MORE LOCAL CRAFTSMEN AND TO FIND OUT WHAT WE CAN DO LEGALLY TO ENGAGE IN SHOP LOCAL. SO WITH THAT, ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

Vice Mayor Low? Aye. Council Member Gurney? Yes. Council Member Ding? Aye. Council Member Farrar-Rivas? Aye. Mayor Wendlander? Yes. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously.

Okay. At this time, we're going to bring forth 7.9, and I, along with Mr. Gurney, will have to recuse ourselves, and I will be asking... Mr. Mayor, would you like me to... I would love to have the Vice Mayor take the lead. Okay.

We have before you item 7.9. Is there any comment from staff?

VICE MAYOR LOWE AND COUNCIL, THIS ITEM RELATES TO THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND SPECIFICALLY THE COUNCIL SEATS FOR DISTRICTS 3 AND 5. THE NOMINATION PERIOD CLOSED ON AUGUST 7. AT THE CLOSE OF NOMINATIONS, ONLY ONE CANDIDATE HAD QUALIFIED IN EACH OF THOSE DISTRICTS, JOHN GERNY IN DISTRICT 3 AND RON WELLENDER IN DISTRICT 5. Both seats are four-year terms running from 2026 to 2030. Under California Elections Code Section 10229, when there are no more candidates than offices to be elected, the council has the option to appoint the nominated candidate to the office rather than conducting an uncontested election. The required public notice was published on August 13th, and the city clerk has certified that the statutory requirements have been met. The resolution before you would appoint John Gurney to the District 3 seat and Ron Wellender to the District 5 seat. Under state law, those appointments are treated the same as an election and both individuals would qualify, take office, and serve as though they had been elected in November. Adoption of the resolution would also cancel the District 3 and District 5 council contests on the November ballot. It would also have no effect on any other races or measures on the ballot. THE ALTERNATIVE IS FOR COUNCIL NOT TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AND INSTEAD ALLOW EACH UNCONTESTED RACE TO REMAIN ON THE BALLOT WITH A SINGLE CANDIDATE. STAFF ESTIMATES THAT MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS AND CANCELLING THESE TWO WOULD REDUCE ELECTION COST BY APPROXIMATELY $23,000, ALTHOUGH THE FINAL SAVINGS WILL DEPEND ON THE COUNTY'S ALLOCATION OF ELECTION EXPENSES AND THE FINAL BALLOT CONFIGURATION. Staff's recommendation is that council receive the city clerk certification and adopt the resolution appointing John Gurney to District 3 and Ron Wallender to District 5 and canceling the elections for those two seats. With that, I'll turn it back over to Vice Mayor Lowe.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any questions of staff? Seeing no questions of staff, we'll go to the public. Any public comment on this item? Seeing no public comment, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve.

Second. It's been properly moved and seconded. I'll just call for a voice vote. You have a question, Mr. Ding?

Yeah, before we vote, I would like to make sure, because is this the first time we have this kind of a practice? No, it is not. Okay. Because in the year of 2024, when both of us, similar situation, because two seats and two candidates, but we didn't.

And it didn't come forward at that time, which honestly, it should have. But I think the clerk is agendizing this properly. The amount of money that it takes to print and send out notices to someone with one person on the ballot seems... kind of a waste of money honestly and it is you know but it's up to you it's up to the council at this point but thank you for bringing that up because it occasionally it does slip through the cracks and there have been councils that have decided to they wanted to put it out there anyway so I mean that's that's the choice of the council but at this point it's been moved and seconded are there any other further comments or questions okay seeing none we'll do a roll call vote

Vice Mayor Low? Aye.

Council Member Ding?

Aye.

Council Member Farrar-Rivas?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you and congratulations and come back John and Ron. Somebody, could you find our two council members so we can continue this meeting? If they're at the Swiss Hotel, I tell you I am going to have, no.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

So the translations, you're stuck with us for four more years. Very good. And at this point, we are going to move on to our regular calendar. And as you may recall, at the beginning of the meeting, we've switched the order of items. So at this point, we are going to go down to 9.2. And this is discussion, consideration, and possible adoption of an ordinance amending Sonoma's code regarding the compensation for the city council members. So at this time, I'd like to turn this over to our Deputy City Clerk, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and City Council, this item is the proposed ordinance increasing City Council compensation from the current $300 per month to $950 per month. Council first discussed this issue on July 15th of this year and directed staff to return with a draft ordinance reflecting an increase to $950 per month. The ordinance was subsequently introduced for first reading on August 5th and is now before Council for consideration of adoption. For general law cities with populations of 35,000 or fewer, the law allows council compensation of up to $950 per month. Sonoma's council compensation has remained at $300 per month since 2007. Although the ordinance itself becomes effective 30 days after adoption, state law provides that the increased compensation cannot take effect until the commencement of the terms of one or more council members elected or reelected AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 REGULAR ELECTION. THE ORDINANCE THEREFORE PROVIDES FOR THE NEW COMPENSATION TO BEGIN WITH THOSE NEW TERMS. THE ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL THIS EVENING IS TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.01.020 OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE COUNCIL MEMBER COMPENSATION TO $950 PER MONTH. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO MAY.

THANK YOU. DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? Seeing none, I'd like to open it up to the public for comments.

Hello I'm Connie Schleylein and I'm a resident of the west side of Sonoma. I'm also the chair of the cultural and fine arts commission and in that capacity I sit in this chamber a lot and watch what happens here. I also interact often weekly with all of you the city council. In my opinion back pay is deserved. There is so much work to what you do and also the fact that two of the districts didn't have a person running is also an indicator I think that we need to incentivize this position. What you do is so important for our community, and a number of people have expressed great appreciation here tonight. And I think that we should incentivize young people to run, people that the expense that it takes, the amount of work it takes, it's astonishing what you do. And I'm very grateful, and I'd like to support this.

Thank you, Connie. Anyone else? Seeing no movement, I'll close public comment. Any discussion? Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify because someone pointed out to me that they said, but look at our new election. Young people haven't you know, come and et cetera because of this ordinance. And I'm like, well, we haven't passed the ordinance yet. You know, let's give it a chance, you know. The fact, although I sincerely appreciate the comments of Connie Schleiling, it really, this is something hopefully down the road we're going to see the effects of it in terms of getting more people involved. And, but I don't think that we should blame anything that's happened now because We haven't passed the ordinance. I mean, that's hopefully what we're doing tonight. So with that said, I'll be happy to move the ordinance if there's no other comments.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Any further comment? Roll call, please.

Vice Mayor Low? Aye. Council Member Gurney?

Yes.

Councilmember Dean?

Aye.

Councilmember Farrar-Rivas? Aye. Mayor Winlander?

No.

Thank you. The motion carries 4-1.

Thank you. Okay. Yes.

So, as all of you know, I live not just a thousand yards from the mobile home park. I literally share a fence. And And I just want to say a couple things obviously I have to recuse myself because of the proximity to this project You just saw two people have to recuse themselves this happens at meetings. This is what we why we have five council members and You know no one and the reason I want to say something is that some people are confusing the district elections Having something to do with this when I was elected twice It was at large. It was not a district election. I just, it's where, lives within a thousand yards of something. I guarantee you, nobody lives in the sky. Everybody lives a thousand yards from something, and it's possible that that thing next to them, that building or that lot or that project, will result in the same thing happening. So it has nothing to do with the district elections. As a point of fact, I am the first person that's lived in the southwest portion of Sonoma since We went back and looked, and I think it was Phyllis Carter, and some people may remember her. And I see Joyce there from my neighborhood. And before that, Henry Riboni. So for over 20 years, there has not been a single city council member, over 20 years, that have lived in the southwest section of Sonoma, which includes the mobile home parks. It is the most diverse part of our city. It's where the most seniors live, concentrated senior developments, which I've been involved in. It's where Sasserini Elementary School is, where my four children went to school, and where I served on the Sonoma Valley School Board representing that area. I'm the one that has been driving these people crazy about the park on the corner of 5th Street West and MacArthur. And the reason I've done that is because the mobile home park has told me they want a dog park there and that they want a park there. So please do not take this as in any way diminishing your ability to get things done in the city. If you like those flashing stop signs on 5th Street West, that was me. If you like the fact that when they were doing this slurry seals, I'm looking at Mike Berger, I'm the one that pointed out on the map that, hey, you're cutting off a street that doesn't have any access. You need people to live in neighborhoods. You can't have a council that has everybody living on one side of town and just coming to you when it's time to vote. You need people there all the time. And I just want you to know I'm there for you all the time, even though I can't take this vote tonight. But I am there for you. Best of luck. Thank you.

VERY GOOD. AND BEFORE OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMES UP AND SPEAKS TO THIS ITEM, I DO WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY. IT WAS, I BELIEVE, WRITTEN UP IN ONE OF OUR PAPERS THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS HAD NO REPRESENTATION. And I want to clarify that all of us up here at the dais were elected on a general vote. All of us, and I can at least speak for myself, look through the lens of what's in the best interest of the entire community. So just because by law one individual up here has to recuse herself because of close proximity, I want to correct what was falsely put in the paper that you don't have representatives. You do, and you're looking at them, all four of us. know that we are here. So with that, I'd like to welcome our community development director to the podium, please.

There are some seats inside here, too, if anybody wants to come in. please all right jennifer gates community development director good evening mayor and council before you tonight is a study session for a continued discussion on our mobile home park closure and conversion ordinance so i'm just going to start with background it's been several months so The City of Sonoma has three mobile home parks with over 450 total units and these units are recognized for providing an important source of affordable housing in our community. On November 5th, the City Council held a study session to discuss legal and procedural requirements for mobile home park closures and conversions. under the city's municipal code, as well as the recent legislative changes that happened under AB 2782 and SB 610. At that meeting, staff provided the requirements that were under our municipal code, the existing closure and conversion process, and the updates needed to comply with state law. on december 3rd of last year city council provided policy directions on revisions to the city's existing ordinance based on that direction city staff worked with the city attorney's office to develop a draft update draft update to the chapter 9.82 which was published in march and provided to both mobile home owner representatives and the mobile home park owners. Both parties reviewed the proposed ordinance and provided comments at that time and were attached to that staff report. On the April 15 City Council study session, staff presented draft ordinance and requested further policy guidance on some specific items. At that meeting, City Council recommended having an additional study session to further discuss specific topics. And that brings us to tonight. But since it's been several months, I am going to provide a refresher again on the policy direction that we have received and the policy questions that were continued for discussion to tonight. First is on chapter 9.82 of the municipal code is the chapter that establishes our rules and processes required when a property owner proposes to close or convert an existing mobile home park to a different use. The City Council adopted this chapter because the conversion and closure or closure of a mobile home park can have a substantial adverse effect on residents due to the high cost of relocation, difficulty of finding similar affordable replacement housing, and the scarcity of comparable mobile home spaces in the area. This chapter is intended to mitigate these adverse effects in accordance with state law and at the discretion of the city council. Our current ordinance dates from 2004. To comply with AB 2782, the city made the following changes or is proposing the following changes to chapter 9.82. To amend the code to require a report to contain the in-place value that each mobile home would have if the park were not being closed. The value shall be determined by a state certified appraiser that will be chosen by the city at the cost of the applicant. This will not be required in the instance of a disaster, which is one of the conversations that was continued on the definition of disaster. Also that we're requiring a technical report from HCD in the instance of a disaster, which is as defined by state law. Update the notice requirement and disclosure provisions to reflect the required 60 days. Required the city council to make a finding as to whether a conversion will result in a shortage of affordable housing. And required the applicant to pay the in-place market value of any displaced resident's mobile home if the resident cannot be relocated to another mobile home park, which will not be required in the instance of a closure due to a disaster. So again, these are the required changes under the law. Policy, yes.

Can you just make sure to go back and when you have acronyms, say the full name of the acronym just for everybody here, just in case they don't know what an RIR is or the HCD is.

the housing and community development is hcd and um the um did i say rrr r-i-r is the relocation impact report now it's attacking me i'm just saying yeah we we waved it away All right. So relocation impact report, RIR. So this is the policy direction and the changes that were made to the ordinance itself. So to close or convert a mobile home park, there are a few steps in the application and review process. The first is that any person applying to change the use, close, or cease operations of a mobile home park must file the comprehensive mobile home relocation impact report. The city will select an independent consultant to prepare the report at the cost of the applicant. The report must provide detailed information on the park, its residents, including occupancy length and whether the residents are disabled, as well as income, et cetera, the proposed new use, if applicable, and a list of comparable mobile home parks within Sonoma County, another discussion point. So we will talk more about the comparable parks on another slide. In order to obtain information on the residents, a questionnaire will be circulated in English and Spanish. That was an edit that was requested in the last meeting. This report must estimate the full cost of relocating mobile homes, including dismantling, packing, moving, and setting up. It must also estimate the in place for a market value of any mobile homes that cannot be reasonably relocated to another comparable park. A relocation plan is to prepare that proposes measures to mitigate adverse impacts with the assistance of a relocation housing specialist. The park owner must provide a free copy of the report and a copy of Chapter 9.82 to all residents at least 60 days before the public hearing. And furthermore, the new prospective residents must be notified if a conversion application has been filed. A reminder in the slide that you're seeing, when you see it in italics and bold, this was policy direction that staff has received through our meetings. If it is underlined and bold, this is direction from the state in the state law. So the 60 days and the in place fair market value are examples of this. So these are the amendments that are being proposed based on policy direction to chapter 9.82. So the next slide is talking about the city council hearing and specific required findings. So again, if a future project for the site is known, it is supposed to be part of their application process. And it will be heard concurrently by the city council with the conversion permit. to approve a conversion closure or cessation of use the council is directed to make specific written findings based on the evidence presented and that will be in that relocation impact report so that includes that that report is complete that mobile home lots actually exist within sonoma county again we're going to talk more about comparable parks to accommodate need displaced mobile homes at the time of the conversion. That adequate options are available for our residents that are affected. Relocation plan provides for reasonable costs of that relocation. If the conversion is to residential, that opportunities are provided to the residents to purchase or rent. and that the proposed conversion will not harm public health, safety, and general welfare. And lastly, as directed by state law, whether the conversion or closure will contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities. If the City Council cannot make the required findings or impose sufficient mitigation measures, it must deny the application. so relocation assistance otherwise we're thinking about it as mitigation to the impacts so city council may impose reasonable conditions on mitigate impacts of relocation which are documented in that relocation impact report these conditions may include for the mobile homeowner moving expenses first and last month's rent and security deposit at a new mobile home park a rent differential between rental rates at the new mobile home park for that first year. For non-mobile home owners, it could include moving expenses for up to five miles. Sorry, I'm missing a U. First and last month's rent at replacement housing. And again, rent differential between rental rates at a new residence for the first year. Also, as directed by state law, for the in-place fair market value of that mobile home shall be provided. Also that affordable housing set aside in a new development or a right of first refusal for new residential units if we know that a development is being proposed. Low income and or residents with disabilities will be provided and it could be provided an additional rent subsidy for 36 months and the residents and applicants may agree to mutually satisfactory conditions. So again, these are all policy directions that we had already received. And a couple of items are still up for discussion. But these are incorporated into the ordinance that you have today. Just to continue that, the payments shall be made not less than 90 days before the date that a resident is required to vacate a mobile home park and that there is a section of the code that also provides for a relocation assistance exemption. that can be requested by the applicant and a finding will need to be made that a unreasonable financial hardship or that the project is not economically feasible or would eliminate the substantially all reasonable use or economic value of that property. So amendments since the last meeting that are in the ordinance that you see So we have modified the definition for comparable housing to include safe and sanitary as stated in the health code. We have added the additional of Spanish translation required for notices and outreach and added a section at the very end of the ordinance that the state law will supersede this ordinance. So any additional changes that are made at the state before we can change our ordinance will always be in place. Additional changes that were identified at the last meeting that I did not incorporate in this, but we will, are that the attorney and I will develop regulations to maintain confidentiality of our questionnaires, but provide access. Mobile home park owners have requested this. Clarify the role of this chapter and the Subdivision Map Act, including the conversion to resident ownership in the ordinance itself. and to remove a portion of a sentence that said shall not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation, which was removed from state law. So we will also remove it from our ordinance. So discussion topics. So in your staff report there are discussion topics that were identified in the April meeting that staff was asked to come back to have more conversation around. Part of that conversation was to get more input and understand the concerns raised by mobile home park owners and mobile home owners and residents so these in that staff report information was provided that talked about each one of these topics what the concern is and then also staffs position so I have summarized these and I will be going through each one individually The first is on concurrent processing. So the concern that a mobile home park owner may request a closure to a park without proposing a development project at the same time creates a way to circumvent the Housing Crisis Act is that concern, as well as that a separate review can weaken resident opposition to a project since they will potentially no longer be residing at that site. So for clarification, Housing Crisis Act is a law that applies to a proposed development project that includes the demolition of housing or is located on a site where the demolition of housing has occurred in the last five years. If a mobile home park owner chooses to close a park, the park would need to be vacant for five years for the Housing Crisis Act to no longer apply to that development or future development. Staff provided a memo from the attorney which was attached to your staff report. a mobile home park owner does file a change of use application at the same time they file for development permit then the city's proposed ordinance will require that both applications be processed concurrently in addition if a mobile home park owner does submit a development application for a project subject to the housing crisis act after obtaining approval to close that park then the park owner will have to comply with that requirement so again within the five-year period if we close a mobile home park and they come forward with a project they still will have to comply with the housing crisis act Staff does not recommend requiring an application for a development project in the instance of a closure, only for a change of use. Staff is recommending that council direct the inclusion of the declaration under perjury in the draft ordinance, which was initially discussed at that April meeting. And we are continuing to make that recommendation. So the next item is on rent stabilization ordinance. So concern was raised by the Tri-Park Committee that the threat of closure leads to agreeing to rent increases that are outside the allowable limits under our existing rent stabilization ordinance. The rent increases can potentially lead to displacement and loss of their homes. The city attorney stated at the last council meeting in regards to this topic that the existing rent stabilization ordinance provided protection against the threat of closure as it allows for a process to raise the rent above the allowed increase in order for a park owner to obtain a fair return. In the staff report, staff recommended no modifications to the ordinance. While this section of the code is in the chapter before this, staff is now recommending modifying the purpose section to cross-reference the other chapters of the municipal code that relate to mobile homes. So we would then modify the purpose and intent in Chapter 9.82 to reference 9.80, which discusses the mobile home park space rent protections, and then also Chapter 9.84, which references conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership. So comparable mobile home parks is another one of the items. So a relocation report requires the location and details of all comparable parks to determine if there are spaces available to relocate mobile homes in a similar mobile home park. The Tri-Park Committee in their draft ordinance provided a new definition for comparable parks. Their ordinance, while expanding to mobile home parks in Napa County, it would exclude any parks that have a CalEnviroScreen score higher than the park that is being converted or closed and those in a disadvantaged community from the potential list. The city's current regulations allow for any mobile home park with similar amenities and proximity to services in Sonoma County to be used. The existing comparable park definition would only limit the mobile home parks based on the amenities and proximity to services while the expanded definition provided by Tri-Park would further limit based on again the CalEnviroScreen and disadvantaged community designation. staff recommends keeping the definition open-ended to allow for more potential park options during the discussion and preparation of that final relocation plan and just as an example again it was in the in the attachment in your staff report in april and again in this staff report where we're showing that in Sonoma our mobile home parks currently in the CalEnviro screen are in the 20 to 30 range which is highlighted in that red box and as an example Santa Rosa has a number of mobile home parks that I looked up and put the dots on the map and shows you the ones that would potentially be eligible And ones that would not be eligible to be on that list. So anything that is red, orange, yellow to that light green would not be eligible to be placed. So any in the dark green would be able to in that same green level. so the next one is on the definition of disaster so the attorney for the mobile home park owners raised a concern regarding the need for an exemption in the case of a local disaster the definition of disaster provided by state law is only recognizing state and federal declaration of emergencies not the local. In addition, if a disaster occurs, state law only exempts the requirement for relocation assistance and does not exempt an applicant from providing an impact report nor jurisdiction from making the required findings for a change of use. In addition, the state law establishes minimum protections that we need to follow, but we as a municipality are allowed to enact more stringent measures, which is why we are continuing to discuss policy. But expanding the definition of disaster to include local would potentially create a less stringent measure that would conflict with state law. During the last study session, the city attorney commented that the park owners could potentially utilize the proposed section of the municipal code that allows for exemption from relocation assistance obligations as a means of seeking a reduction in the relocation expenses in the event of a local disaster without providing a new definition of a disaster. So staff is recommending that the definition for disaster be consistent with state law. So with that, that concludes staff's presentation on the discussion items that were raised. And we look forward to any questions that you have. The deputy city attorney here is who I've been working with on this ordinance the last eight months? Seven months?

Okay, any questions for staff, please?

Yeah, could you please go back to the comparables map? So do we have, so it looks to me like there's maybe only three that would be, well, maybe there's, because there's very light green. Or is that?

Yeah, there's one, two, three, four, five.

Five. Do we know along with the location of that? what, you know, when you're looking at relocation, you have to also know whether or not there's sites available for people to relocate to, like the number. And then we also just want to emphasize many of these mobile homes really cannot be relocated. You know, they don't move as easily as mobile implies. So but is that, you know, so like how, that's the other piece of this information I think that's helpful to know. There's this many places that would be available. Certainly if they were to pay them for their mobile home, then they could buy another one here, but you would still have to look at what's available, or for renters, what's available to rent at each of those sites too. Do we have any understanding of kind of like what the status is of those sites?

It would be on a case-by-case basis, so as each instance that an actual application is received at that time is when we would have to look to see if something was available or not, because it could be ever changing. I know that since I have been here in three years, I have worked on, I think, three mobile homes so far. Changes and replacements. even though HCD is in charge, but I won't get into that.

All right. It still would be helpful to have some sense of, even though you would not note that site, but is there anybody that does any information available so that we understand kind of what the vacancy level is, what's the standard over years for these places?

I'm sorry I didn't ask this before but I hadn't when I was this was the first time tonight that I looked at this and thought yeah there's you know so like anything right when we so if we start big and then we start dwindling down based on qualifications that's amenities available spaces but you know proximity to services and in this case let's say all of them were equal, and then we would narrow down more to the five that are, if we didn't CalEnviroScreen. So if all those things did exist and they all had places, but if we did the CalEnviroScreen, then we would further narrow that down to just the five. And then if it was in a disadvantaged community, we would narrow it down even more. And I didn't provide that map. I just wanted to show how just looking at one aspect narrows things down.

Okay. Councilmember, just a quick data point. I think Jennifer makes a really good point that it's all about what's happening in that moment in time, which is really hard to predict. But I was just doing kind of a quick search to get a sense of like vacancy and capacity, like what's happening like right now in the market. And it looks like this is not a technical answer because it's a very quick search but just at a gut check it looks like there's about 100 100 to 150 mobile homes up for sale just in the totality of sonoma county which is not this map right it's just kind of like a broad brush how many of those are in the five or six that jennifer's identified on this map would take further research but again it's just kind of a snapshot okay well that that's helpful because that gives me a broad sense of how little would be available

How often is the CalEnviroScreen refreshed?

This is on number five. I think it's every two years. I'll have to double check, but I gave you the draft because it's currently in process of being updated, but I can double check that.

Okay. My question is focused on RSO, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance that you just mentioned. And you want to modify Sonoma Municipal Code Section 9.82010. I would like to see original wording, or you can explain a little bit. Thank you. Yes.

So in your ordinance, if you go to 9.82.010. This way? It's the very first. OK. one. So what we're talking about doing is you'll see in here it talks to at the very beginning, where we are doing the it's a purpose and intent. What is the purpose of this mobile home park conversion ordinance itself is adding another section that specifically talks to um what all we provide in our ordinance itself so in our municipal code around mobile home parks so to make sure that we are referencing the other chapters so if somebody went just to this chapter and didn't know we had a whole another chapter on rent stabilization and or that we monitor rents in all the mobile home parks, that it would reference back to that section of our code. So it's a reference, it's a cross-referencing of existing ordinances.

If I may just piggyback on what Jennifer was saying, I think part of why staff is recommending this cross-reference is not that it changes anything in this ordinance, but it highlights for folks who or have been concerned about things that have happened in other jurisdictions where there's been a threat of a very high rent increase. And the awareness of the additional protections that are in place, what staff is trying to do is make sure that that is in this ordinance as well. So if somebody is learning about what all their protections are, there's a reference to everything that's in there so it can help with the community knowing what their rights are.

Well, my question, is there any time frame or?

So when we actually bring the ordinance forward to you, so remember tonight's just a study session. We still have another meeting to go in which based on your direction that we will provide you with another updated ordinance and those revisions to the ordinance at that time. So you'll see that language that night when we do the introduction.

That is I'm looking for because Just based on today's, just making the modification, I really don't know how this kind of amendment, how to help on the mobile home owner. I want to see it. Thank you. Thank you. Already made a decision making the modification, and I want to see in the detail. Thanks. Thank you. Another thing is I would like to see, because this is for the development, HCA, housing crisis. My impression is this is a temporary law. It will be expired, I think, in 2030. So I'm wondering how we can use this kind of law to protect our... It happened for a while, right? Can you explain?

If I remember correctly, it was supposed to expire last year and then it got extended again. So a lot of these housing laws that were done back in 18-19 were going to expire in 2025. The intent was that they were only going to be for five years. see their impact and then the legislation has since basically extended all of them for another period of time if the current legislation stays in place that's probably going to happen again but they will continue to extend thank you a question under

policy direction we were uh... two questions one is the uh... the bold statement that's underlined which means it's both staff's recommendation and state law is that correct it's uh... page three uh... policy direction the heading is city council hearing required findings so uh... My first question is, in bold, whether the conversion or closure will contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities. You've got the perspective and lens of three years in Sonoma. And in terms of affordable housing, it seems like that's a great aspirational goal that we've never met enough of. And so I'm just curious from your perspective, if there was an application for closure, Is that finding even conceivable?

So remember the finding is not that there is an impact. The finding is about whether there is or not. So we need to provide that information to you to help you make your decision. I'm going to have the attorney help me explain this part. But this is what the state law specifically had put in is whether there is an impact is part of what findings that you need to make. there an impact in the sense of there being affordable housing little a yes probably with that removal there probably will be because we know that the housing being developed today is more market rate with limited based on our inclusionary ordinance the affordable with a capital A But that is part of that conversation that would be had by a council reviewing this. So again, I just reiterate that it says right now the weather, that conversion, to be consistent with state law.

Yes, Mayor Mesquite is correct. That's how it's stated in the state law. The finding is not that the closure will or will not result in a shortage of housing. It's just the council is tasked with determining if it will actually have that impact on the supply of housing. Housing within the community and so it's not a determinant factor on the closure application It's just one of the criteria that the council is to make in their findings when they review the relocation impact report at the hearing and determine whether or not to grant the closure application and and that Presumably is going to contribute to the council's assessment on what? appropriate conditions would be imposed to mitigate the effects of that shortage that's created by the closure or conversion of the park and

so if i read correctly the next sentence that says if the city council cannot make the required findings or impose sufficient mitigation measures it must deny the application so just like when someone comes forth with an exception or variance that we have to make certain findings this is the same process

That's correct. So the finding for this particular one would either be a yes or a no in either situation. We're just determining whether or not there is an impact. And the council presumably is always going to be able to determine whether or not there is. And so there's not going to be a lack of finding in this particular element unless the relocation impact report itself is insufficient to provide the council with enough information to determine whether or not that's going to occur as a result of approving the application.

Thank you.

But then the other part of it is once we've made a finding and if we find that it will have an effect on housing, make it be a housing shortage, then we do also have to be able to provide sufficient mitigation measures.

That's currently how the proposed ordinance is structured, is that the relocation impact report will adequately inform the council as to the manner in which those shortages will occur so that it can properly craft the conditions of approving the application to adequately mitigate those impacts.

And so then the next step after finding, yes, this is the information we have now, and then we would basically, you know, we could either say yes, there's enough available here to mitigate, we can mitigate the situation, or we cannot, although just the mitigation of this situation often seems like the most possible mitigations do not occur in the city of Sonoma, occur outside the city of Sonoma. And then that, how that relates to our individual housing shortage versus the county or the valley. It's not the full county, that map, but yeah.

Yes, Councilmember, your point is well taken, and as currently drafted, one of the proposed mitigation measures under the proposed ordinance, it does indicate that, for example, if a shortage were to occur, some of the potential tools that the council might adopt would be to require additional affordable housing units to be provided to the extent the property is redeveloped with housing or potentially to offer the former residents of the Property right of first refusal for any new housing that would be developed or to potentially require either on-site or off-site Housing to be built and so I think that's where the utility determining if there's a shortage that's going to occur because then it will prompt the council to determine whether or not requiring additional housing with future development is going to be an appropriate condition to mitigate that impact.

And how to provide it.

Exactly.

All right.

Online in the file, I look at it. You attach it to San Jose, the city's mobile home and ordinance. And the one thing that attracted me, that is compliance in the bond. I didn't see any, you know, the bonds, the premiums, who paid that. So I was very, very concerned because I look at the wording they are using, furnished, furnished by developer, park owner. Minor concern is if they leave some of the room and see and whether mitigate to the owner. So I would like to see if you don't have any relation, it's okay. If you have any related to our ordinance, should be very careful for the who pay this bond premium. I don't want to see they would let homeowners share this kind of fees.

Can you, do you have the reference to the code section in front of you by chance?

Yes, that is the, hold on.

No, I know about which section.

That is San Jose's under code 20.180.460, code compliance. That is the total page is 20, that is on the 14, 14 page over 20. Code of audiences. Yeah, that's perfect.

We would have to look specifically at that. So that pertains to if it's a change of use.

OK. Yeah. That is the 20.01A0470.

councilmember ding yes currently drafted under the proposed ordinance this section just at a cursory glance does appear to be targeted at ensuring compliance with the conditions that are imposed the proposed ordinance currently before the council is structured in a way to where if an approval does go through that the park owner is to enter into an agreement with the city which will allow the city to enforce the agreement and the code compliance provisions, and it could even result in a cancellation or a termination of their approval to close the park. And so that's one current mechanism that the proposed ordinance has baked in, in terms of how to ensure that the park owners are actually complying with the relocation and other mitigation measures that are imposed as their condition for closing.

I fully understand this point because of the wording here and I didn't see who paid for the bond previous because I want to stop any voidable loophole and then mitigate this kind of expenses to the mobile home owner. That is my concern.

So taking a step back. So the bond itself is something that would be paid for by the applicant as part of their agreement in the San Jose case. They would be probably entering into an agreement and putting a bond in place to pay for if they fail to do something. The what we have in place is before anybody can be moved out is that they have to be paid

90 days before Thank you So what I'm curious about is before any application or when an application for closure is submitted Is it possible to have a requirement that the city has first right of refusal on the purchase of

That is certainly something that we can analyze. To the extent that that would be something that we could require as a condition, that does put the city in a position of now owning a mobile home park and incurring all of the potential liabilities as landlords that that would create for the city as well and is now entering the city into the business of effectively property management at that point in time.

Well, I mean, in my concept that I think about is partnering, obviously, with the nonprofit organizations like Burbank. And not really being a real estate business, but we would be the vehicle mechanism that would be able to sustain that park.

And and the surplus land act does provide in certain situations where a municipality does want to dispose of surplus property and it's going to be developed where in a Nonprofit housing provider is potentially going to have ability to purchase that property So I think to the extent there would be a right of first refusal perhaps a leaving it up to a nonprofit who'd be interested in might be a more more feasible option in terms of trying to preserve the housing for that so that's certainly something if that's what the policy direction would be we can certainly assess that as a potential condition and I would just like to note too under the current existing code While it does enumerate specific possible conditions that could be imposed, it does have broad language to where those are not necessarily exclusive. So it's more illustrative to the council of some of the tools in the tool belt, but it is certainly not a limit on their ability to impose additional conditions to the extent that they would be consistent with any state or potentially federal laws for that.

Thank you. I just want to point out, too, also when we typically deal with the first right of refusal is because the property is getting ready to go on market for sale. And then we are jumping in before the market has a say or participates in that. So that's typically when we do that aspect of it. So like he was talking about, we would just need to research more about how that would work in an ordinance.

and so just follow up on that and would we have to would there be a way that you did not have to name a specific nonprofit but you could name a nonprofit you know give the first right of refusal to a nonprofit recommended by the city so that we maybe wouldn't have to determine that ahead of time

Right, and I do believe that's roughly how the Surplus Land Act is structured, where it's kind of a general pool of nonprofit organizations that have housing as part of their mission. And so to the extent that that would be something to specifically describing the statute that would potentially be the way to do it would be to make it broader and I think that would be the better approach for that because then that just opens it up statewide or possibly even nationally to large nonprofit organizations that are committed to ensuring the preservation of mobile home parts.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the dais? At this point then, I'd like to open it up for the public to come forward. And you have two minutes at the microphone. If you feel comfortable, please identify who you are. Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to make a request to Monique. We're freezing. It's freezing. The first sign of hypothermia, I think, is delusion. So I thought maybe we should just move forward and correct this. right yes thank you okay thank you good evening honorable mayor council members and staff my name is madeline agramonte i have been invited to speak tonight on behalf of the homeowners in the city of sonoma These homeowners live in the majority of the city's affordable housing neighborhoods. They happen to live in three mobile home parks, but they are homeowners with property rights and large investments in their homes, gardens, and community. WHY WAS I INVITED? BECAUSE I WAS ON THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL, EXCUSE ME, FOR 2014 TO 2022, AND DURING THAT TIME I WAS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SIX-YEAR CAMPAIGN LED BY THE HOMEOWNERS TO UPDATE THE CITY OF SONOMA'S RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. WHAT I WITNESSED WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL PROCESS INFORMED BY LEADING EXPERT IN MOBILE HOME LAW IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I'M REFERRING TO MR. WILLIAM CONSTANTINE. HE GUIDED THE COUNCIL, THE CITY, THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE PARK OWNERS. through a challenging project as a result a unanimous vote of approval by the city council and now small but mighty sonoma has one of the best rent stable stabilization ordinances in the state of california unfortunately mr moser was very upset the the owner of the of the parks with the council and screamed that we were all communists I'd like to reassure everyone here this evening, here behind me, in front of me, I served as a staff member for a state senator, a U.S. senator, served on two city councils, one in Daly City and Sonoma, including the position of mayor for those two cities. The proclivity for communism would have been exposed in one of those positions. Thank you so much for your time this evening.

Thank you very much.

Excuse me. I'm going to stand up for a minute because I have kind of a cramp in my leg. So don't get alarmed. Thank you.

Thank you. Before I go into my prepared statement, Ann Kalachitis, Pablo Serena, a couple things. In right of first refusal, resident ownership is also a potential avenue. It's my understanding that state law mitigating factors must be met. And in the mention of all these mobile home parks, as Council Member Farrarivas said, there are, it's against the law to move almost all the homes in the parks. It's actually against federal law because of, because anyway so the age so so what about for all the rest of us how are we going to be disgorged into the rental market and and there's no mention of that at all and so anyway those were just some questions I had about that but you know I can't believe it's been a year since we first submitted our draft ordinance and but one One essential point I think keeps getting lost here. It's not the question of what is state law AB 2782 require Sonoma to do. The real question is how does AB 2782 allow for Sonoma to exercise its own local authority about what should happen if a mobile home park full of people ever closes? So it's a completely different frame, which allows you to consider Sonoma's values, it allows you to consider our limited affordable housing stock, it allows you to decide how the community will treat some of its most precarious residents with their home savings and their way of life. So I'll skip this middle part about the survey because it looks like I'm running out of time. The message is very simple This is a more than a land use decision. It's a decision on how we treat some of our most vulnerable residents for more than a year We've asked you to use the authority available to you to adopt a strong ordinance fair ordinance that protects residents respects property rights and protects the city and we actually provided it to you one year ago and So tonight I ask you to see this ordinance through the larger lens as you contemplate the critical policy decisions that you face.

Thank you. Thank you, Ann.

Bonnie Joy Costlon, Moon Valley Community, Tribe Park Committee member, good evening council members, staff, and fellow Sonomans. Thank you for continuing this study session process and providing materials and translations to our ESL neighbors. You have met and heard from some of them in the past. This evening, we would like to introduce you to some of our other neighbors, many of whom have been and continue to be essential workers in our community. Teacher, nurse, postal worker, grocery store employee, first responder, utility repair personnel, to name a few. They keep our communities functioning, especially in times of emergency. A significant portion of these frontline workers are held by women and immigrants whose jobs are classified as lower wage positions despite their critical role to the well-being of Sonoma families, our community. Many continue to contribute to Sonoma upon retirement. The list of volunteer activity and contributions is astounding for the town of Sonoma and its size. Our working families are able to raise their children in Sonoma because they, along with those retirees, have found a home in one of our manufactured housing communities. The question the Tri-Park Committee hears often is, if we are good enough to work in Sonoma, contribute to the continued well-being of our community even upon retirement, are we not worth the safeguards and protections of a strong closure conversion ordinance that will allow us to age or raise our families in place in our home in our parks, in our Sonoma. As you listen to our homeowners' special stories, please know that we know you are the key to our futures by your policy decisions. Thank you very much.

Mayor, Council, staff, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Mick Davis and I live at 11 Hacienda Drive. My wife and I relocated to Sonoma because we needed to be near our daughter and granddaughter. We consider ourselves fortunate to have discovered Pueblo Serena. It's an amazing community similar in feel to the wonderful town we moved from in Washington State. However, we also discovered that our new home is a vibrant, welcoming community filled with fascinating people. My wife and I immersed ourselves in this community by volunteering whenever we can. I've joined the Morning Rotary Club, have been involved with their many projects, we've hosted block parties, we help our neighbors with transportation and food prep when needed, and we hold holiday get-togethers. We also help prepare the Monday morning breakfast in Pueblo Serena's lovely clubhouse. Speaking of the clubhouse, I know some of you have visited and know what an amazing space it is. Often used by the community at large for Audubon Society meetings, Sonoma Valley Democrats, Sonoma Ukulele Club, art shows, bocce league meetings, memorials, weddings, family get-togethers. This community, this neighborhood, is filled with folks who contribute to the healthy vitality of Sonoma. Walk the paths through our community. You will see that this reasonable tri-park update to the closure and conversion ordinance is essential and will benefit not only Pueblo Serena residents, but all city residents who you serve. In closing, the people who own and manage our park are honorable people, but ownership of this type of land has changed, is changing, and will change as we've seen close by across our county. The closure and conversion update addresses this reality, and it is critical. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick.

My name is Pat Scheuner. I live in Pueblo Serena. My husband and I have lived in Sonoma for nine years. We moved to Pueblo Serena when our friends of over 60 years moved there, right over there. Our hope was to grow older together. We've met wonderful people in our community. We've been involved in Vintage House, Selma Newcomers Club, Garden Club, and I designed and installed a pollinator garden in Pueblo Serena to help the bees, the butterflies, and Mother Earth. If I had to move, I would never be able to recreate this. most of all most of most important to you is to know that my husband of 57 years passed last week. I was two months away from having to sell my car in order to afford assisted living and rent. Pueblo Serena rent and the nursing home, Pueblo Serena rent, the nursing home was extremely expensive. I'm now a widow. We'll be living on a single income rather than our joint income. I love my home, I love my community, and I implore you, the city council members, to do the right thing by keeping the mobile home parks in place. Because this is my final home at Pueblo Serena, thank you.

My name is John Bobbitt. I've lived in Sonoma for 11 years, five years at Pueblo Serena. I'd like to talk about fear. In the event of a possible park closing or change of ownership, there will be a lot of fear to go around. Fear for the park owners, how much litigation will they receive? Will they get their permits, funding, zoning? Will they have financial success? How long will it take to complete a project? How long can they wait? Fear for the City of Sonoma, the City Council, and staff. How will the city handle a loss of hundreds of homes that are affordable housing? How will the financial loss affect the local business, losing hundreds of customers? How will the city handle numerous lawsuits, never-ending litigation, and political pressure brought by angry mobile homeowners? Fear for the mobile homeowners. Where will they be relocated? How will they move? They'll have a loss of their home, lack of physical ability to move to another home, financial hardships of moving, the separation from family, friends, medical services, et cetera. My wife and I are in our 80s, and we hope to spend the duration of our lives at Pueblo Serena. You, the city council and staff, can help eliminate many of these fears by reading, understanding, and incorporating the fair and equitable ordinance presented by Attorney Will Constantine and the suggestions made by the Tri-Park Committee. Thank you very much. Thank you, John.

Good evening, honorable mayor, board members. My name is Sabina Cesar, and I'm a resident of Pueblo Serena. A year ago, my dear husband passed away, and I was, because of unfortunate circumstances, I was forced to look for a new place to live. After much anxiety and searching for affordable housing here in Sonoma, I was lucky to come across Pueblo Serena with a lovely unit for sale. I took a big gamble. My financial means were limited. but I sliced off $300,000, more than 50% of what I own or have, to buy this, what I thought would be my forever home. I was unaware at the time of the horrible possibility that perhaps being kicked out of the house that I fully own without a guarantee of full compensation I have invested a big part of my finances into it only to find myself without possibly find myself without a roof over my head and without financial means to buy or rent anywhere else. I would be a woman in the last years of her life left totally unprotected. And my question is, is that America? God bless America. Please adopt the Tri-Park strategy to protect homeowners before the closure happens. Thank you.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and esteemed board members. I am Kent Sorenson. At 85 I have been a happy resident of Pueblo Serena Mobile Home and you've already seen the cross-section of beautiful people who are my neighbors. I compliment the staff and your work up to this time. Tonight I am here to encourage you to continue the energy that you've put in. to evaluate the draft ordinance of the question of closing mobile homes. When I talked to our residents, I got to meet a darling 103-year-old lady who can barely walk, but every day I see her out here with her walker going through Pueblo Serena. Often I talk to people who are terrified that as they hear about closures of the park, they tell me what they feel of where will they go. if they get a notice that Pueblo Serena is gonna be the next one that closes. I have seen this in my last career focused on affordable housing and domestically and in Far East Asia and I stand ready to do everything I can possibly do to help our community. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you, Karen.

My name is Hugh McBride. I live at 20 Acapulco Drive in Pueblo Serena. I'd like to clarify something under mobile homes. We are a manufactured home, so it is not readily movable. Most of them are firmly attached to the And I just want to make that clarification that there is a difference between a mobile home and a manufactured home. A manufactured home is just a stick-built home in a factory, and then it's put on a permanent attachment to the site. I just want to make that clarification.

Greetings, earthlings. I'm Cynthia Boyer from Pueblo Serena Mobile Home Park, and I'm wondering what you think after hearing the statements and the stories from my fellow Serenans. We need you as an ally. We ask you to stand up for us as we work to update the city's mobile home closure and conversion ordinance. It's been a long slog, hasn't it? Park owners have millions of dollars, and they brag about that. I've read news stories. At the ready to lawyer up and challenge parts of the ordinance that will knock down our protections. Our finances are no match for their legal power. So this is kind of a David versus Goliath story playing out on a local level. I can't imagine park owners struggling with decisions whether to pay rent and buy groceries versus being able to pay for life-saving medications. I cannot imagine them feeling housing insecure. So this is not just an economic issue. It all comes down to values and ethics, doesn't it? Which way does your moral compass point? I'm hoping it points towards a path to help us feel secure in our homes and free from the fear of having to make impossible financial decisions regarding our health and well-being. Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor, council members and staff. Lynn Marie DeVincent. Tonight's study session is evaluating four items, and I would like to address the concurrent closure and conversion. You have two lawyers giving you very different pictures of the law. In his memorandum, Mr. Menster tells you closure and redevelopment are two separate decisions. Mr. Constantine says that an important state statue, government code, 664274, connects them when a park is being converted for redevelopment. Now here's what concerns me. 664274 isn't discussed in the city's legal memo. And that is not a small disagreement over wording. It goes directly to whether Sonoma can approve the destruction of an entire community first and ask what replaces it later. Please don't resolve that disagreement tonight by simply choosing one lawyer's conclusion. If closure and redevelopment are separated, who takes that risk? The park owner can get permission to empty the park before showing the city what will replace it, but the homeowners don't get to wait. They lose their homes, their community. They may lose decades of equity. and only afterwards does the city learn whether the redevelopment is real, feasible, or even happens at all? Direct the attorneys to address GC66474, which is Sonoma's authority to adopt stronger protections and have them bring that answer back to us. Once these homes and communities are gone, a legal correction later won't bring them back. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, John Kyle, Pueblo Serena. Central to our plan for closure and redevelopment ordinance is to have conversion and closure currently decided. But there's a legitimate situation where a park really doesn't need to close. It really does need to close even though there's no redevelopment project. On this, your declaration of perjury and our ordinance proposal are very, very similar. Ours has three parts. The owner has to swear under perjury that early closure is not being used to avoid the city's ordinance or federal protections. Two, provide specific facts and supporting evidence showing why the park must really close before a redevelopment application can be filed. And three, provide that the owner did not create, the park cannot reasonably continue operating as a rental mobile home park while providing the owner a fair return until the property has a plan to redevelop. And most importantly, the city gets to examine that evidence and decide whether the owner has met the standard. Short version is concurrency is the rule, affidavit is the exception. If an owner cannot continue to operate a park while waiting for redevelopment, the owner can ask for it to close first, but must swear to the circumstances, provide evidence, and prove the need for early closure. This protects the owner's property rights without turning a standalone closure into an easy way around concurrent review. This clause has been in Watsonville ordinance for almost two years and there hasn't been any challenge to it. There's a question about RSO and where this intersects with the closure and conversion ordinance. And it's very simply this. We have three cases very close by. Santa Rosa, Carriage Court in Santa Rosa, they voluntarily agreed to a $400 rent increase with the guarantee that the park would not close for 10 years. In Windsor and Evergreen, residents received a closure notice first and then right afterwards a settlement proposal for $650 a month. Residents were quoted as saying they might just have to agree with this because they really didn't have anywhere to go. The city stepped in. Two successive emergency moratoriums stopped any threat of closure while this went through arbitration. The $650 they asked for, they were awarded $4.15. Okay? Once more, over in American Canyon, the same thing is happening again. The park owners threaten to close if they can't get a significant rent increase. Three parks, three versions of the same problem. Closure hanging over a rent negotiation that is supposed to be decided on financial evidence. We have the same clause in our RSO, and that result should be based on proven numbers, not on homeowners' fear that their park may close if they refuse a higher rent. A strong closure and conversion ordinance takes the closure out of an MNOI rent negotiation. This strengthens the RSO for everyone, owners can prove their case, residents can challenge the evidence, and the closure is no longer a bargaining chip. Closure is a land use argument, not an economic argument. We're not talking about a tasting room on the plaza. We're talking about close to 10% of Sonoma's population and an awful lot of its affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you, John.

My name is Julian Mackey. Thank you, Mayor, City Council, and thank you to the residents who have been organizing around this issue for quite some time. I think we would be in a better place locally and nationally if we had that type of organizing around a lot of other issues as well. So, Sonoma is facing an acute affordable housing shortage, and we're seeing the price of homes now climb over $1.3 million, the median home price. 50% of all renters in Sonoma are cost burdened. They're spending more than 30% of their income on rent each month. and yet we've only permitted, I believe, 39 of the allocated 311 homes identified in the housing element. What often isn't discussed is that preservation is a very important part of affordable housing. Seventy-five percent of all affordable housing nationally, but including in Sonoma, is not deed restricted. It's what's called naturally occurring affordable housing. It's units like the one we're discussing tonight. And yet, those units are the most at risk. Every year, 25% of those types of units no longer become affordable. And so when we talk about the idea of losing 452 units of largely affordable housing, the idea that we would then be able to make that up through existing housing options or through new construction is really difficult to fathom. And so protecting these homes, making sure these continue to be affordable options for residents in Sonoma is critical if we're going to continue to make Sonoma a place that all sorts of people can call home. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Caitlin Cornwall, Sonoma Valley Collaborative. As you know, we've been working on all kinds of strategies related to housing affordability in Sonoma Valley for several years. Julian just stole a bunch of things I was going to say, so ditto. And then John also said several things that I was going to say, so I will try to be even more brief. But the membership of the collaborative is really diverse. We have a lot of businesses, property owners, landlords on our membership, as well as people representing lower income renters, mobile home owners. and many others and so we have to strike careful compromises when we come to a consensus position that the collaborative will then pursue and so as the staff to the collaborative I can say that the collaborative is really sensitive to the kind of fine line that the city is trying to walk here I believe from all the conversations that I've been in with staff and with you that you really genuinely want to protect these mobile home parks protect mobile home park residents and make sure that we don't lose they don't lose their homes and we don't lose that affordable housing and yet you really have to be careful to avoid legal risks to the city and people like Will Constantine and these resident experts have really seen what is playing out around the state on this issue and have really seen that it is, if you want to protect mobile home park residents, you actually do have to protect the property rights of the park owners also because you can't see your jurisdiction get caught up in a lawsuit because that's bad for mobile home residents. SO THE ORDINANCE MEASURES THAT THE TRI-PARK COMMITTEE HAS GIVEN TO YOU AND FUTURE HOPEFUL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS AND WILL CONSTANTINE WILL PLAY OUT THAT THESE PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING FROM RESIDENTS DO PROTECT PARK OWNER RIGHTS BECAUSE that is the game that we're in that is the reality their rights need to be protected too so these provisions for an affidavit for example to make sure that if a park if a park owner is saying that a park has to close and there is no redevelopment plan that that really is the truth The city really needs to see that evidence and have provisions and be able to determine that. And many of you are real fans of not tying the hands of future council members. And I think that overall with this whole issue of mobile home parks, one of the big picture solutions is that the city council place itself in the process more, in the process of rent increases under the RSO, in the process of closure or conversion so that the city is a real third party. IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS, THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO MAINTAIN ITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK, AND IT'S ALSO NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A MASSIVE POWER IMBALANCE BETWEEN PARK RESIDENTS AND PARK OWNERS, AND WE SEE THAT EVEN GOOD-LOOKING PROVISIONS LIKE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES, IN PRACTICE, THEY ACTUALLY ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO PROTECT RESIDENT RIGHTS. There's not a level enough playing field. And if the city council members, you or your future successors are in the room, for example, with this affidavit process, that will make better outcomes for all of us in the future. Thank you for everything that you're doing on this topic. It's tricky.

Good evening, council. My name is Salo, and I'm with WMA, representing mobile home park owners in the city of Sonoma. Based on the language from the previous draft of this ordinance, you received our official comments in the form of a letter from the attorney representing the park owners, highlighting several shortcomings that we identified in that draft. In specific, we urge this council to consider an appropriate exemption in the event a park is destroyed by a natural disaster. We provide an exemption language to your staff, and it is included in the red line version submitted in November of last year. Without this exemption, the document makes rebuilding a park after a natural disaster completely out of the question. Rebuilding a park after a natural disaster is already very challenging. This ordinance, this definition of disaster, and the commitments you are forcing onto park owners basically guarantees that a park will never be rebuilt. Here are a few recent disasters that would not be covered under this ordinance. THE COASTAL FIRE IN ORANGE COUNTY IN 2022 BURNED 200 ACRES AND 20 HOMES. THE LAKE FIRE IN SANTA BARBARA IN 2024 BURNED THOUSANDS OF ACRES AND SEVERAL HOMES. THE GLENHAVEN FIRE IN LAKE COUNTY IN 2024 BURNED OVER 400 ACRES AND SEVERAL HOMES. AND LASTLY, THE WOODSIDE FIRE RIGHT HERE IN SONOMA COUNTY JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, WHICH BURNED 152 ACRES AND TWO HOMES. ALL OF THESE DISASTERS WERE NOT DECLARED STATE EMERGENCIES AND WERE NOT QUALIFIED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. I heard the word preservation a lot tonight, which I really appreciate because if your goal really is to preserve this type of housing in the city, our exemption or some sort of some form of it should have been included in this draft. Unfortunately, we continue to be completely ignored with only lip service being given to our concerns. Every change has been made to this draft has been made as a response to residents concern. Zero changes were made based on hours, especially our chief concern about the disaster exemption. We respectfully ask again that you direct your staff to consider our draft and the concerns that we have outlined for you. Or everyone in this room, unfortunately, is one disastrous fire away from their park being permanently closed. Thank you.

I'm Ellen McBride and I live at Pueblo Serena and I think you have to have compassion for older people. Most of the people there are 80 or over and many of us do not have children or family and you know this is a community and we are caring about each other We take care of everybody. We're close to the hospital. We're close to our doctors. We could walk to Safeway if necessary. And I just think you have to think about older people because someday you too will be older and you may be in our situation. So please think about older people. we're living longer and we're loving longer so and we love com we love sonoma thank you how are you i'm bill darden uh mayor city council staff

I've been a real estate professional for 48 years and 16 of those years was right up there with you folks and my commission was rent control, mobile home rent control. I've seen and I've heard a lot of folks talk tonight. All I can say is I urge this council to help All the people at Pueblo Serena and all of the mobile home parks which I have been part of, I have sold many mobile homes. And I have just had a recent situation of a lady who lost her husband and just the cost of emptying that house and getting things underway for her because she's going into an assisted living area. it is it is very hard for me to listen to all of these people and i know the majority of these folks and i would support and i support them and i would appreciate if the council would do the same thank you very much thank you

Jody Johnson. I'm a mobile home resident and I am the volunteer vice president of GSMOL for 13 counties. First off, I just want to remind the council in any kind of closure conversion because of AB 2782, It's the council that has to determine that all mitigating factors have been met. You cannot vote to allow a closure if the mitigating factors have not been met. The power is in your hands for all of these residents. So in conversation to how many lots are available right now, so in Santa Rosa there are four lots available out of all of the mobile home parks there, which are 16. For various reasons, some of them are available because of a death or taking out one or another. The other ones that you kind of talk about are they're up for sale by private buyers. That really doesn't really take into account being able to find locations for your residents' mobile homes. And also the problem is is that if you take out a mobile home out of an existing park in Santa Rosa, that's one of the mitigating factors under MRL law that allows the park owner to raise the ground rent to whatever they want. And oftentimes they'll do it about 400% more than what it was before. The only other criterion is eviction. So it's not about fear mongering that they're all talking about. Because right now, 14 parks in Napa, Sonoma, and Marin County are under the threat of closure. The why is because right now, all of them have gone through all kinds of arbitrations. The arbitrators have denied major large increases because the MNOI did not produce showing that they weren't making enough profit. And so what did they do? They took it to court and they were denied there. So what did they do? They weaponized closure over the threat of closure. The mental health degradation in all 14 of these parks in these residents is beyond anything you could see. I've held the hands of many senior citizens. Then you talk about going through a closure process and I'm holding the hands of residents right now Who have gone through four? arbitrations for increases with a zero award have had to fund that and then they decide to close and now it's in a Relocation report and guess what they just hit him with another arbitration for an increase even though they're trying to close the park Also, there's only about 2% to 3% vacancy in mobile home parks throughout the state and actually in the United States. Why is that? That's why investors buy so much. It's cash cows is what they call us. It's because they're there. The residents own their home. It's their asset. They don't pick up and leave. They may die or they may move on to assisted living, but that's sold to another one that needs that particular space. It's a unique relationship. And I guess what I really wanna say here is that no more false narratives, no more distractions by large investment group park owners associations. These residents sitting here tonight, they vote in every election. The park owners do not live in your area. But you have to be proactive because you cannot guarantee with this new climate of investment purchasing that it's gonna remain the same because right now it's okay. If you ask any of the cities I've gone in that have had to go through litigations defensively and not proactively, they would all say they should have done it proactively. So I really hope that you will make the most comprehensive, loophole-free closure conversion process that can be withheld. And I have been sat in courts, and seven cases have been upheld. Thank you.

Thank you. Jody.

Good evening, Mayor Welder and council members. Kate Bybee, Housing Policy Analyst at Legal Aid of Sonoma County. I really want to start by saying thank you so much to staff. Thank you so much to council. Thank you so much to residents and advocates who are here moving this all forward collectively. I know that this is a really challenging policy area and that these decisions are difficult. I want to say that the threats to mobile home communities, the ones that are motivating residents in your community to come forward, asking you to make this ordinance as strong as possible, these threats are real, and I think you all know that. They're not here in the city of Sonoma right now, but residents are asking you to get ahead of them to prevent those same problems from really being able to take root here. And I want to tell you, from our work with other cities, from partner organizations and resident groups working across the state, in addition to here within our county, they all wish they were in the position you're all in here tonight. We do so much policy making in the midst of crisis. That's just the nature of the work when there are so many priorities. But so many of those communities and cities that are fighting private equity companies and corporate investors at great cost to residents and at great cost to those jurisdictions, they all wish that they had a time machine to go back to the moment you're in right now and make a choice to make the regulations just as strong as they could possibly be. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, the strength of these regulations will absolutely mean the difference between stability and displacement for hundreds of people living in your community. These three mobile home parks, these 450 homes, these are some of the last naturally occurring affordable housing that exist in Sonoma. And the purpose of these regulations is to protect communities, to prevent the incredible costs of the fights that have played out in other jurisdictions have caused. I urge the council to please give direction to staff to make the provisions, all of them within the ordinance, as strong as they can to protect against circumvention. I think that the concurrent review of a proposed new use of the site alongside the closure application is absolutely critical. And I think that affidavit language that you have proposed from Attorney Will Constantine and the Tri-Part Committee is really the best way to go. I also want to respond just really briefly to the comments from WMA about the local disaster exemption. I think that that is a classic poison pill that we see come forward. It is exactly the type of circumvention that I think park owners want to seek and build into this ordinance, and it is directly in conflict with state law. One final point, I'll just say your rent stabilization ordinance is really only as strong as the closure conversion regulations. That is what we're seeing in these other jurisdictions. So making sure this closure conversion ordinance operates as strongly as can possibly be is critical to making sure those rent stabilization protections really hold in this community. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. RIGHT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS HAD THEIR CHANCE TO SPEAK, AND I'M SEEING LITTLE MOVEMENT, SO AT THIS POINT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND BRING IT BACK TO THE DIETS FOR DISCUSSION AND COMMENT.

DO WE WANT A QUICK FIVE MINUTE?

I WOULD LOVE A QUICK FIVE MINUTES.

Yes. Fight for this stall.

you

Thank you very much for that break. we are now at the point where there's discussion back up in the dais and we welcome our community development director for additional comments or not or questions questions i don't know what happened sorry are there additional questions clarifications based on the comments that were received from the council well then i'll start with a question about uh if i could get clarity once more about the uh the housing crisis act and how that plays into the various scenarios

Sure, so when it comes to the Housing Crisis Act itself, the, I'm gonna go to my slide real quick. if a development project is proposed for a prop for a site that requires the demolition of housing units the housing crisis act will apply so if a mobile home park is asking for a conversion of use That is not a mobile home park obviously then they are going to be subject to the Housing Crisis Act So if they know that they have a project coming down the pipeline, then we're asking them to submit that project so that we can hear it concurrently. And that way, at the same time that we are complying with our ordinance on the relocation impact report, we're also complying with the Housing Crisis Act, which does require more information in regards to the individuals that live there and mitigation to address impacts. So there is additional requirements under the Housing Crisis Act. If a property is closed without a project in place, if the City Council does allow a closure without a project being proposed, then in the five-year period, if a project is proposed, they are subject to the Housing Crisis Act.

And in a very brief high level, the requirements of the HCA in terms of being placed are replacement of lost housing units. Give me a little bit more clarity as far as what that HCA requirement is going to trigger.

So with the Housing Crisis Act, we are looking at projects, future projects, let's say, just not looking at mobile home park, just in general, I've done one of these before. We looked at all the units that were on, legal or non, all the units that existed for housing on a property we analyzed everybody that resided in each one of these properties how much their rent and what their income was and then based on the proposed project that was coming in then they had the ability which we've already built into our ordinance about the first right of refusal to purchase or to rent the property And then also during that time frame in which they did not have a house and that they would be moving in, the Housing Crisis Act does provide for additional accommodations for them to be put up into housing or to provide assistance for rent and things like that. So we're doing some of that for periods of time, but not in the sense of just like in the Housing Crisis Act where during this period of time we are going to be providing you financial assistance until our housing is ready for you to move into excuse me could you clarify those two sentences they kind of got mixed sure so housing crisis act is it i was reiterating but the housing crisis act is going to look at things that we're looking at but it does provide additional financial assistance opportunities sometimes in that case with that first right of refusal of a development project that has to be provided to these individuals and then also financial assistance to rent a place during that time in which that demolition occurred and that new residence is available to them and so currently in our ordinance

Do we need that language in there or does it just revert to the Housing Crisis Act?

We would revert to the Housing Crisis Act because first right of refusal is going to be tied to that development project.

Add on to that the Housing Crisis Act it applies Independently of any locally enacted ordinance And so what it does is it effectively prohibits the city from develop from approving a development project once that's been proposed unless the mitigation measures that are provided for to the Housing Crisis Act are existing so whereas mobile home park closure ordinance that we're looking at now the state law essentially says here's kind of a baseline of the requirements that you need to apply and then states excuse me municipalities you have discretion to adopt these and implement these on the local level whereas the Housing Crisis Act is always going to be applicable and is going to impose those requirements on the city before it can approve any type of qualifying development application and that goes to the findings and the mitigation

So that applies to both of that, like we were discussing earlier about findings and mitigation. Go ahead.

On the development application, that's correct. And as currently structured, one of the proposed conditions that would be imposed would be that Any closure approval or any? approval of the conversion of the mobile home park it would Include that if it does become subject to the Housing Crisis Act By the operation of the qualifying development, then it would be subject to those requirements and as I noted somewhat in the memo kind of a higher level overview It seems likely that there's an incentive for housing providers Excuse me for a mobile home park owner when they do want to convert the park to do these things to do both of these applications concurrently because as indicated the Housing Crisis Act will oppose a higher level of these relocation requirements and so instead of having to complete two separate reports one relocation impact report which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain the park closure and then to conduct an entirely new report process to inform the council of what mitigation measures would have to occur at that point in time. Doing the applications is actually incentivized to do it concurrently because then it's going to be an addition to the existing relocation impact report as opposed to a standalone new report that could potentially also be very expensive.

And does the, can I ask another question? Excuse me, thank you very much. So in regards to this language adding in the language around the declaration of perjury in the case, where someone does not have, and I realize, I mean, I always go with this of like, what is a plan? You know, it's like, what's the definition of a plan? You know, what is, you know, like, could be a point where someone's like, we just are wanting to get out of this business, right? And we don't have a plan of what's gonna happen next, but you would have to say at least kind of what the intent is. Would this, you know, like adding in the language of perjury, if they, you know, like instead of doing concurrent application and filing, I'm trying to get all the language correct, that they would, if they weren't doing those concurrently, that they would have to, you know, under potential being charged with perjury, have to comply with all of the things that John Kyle represented to us. Is it helpful to add that in? I like that additional, because it keeps coming to this thing of like, first, that they wouldn't, there's times when someone wouldn't have a plan, which financially in my head as a business person is hard for me to,

conceive of actually but but but then you know that can mitigate that right and so so in terms of plan that we're discussing it's a redevelopment plan the plan could be that they are seeking to close the park and to sell the park once the park has been closed, sell the land, or to land bank the property for future investment. So those would be potential examples of when a park owner would potentially be wanting to do a closure without having a prospective redevelopment plan that they're seeking to do. And so the declaration that Ms. Gates had suggested would be at the time you are seeking a closure application, you are declaring under penalty of perjury that you do not have an existing redevelopment plan for the park, which is somewhat different than the affidavit requirement that we've heard proposed by some of the park residents, which is where the park owner would essentially have to be saying that there is no other option but for me to close the park or that there are circumstances such as financial um instability or uh insolvency that is requiring a park closure for that and so i think there's there's kind of two differing requirements that are being proposed and at this moment in time staff is suggesting the declaration that there is not an existing redevelopment plan as part of the closure application when they're just seeking closure and they're not seeking and applying for a conversion or a change of use.

Yeah, and I guess in that case it does seem to me that it would make sense that if then they were to go ahead and actually have a plan that they said they didn't have, that there would be, you know, you could have the perjury laws there for them.

Right. And then also, too, going back to what we had talked about earlier, when there is an approval that goes through, there's also an agreement reached between the city and the park owner related to the closure, and certainly relying on certain representations that are made through the application process, whether or not that's gonna be a basis for certain conditions that would be imposed. So I think some of those representations are certainly gonna be relevant and enforceable. to the extent that we we do have a Declaration made under penalty of perjury to the extent that it's kind of a sham closure proposal to that extent But even if that were the case and it's going to be a project it's potentially still going to be triggering the Housing Crisis Act So this is where I think understanding for me understanding these very legal nuances

that take a lot of time, and I don't think there's any of us that have a law degree up here at this point. Maybe being on counsel is something that you go to kind of law school while you're up here. It's that nuance where I think bringing the two attorneys together to really source that out and say, What is the actual language? Because for me, it's like, how do we mitigate? For me, it's like, how do we make sure that the risk of people being displaced is, you know, that to me is the most important, the risk that we are facing that is most important risk. And so how do we mitigate that in a way? And I think the only way for us to do it, I don't think we're going to solve that here up now. I think it's for those two attorneys to come together and to be able to work that out. I think that that's the most important thing that can happen. I understand there was an attempt to make that happen before this meeting, that the city did try to do that, and that Will Constantine wasn't available. So not to say anybody's at fault for that not happening yet, but that we need to, that that's something that could happen. Because those nuances, I need like my whole scenario line written out so I can see what goes next, if X happens or if Y happens.

Yes, council member. And I think really what it is is that there's just a fundamental difference of a policy choice where really what's being proposed is that closure should not happen. Right. Conversion should happen. Change of use should happen. closure should not happen. And the state law, the state statute does provide for a closure mechanism. In any respect, the mitigation measures are gonna be the same, regardless if it's a closure, or if it's a conversion, or a change of use that's going to be occurring. And so, that's, I don't think that there's a, that's ultimately where I think the distinction lies between what has been proposed by Tri Park is trying to create an ordinance that does not permit closure which is effectively the policy that's being presented to the council because the state law certainly contemplates closure it's in the statute it is what the Mitigation measures have been intended to address and the provisions that we're seeing presented are just ways to try and make that not a feasible option in terms of future uses of mobile home park and Just to address the there was comments made about the subdivision map act provision that was provided there that was cited to 66 six six four two seven four yeah correct so that provision applies when there's a conversion that's being requested because of a of a subdivision a residential subdivision that's being proposed and in that situation this is addressed by the ordinance because if there's a proposed subdivision our our ordinance by the person just when you keep saying ordinance make sure you're saying whose ordinance yes or by the city's by staff's proposed ordinance because if there's a subdivision map act that's being presented it's going to require a concurrent application processing because the proposed ordinance the city's proposed ordinance currently requires concurrent processing when there's a planned use which would be the case where a subdivision map act is contemplated

So if I may just clarify, I think, and tell me if I got this right. What I understand is that on that part of the legal interpretation, my understanding is that both attorneys for Tri-Park and the city's attorney are in agreement about conversion and the housing crisis. Right.

It's closure that's the issue.

Correct. So it's in the, so do I have that right first?

That's correct. We both agree that when a subdivision map act is being submitted, that it would trigger concurrent processing under the city's proposed ordinance as currently drafted.

And alternatively, in the case of a proposed closure, where there isn't a redevelopment project in hand to do concurrently, and whether it's parking the land or Whatever that the business purpose that a park owner would would want to submit a closure application alone I think that's where there are some some I don't want to say it's disagreement, but it's it's almost like coming from a different perspective They're interpreting the legal aspects differently.

I Don't necessarily think that that's the case. I think that they want to increase tenant protections to try and effectively prevent any type of closure application from going through, which I don't think is a disagreement about necessarily the law, per se. I think that's a policy decision, which ultimately is what we're looking to the council for. Got it.

But to your point, Councilmember, I think that the city has extended and adam has graciously offered to meet with constantine and regardless of disagreement about policy or legal interpretation i do think it would be productive to have that conversation just to you know lawyer to lawyer and with staff there so we're all trying to get it get getting at well intended the understanding of where everyone's coming from so that we can clarify that so we have yeah and so that we have a real understanding of what

the different policies that are being proposed. Actually, this clarifies for me to be really clear of like, this is what the city is proposing for this in regards to what would happen in regards to closure. These are all the protections associated with that, and then this is what Tri-Park is proposing. and how, you know, where those specific differences are so we can understand which is the, like, my tendency is to go with which is ever the strongest and, you know, support, you know, close the loopholes. But I do understand, I want to understand what, you know, the risk the city is taking in association with that. So that's important, you know, that is still very important as well.

If we stay on the topic of closure, I'm curious, do we as a municipality have the legal right to prevent all closures?

Mayor, it is certainly a brave new world with park closures. What I've been seeing is we do have quite a bit of litigation with respect to these particular points. I think some of the primary constitutional issues that park owners are typically raising is that the right to exclude from one's property is a constitutional property right that they have and where cities are creating ordinances that are so restrictive to effectively make it either infeasible with the mitigation measures that are being imposed or with the process that's being applied to where there is no way that they can ever close their park and they're effectively being forced to stay in business and operate a business that they no longer want to be operating those are some of the primary legal challenges that I've been seeing that have been raised to these types of issues. There's not, to my knowledge, there's not a decision from the Ninth Circuit or the California Court of Appeals or from the Supreme Court, but those are certainly some of the primary theories that are being advanced and the right to exclude one from one's property is certainly something that's been recognized in jurisprudence now in this particular situation or application.

Perhaps not, but that's where we do see a lot of the litigation coming from Thank you I'm kind of interested in you know, we've heard discussion about F David and declaration perjury are those Documents essentially the same or are they two distinctly different? purpose documents

They're essentially the same. In a technical sense, an affidavit is something that would be notarized, and so that could be the language that could be used. In most court filings now, they've replaced many affidavit requirements with declarations, so in modern parlance, they're used fairly interchangeably, but it could certainly be we could require notarization or not. Either way, but the effect is still the same of the statement being made under penalty of perjury. It's just whether or not we're confirming that the one who is making those attesting to those statements is in fact the person who they say they are.

Thank you.

When we talk about the different laws and we just talk on the paper, My question is, do you have any experience or do you have another cases you can refer to us and the community? How you can use your policy or your activity use? What is in favor, what is not in favor? Can you tell us?

So at this moment in time, I'm currently representing the city of Petaluma in defense of their mobile home park closure ordinance. it's we're working our way it was at the very early stages of the process the essential allegations are that the city's largely their rent stabilization ordinance and other restrictive ordinances regulating mobile home parks generally have made the business so no longer financially viable to operate and for that reason they're seeking closure. And they're not specifically challenging a complete ban on closure. Right now the main dispute is with respect to the amount of the relocation impact fee that they're being required to pay. The initial charge for the relocation impact report was $200,000 approximately. And so the main issue now is whether or not the existing process is prohibiting them if it's if it's violating their constitutional rights if it's creating a taking because whether or not they're the process that they're undergoing, if the amount of the charge to conduct the relocation impact report is roughly proportional to the benefits that the city's providing. It's also being challenged as an unlawful tax under the California Constitution and various other provisions. So there's not something that I'm working on at the moment that is Dealing with the exact issues that I'm seeing here, but it is a very similarly structured ordinance That is currently being litigated. And so we will see some guidance from that Probably in the next coming years I think a lot of this litigation is just now starting to get up and moving particularly with the changes in state law and there's been new amendments to the codes and then I also think right now there's perhaps a more of a desire to try and push the envelope in terms of how far courts are going to be interpreting private property ownership rights and i think certainly on the federal level in the ninth circuit court of appeals there's been a fairly dramatic shift in terms of the way the court has historically leaned in terms of the decisions that they issue and so and also i think with the supreme court it seems like they're more inclined to favor property rights of the individual. And so I think that that is potentially an impetus for quite a bit of litigation.

My question is following. Yes, you mentioned about property rights. Actually, here we have the two different kinds of property rights. Park owners, mobile home owners, they should be equally you know, respected their rights. But here, you know, we can easily see the mobile home owners, they worried, although not physically, and got affected, but sooner or later. And how do you explain this kind of thing, you know? Because these kind, mobile home owners, This property, maybe that is their whole life, that is it, you know. And in some way, you know, and maybe that's wrong, you know, my personal is more valuable, you know. Can you explain a little bit how using this kind of the philosophy and work out and how to help out the local people?

Right. And I do think that that is what really the interesting tension about this type of homeownership and land ownership is because it's not a standard tenancy where somebody is renting a residential unit from somebody who they have no ownership interest in the property at all. Here we do have people who own the homes and people who own the property on which they rent the homes. From a technical standpoint, a manufactured or mobile home is personal property, whereas the land upon which it's rented is real property. And so that does create somewhat of a distinction in terms of how the law views those two different rights. But I think that was part of the change in the law to focus on the in-place value of the mobile homes and compensating people for that because the concern is that when a closure or a conversion is going to occur, that it's going to essentially wipe out all of the equity in the house. And without a robust way in which we determine what the value of the property is, that would be a very real risk. Now, when the homes are getting appraised in terms of the mitigation measures that are being adopted, they have to the appraisal has to take into account the value of the home as it sits in the park under the assumption it's going to continue in existence and so it doesn't necessarily inflate the value of the home it's it's going to be more than perhaps what the home itself would be worth but it is to address the issue of these homeowners losing the equity and what the potential ordinance does is it tries to address that on two fronts because It seeks to compensate them both for the loss of the home and the equity that's been accumulated in that, and then when they're not able to relocate the home, there's also mechanisms to provide them with relocation assistance on top of that. So it's addressing the loss of the property ownership in their homes as well as providing them with adequate mitigation for the relocation to what would then follow from that. just to your point to to also note that I do think that these are rights that need to be addressed and to the extent that we're certainly willing and open to meet with the Tri Park communities council I'm certainly also open to having that same conversation with the council for the park owners to understand their concerns as well thank you

So I wanted to just have a little comments and kind of talking to get away to the risk. Because I mean, this is really what we're talking about is what are the risks that we're facing? How do we create a policy, of course, to protect a vulnerable community. But what are the risks to the city? And I'm always trying to weigh the risk of, when we look at hundreds of people being displaced, and you look at what it would take for us to we're not being able to preserve that housing, which is much cheaper to preserve housing than it is to build housing. So the risks that we face of being able to, you know, let's just throw RENA out and not even think about that, but just the fact that we have a population that we want to make sure that they have a place to live. I mean, I think that that's the biggest risk we face. And then I realize, how do we create language or a policy that we mitigate as much as we possibly can these issues around property rights, but to me, the bigger risk is that risk of displacement. And you know, I always... There's always risk. So I want to make sure that when you're talking about what risks exist, there's risk. When we walk out and drive home, we're taking a risk, right? So there's always risk. And it's really like, what are the risks that we really need to, what's the level of risk we're facing? We're going to face risk one way or the other. And so just like that weight of displacement is, to me, the greater risk, and that I'm you know, from a policy point of view, how do we build a policy that we feel is not risk-proof? But, you know, we'll provide some, you know, maybe not protection for the city in the sense of, but, like, just validation of our reasoning of what, you know, why we're doing this. So I don't know if that's kind of the direction. Was that a question? No, it wasn't a question. It was a comment, because we're in the comment section, right? We are in the comment section. So I moved from a question to a comment. I moved from policy to risk assessment so that we can truly understand what would be the right policy.

I'm curious with an earlier comment about first right of refusal. As it's currently drafted, is there any first right of refusal for a city to, as was presented, pursue a partnership? Is that precluded in what we currently have? Or can we craft it so that that's a consideration the city could have? We did have recently an opportunity to save some units, and we did this through a partnership that ended up successful. So I'm just curious.

So I want to respond to that. I believe, and Adam and Jennifer can correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not in the current draft ordinance to have a first right of refusal for purchase of the actual park if it were to be up for sale, correct? It's not in there now. That's correct.

And I know you made comments about excess land, which we're all familiar with now with the closure of some local schools. But I guess the question is, from a legal standpoint, is that a valuable inclusion for this council to consider?

I think it's more of a policy question for the council. And what I would suggest, what I would recommend is that if the council is interested in having a first right of refusal such that some other entity could have the 30 or 60, 90 days or whatever it is to make an offer on the property, that that be a nonprofit housing developer and not the city. I think there's a lot of complication with having the city be the purchaser of the property. The city could play a role. We have an affordable housing trust fund, but typically that first rate of refusal gives foundations and nonprofit organizations and nonprofit affordable housing Builders and developers the opportunity to say can we call up the resources and the funding in the short period of time? So partnerships can manifest quickly which kind of allows the market to be you know at bay for a moment So if the council's direction to staff is to do that that my recommendation would be to have it be to a nonprofit

Yeah, would that apply if they submitted? It would only apply if they submitted for a closure, not a redevelopment.

Well, practically speaking, it would only be triggered when they want to sell the property. So if they just redevelop it themselves, then it's never going to come into play. But as I indicated earlier, the list of conditions is non-exclusive, and it really gives council quite a bit of discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis on what conditions it should apply. So as currently proposed, it wouldn't be outside of the realm of potential conditions that the council could apply. And in terms of speaking about ways to potentially mitigate risk to the city, retaining discretion allows it to be implemented on a case by case basis. So to where the ordinance writ large could be potentially subject to attack depending on the inclusion of many things. If it's on a per park basis, if there's one unconstitutional, arguably unconstitutional provision that's included as a condition of closure, that could potentially be subject to attack, but it's not necessarily gonna invalidate the ordinance or parts of the ordinance or require the council to go back to the drawing board. retaining discretion certainly potentially builds in a little bit of a buffer to where the council's hands are not tied in terms of trying to adopt these conditions which could be advised on on perhaps a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not that would be something that could be included because again the list of conditions is not saying council must impose these in every situation it's just saying we may include conditions which could potentially be some of these but not necessarily to the exclusion of other conditions to be imposed

So are you suggesting that we do not need to consider a policy based upon what you just said that we have options or please give me a

translation yeah as currently drafted I don't think I think that the it could be potentially imposed as a condition whether or not that's something that would be potentially legally advisable in a particular situation I think would require assessment and certainly project right but I think it would not be it would be something that could potentially be imposed with the current proposed ordinance as drafted

So my next question is, one of the repeated comments shared was the desire to close loopholes. I'm not a skeptic, but is that even within the realm given the way legal minds work? Because it just seems like you've got two camps. One wants to close, the other one wants to open it up. So where we're at right now, do you feel reasonably confident that we don't have a Swiss cheese ordinance or draft?

I think the ordinance tries to strike the balance that was contemplated by state law to where it provides these three different mechanisms of closure, conversion, or change of use. while providing for adequate mitigation measures. And I think it is structured in a way to try and incentivize those concurrent applications being processed at the same time. And I think it does try to build in several safeguards while also giving the council quite a bit of discretion to also try and do that on a more individualized basis per project.

To the benefit of my cohorts, during the break, could you actually reiterate, as you see, the definition of disaster, natural disaster, and where we're at and why we're at where we're at in terms of its reference to state or federal law?

Right and so we did hear comments about a proposal to expand the definition of natural disaster and I I do agree with the comments made by by legal aid I think that what the state law does for the closure conversion ordinance is that it sets the baseline for the rights for the homeowners and so I the natural disaster is an exemption to having to pay these relocation benefits to the homeowners. And so under the state statute, the definition is limited to those natural disasters under federal and state law. And so if we were to expand that definition under the local ordinance, include local disasters then that would diminish the rights of the homeowners so if we have the baseline here expanding that definition takes us below the baseline and so I don't think that that proposal is consistent with the way that state law is structured because that is our bare minimum that with this we can potentially do things more stringent but not less and and so I

It seems like, yeah, of course, I agree with that. I think that that makes complete sense. And I also think that if you go more to local, you have to determine who's the body that determines that. And it could become much more subjective. So I think state and federal law makes sense. And so there also seems to be a difference to me between making sure that we're complying with all the state laws. We're using the state laws. to really as, these are also the backup for our ordinance. They kind of shore a lot of things up. But then there's the request for us to go beyond what state law is requiring. And those are the things that I just, you know, I want to try to understand better of like, you know, does it make sense? How, you know, is it, how important, how risky is it, I guess, for me, for us to go beyond? How much does it open that door to litigation? And once again, I'm trying to do everything to prevent, especially foreclosure to be used as a bargaining chip. I fully understand someone may want to move out of the business that they're in. I understand that. in moving out of the, you know, like there's for other businesses, there's bankruptcy laws and all of that where people that are, you know, invested in the company or the money, you know, are lendees of the company that, you know, they have to be, you know, they have to be taken care of. So it's kind of how to, you know, we're in this business right now, if you're a mobile home park owner, you're in this business and these are your These are your customers, right? You know, that you have actually beyond a customer, you have a different type of property relationship that you have to, how do you make sure that you, you know, I think they have a responsibility to be able to take care of them, even if they decide, you know, like a bankruptcy or like I'm gonna close it. And we understand if they can show financial bankruptcy, then that's different, but if they're not, know how do we make sure that that that there's all the loopholes are closed I do I'm really as concerned about this closure using as a more bargaining chip I think it's a real threat unfortunately I know I was rambling there I'm sorry I wanted to respond to what I hear is your embedded question about risk like how far is going too far with protections that expose the city to litigation

I think what's really difficult is it's, unfortunately this isn't a frustrating answer, but it's a, it depends. And I think the staff have both Jennifer and Adam have done a really good job trying to thread this very difficult needle. That is kind of a moving target with the litigation that's going on to say, try to be responsive to both the park owners and the residents and the tribe park group to say, we're trying to stretch and to meet the interests in a way that balances that risk. And it's not a singular provision, right? It's the cumulative, you know, kind of portfolio of all the things added together. And so I think, I mean, that is why this is so complicated and there is so much litigation going on because everybody's kind of testing the waters around. And I think the case law that Adam's talking about is going to help inform how far is too far. So, you know, that's why we presented what we presented tonight and if some additional analysis on on Specific like we want to be responsive to your question about risk analysis and risk management But it's a I think it's difficult to answer when it's like well is if we if we add these three four or five things together Is that too far or what if we just do the three is that too far? You know, it's that's why this is so complex. So I'm sure you can add something But just my perspective from kind of the policy level and analysis, trying to get you what you need to make an informed decision.

But from a policy level, the council could direct staff and attorneys to say, can you bring back something to us that goes, what would be the next step going beyond the current ordinance and state law so that we're adding additional protections in? and what is the risk associated. Maybe that is a specific direction that I would like to see if other people would concur with that.

Okay.

Do you want me to repeat it?

It goes back to your comment about risks and try to identify if we take it to another

direction what is the risk if we take it like where what it would be the next step that we could take our ordinance to that would go beyond that what the state is at what's already in the ordinance what the state is asking us to do that would be another element we could add in that would help to mitigate against closures being used in regards to as a bargaining chip to raise rents. Because I think that's the greatest fear, one of the greatest fears.

And on that, Councilmember, we heard the example of Windsor. I think the primary position that I've heard is that the rent stabilization ordinance that the city has is so complex that it's effectively an empty remedy for park residents to utilize because they can't effectively do it without legal counsel. And because of the constitutional limitations on park owners having that fair rate of return, they're inherently a complex process, and that's just required by the Constitution for us to be able to have a rent stabilization ordinance that doesn't violate those property rights. And so there's not necessarily, I mean, the rights exist, and that's what was utilized in the Windsor example that we heard, where that threat came through and the park residents, the homeowners effectively utilized the rent stabilization ordinance to get a $4 some odd increase. And so they did utilize the rights that the city had created. But it's whether or not the existing rights that we have in place are going to be utilized that manner and I just also wanted to point out that under the existing rent stabilization ordinance we do have a the city does have a provision that makes it unlawful for a park owner to demand rent that's in excess of the amounts that are authorized by the rent stabilization chapter and so there you know I query whether or not such a demand in a situation is going to be in violation of that depending on the way that it's structured and the way in which they're trying to go about bargaining to try and do an end run around the rent stabilization ordinance. If they're violating the law now, I don't see necessarily how, if that's always going to be the method of intimidation or coercion, it doesn't seem like there's many additional elements that could be adopted to make illegal what's already an unlawful practice. And so I did just want to note that on the existing rent stabilization ordinance.

Regarding risk management But the The city goes to great expense to hire excellent staff and attorneys and part of their role is to Mitigate those risks in the work that they do so I'm comfortable with with a lot of the material that we've got in terms of the ordinance. And I know there were some specific questions that that staff wanted us to respond to. And then we can follow that with something that would be additional if that's the wish of the council.

That's kind of what I think. I think that's a good point to pivot to, at least at this point. So if I were to reference back the summary, the agenda item summary, there were some very specific requests for direction. So I'd like to at least start with these four items and have discussion here on whether or not we wish that. So there we have it. We'll start with the concurrent processing. And at this point, we've heard the council. Where am I at here? to direct, okay, council direct the inclusion of the declaration under perjury in the draft ordinance. Is that clear in terms of our understanding and we feel comfortable directing staff accordingly?

Yeah.

Yeah, I agree with that recommendation.

Okay, that's one.

So the recommendation, just the direct inclusion of the declaration. Her microphone. Microphone.

Microphone.

Oh, there we go. that we want to have that declaration under perjury in the draft ordinance. We want to add that in.

So that's item number one.

Okay now I'm confused because I thought that that is exactly what we wanted to have the Tri-Park wanted to have So in the discussion there are staffs recommending that we do a declaration under perjury

that a project is not occurring what was presented by the tri-park committee in their draft ordinance is that there's three main components of an affidavit and i actually i think i have it open still um one of which is that they um i'm sorry you're gonna have to help me on that one

Here they are. So they are. I have them. Swear under penalty of perjury that the early closure is not being used to avoid the city's ordinance or state federal protections, provide specific facts and supporting evidence showing why the park really must close before redevelopment application is filed, and prove that for reasons the owner did not create, the park cannot reasonably continue operating as a rental mobile home park while providing the owner a fair return. until the property is sold or new use is ready to proceed. So those are, you know.

Different things. Those are very different things.

So it's whether or not that additional language would be in.

So if that is something that the council wants us, if you don't want to discuss it tonight and you want us to go back and bring you back more information around why those are different, I think we've talked a little bit about why those are two different things and what that impact of the different aspects are. But we can discuss it a little bit more, but they are different types.

What I'd like to suggest is that We make a decision on what's being recommended, either thumbs up or thumbs down, and then if we don't think it's taken far enough, then just as she said, that we can request that they go back and reevaluate and come back.

We can provide options with the ordinance that we present to you, if that is what is directed.

Jennifer, do you fully understand?

Yes, I actually have the ordinance Council members if I may just clarify so the proposal that the city has indicated with the declaration is just confirming that there's no Pending concurrent development that's being contemplated with the proposal by the Park residents is that it's it's getting back to that second criteria that you said that there's essentially it's requiring that there is a justification about why they can't just close the park without converting it. And so that's that kind of policy discussion we were talking about earlier to where the latter requirement proposed by the park residents is saying that you cannot close the park unless there is essentially no other reason you have to justify that you don't have a redevelopment plan. The city is saying you just need to affirm that you don't have a redevelopment plan without having to actually demonstrate that there's reasons why it is you're not. So if the park owner just wanted to close down their business, that would not be a viable option under the proposed affidavit with the three-part requirement. So that's kind of the big distinction between the two is that the current recommendation by the city is just to confirm whether or not concurrent processing is required as opposed to imposing new and additional heightened standards that park owners would have to meet in order to qualify for closure.

I'm clear. I know my position, but I don't know others' positions on this. Do you want to hear? Should we go through like you suggested, Ron?

Yeah. Yeah. I indeed think we should go through. So what the addition is is specific to what we just talked about, the concurrent processing. So we have it recommended at one level, and then the counter coming from Tri-Parks is a more detailed. And that's what we need to give some direction on, correct? So yes.

Yeah, and if I may, I think it's to keep it as clear as possible is to get a sense for clear council direction from each of you. Do you support staff's recommendation, which is what's on the screen and what staff has presented tonight? Or would you want staff to go back and continue to reevaluate these additional, the Tri-Parks additional requirements under that penalty of perjury?

I would like to suggest that if they have agreed to go ahead and have some discussion between the two attorneys that wasn't able to take place that this certainly could be an item for further discussion. I like the recommendation that has been suggested, and I would love to think that we can at least check some boxes and say, yes, we agree with the recommendation or we don't, but also with what was offered up earlier was where there's not division, where there's not concurrence or different opinion, that there is that opportunity for the two legal councils to discuss it and then expect to bring back to the council discussion. comments and all, again, recommendation. Again, not wanting to kick the can down the road, but I had heard that, you know, so I'm hearing some smiles. John? Let me give this a swing. Give it another swing.

All right. I concur with the staff recommendation to include this in the ordinance, but I'm also interested to hear what the affidavit could look like.

That's all. Perfect. And the two of you, are you thumbs up on that recommendation or not?

So I concur that this is a good beginning, this recommendation, and would like to have further discussion and recommendation of, you know, because I don't know if I agree. I just read this today. this you know any so I don't know if I agree but I some of it I like I don't like all of it but some of it I like some of I mean I should say some I don't know but so I think I'm concurring to John that I bought some further well is that what you heard this is what's I mean how about staff for people we've just said I think it's clear what I'm hearing is that you'd like staff to do more legal analysis and consider tri parks

Additional language determine whether or not at legal risk staff and legal counsel feel Is acceptable or not and bring an explanation and a recommendation as to why or why not could we go further? We go as far as they want to go or is there some middle ground and give a sense of what the legal risk is associated with that? Is that correct?

Is that good?

How about you, Jack?

Yes, I agree. Thank you.

Next one.

Rent stabilization.

I would like to suggest our staff to review our original rent rental standardization ordinance, because I believe that is very strong. And also with a cross-conference with 9.80 and 9.82, see how they are related together. And in May, we can use other ordinance to prevent us not happening We just mentioned about Santa Rosa and the Windsor and under the threat and the closure and then the increase the rent. That is the do on the research and also see if they're not available and please prepare any language to protect and this for sure no this kind of thing happen.

So that's your comment regarding the rent stabilization. So I'm not clear on that, but hopefully we can get clarity as far as what you're asking for. Right now, what I see is I'm seeing that the staff recommends no modifications to the current rent stabilization ordinance. And my question then is I believe one of the spokespersons mentioned that goes back to 2014 when it was established. My question is how well has it worked between 2014 and 2026? Has it provided the stabilization that the title suggests? I'm all for updating, but I'm also saying if it's working, I thought it was, the spokesperson spoke with a certain degree of confidence that they're very proud that we did it, it was good. My question is, is it still good? And what is the history of it?

Because, you know, our original, this ordinance, a rental stabilization ordinance, and we needed review that again, see, and we needed to make full use of some of the conditions and then protect. Our goal is very simple. We already heard a bad example, a nasty example. They increased the rental by 400 or even more under the threat of the closing So we want to stop this kind of thing from happening. That is my goal.

Well, what's not clear is whether or not, I believe it was up in Windsor, whether or not that rent stabilization ordinance is our rent stabilization ordinance, or if there was a loophole or some sort of chink in the armor.

That is right. That is the... What I need is to review it at the end and try to close any... loophole and avoidable in a loophole.

I guess I thought that this recommendation here was to be able to clearly link other sections of the ordinance that strengthen the rent stabilization Ordinance or you know that helps support it and to make sure that that it's clearly linked in that section That's what I understand. Is this correct?

It's it was to link the two so that it's more about the education of a of the rights under another chapter of our ordinance So we're focusing on closure and conversion the rent stabilization ordinance is a ten years old Newer than our closure ordinance. It did go through a very robust process that was described tonight To get to that point we have not since I've been here and my knowledge base these people are going to know more about that and I have not heard of the park owners utilizing. There are opportunities in here to utilize to increase rent to get their fair rate of return. But as I put up on the screen, we also have that clause in there that does provide an extra layer of protection. Whether that exists in Windsor, I do not know, nor about Petaluma.

It does. So then I do want to then clarify two things. One is, in the summary, it doesn't speak to this cross-reference. But on your PowerPoint, you are. So I'd like to draw the council back to the recommendation that's on the PowerPoint. And I'd like to delete the comment earlier about no change. What we're talking about now is to cross-reference, to strengthen, and to educate both the council, the public, and...

And the mobile home park owners. I mean, that's the goal of this. It's easier for someone to know what their rights are in regards to threats of rents being raised. And so I think that the goal of adding all of this in is to help people have a better map to that. It still may not be the best map, but it's a map to that. So my tendency would be to accept this recommendation

Jack, are you okay with that?

If you think, do you understand what I'm saying also in the include this we modify and the 9.82 or can, because my goal is very clear, you know, or maybe that has not happened, you know, in the Windsor, in the Santa Rosa. And I'm not sure, but we should have prepared ourselves to prevent this kind of increase, rental increase, from happening.

Okay, then let's...

I really don't know, you know, because although this is plain English, but I really...

So, yeah, when we talked about it earlier, it was we're going to actually provide you the draft ordinance with the language change.

Okay. Yes. All right.

So we are then all in agreement with that. So staff, do you have adequate... Okay, moving on.

on the next topic that was solicited some comment about comparable parks so the definition of comparable mobile home parks so the recommendation is to keep the existing definition and during the presentation i described the difference between the tri-park committee and staffs so staff's recommendation is to keep it to keep it an open-ended definition

Can you just refresh my memory as to the reason to keep it more open than not what is the value to us so if we add more Add more qualifiers in there we potentially are limiting more opportunities Discussion up at the dais regarding comparable mobile home park definitions I

Well, my tendency would be to have more qualifiers because I just think that that helps us. And the reason I think that that's a good idea is because I do think that when future councils are really looking at what is the reality of people actually getting placed somewhere, I think those qualifiers help in identifying whether that's really probable for someone to be moved.

So the probability is already addressed in your findings. There is the probability in the sense that and a location has to a spot has to be available to identify for that relocation. This is more about what parks will be used to in the process to identify those possible parks so think of it as i've got 10 parks and i'm gonna say that all 10 parks have spaces available like one or two i'm not i know i i do recognize the vacancy so let's say there's one or two in each one but if only five of those ten are in those then we've limited down to five of those parks for those two spaces so we've gotten rid of five available parks so that's the idea behind it if you want to include and we can improve a lot broader in the sense of looking at napa or other counties if we want to broaden it so but limiting it is what the cal enviro screen is going to do i thought we included napa county Currently right now, we have not. It's just Sonoma County. The prior conversation that we had is that if we didn't use CalEnviroScreen, we would broaden it to Napa County and Marin County.

You can't do both? You can't use the screen and include a larger geographic area?

Oh, yes. No, we can. If we did use EnviroScreen, we definitely are going to use more counties. can we right now just say with what the definition that you see on your screen and add more counties yes we can do that i i'm actually good with the recommendation of keeping the existing definition that was presented

I would probably add more counties. I mean, I think when we get down to it, I'm trying to be realistic. I mean, ideally we never get to this point, right? I mean, this is the goal. We never get to this point where this is actually happening. But if you do get to this point, I think the reality is you have to consider more counties if it's going to ever be. I mean, we know you're going to have to go there. So that would be my sense of recommending more counties.

Well, my comment is, are not more choices better than fewer choices?

It is.

So then why would we not want to consider a broader geographic area?

So I would just say that the broader the geographic area, the higher the cost that the owners are potentially going to be having to pay. And so that just draws in questions about whether or not the costs that we're now then imposing on that is roughly proportional to the impact of their The park closure so the if we did statewide that's certainly going to raise I mean if somebody wants to relocate down to San Diego to take a Manufactured home that far is going to be a substantial cost for that And so that tends to get into where whether or not that could post some potential constitutional challenge in terms of whether or not the monetary conditions are within the realm of

I'm talking about Napa and Marin, which in some instances, I mean, Napa is closer than many of these places in

No, and I agree. I'm just saying in a larger sense of things that the wider out we go in a geographic sense, the more potential risk it injects. So I think with Napa-Sonoma is certainly, that seems like a very close and also comparable from a general standpoint, I would think, in terms of what that would look like. So that's just the only consideration with how wide to expand that geographic area.

Well, previously, did we not talk about a radius? And was there a reason that radius was disregarded?

There is a radius when it's on 50 miles for pavement of moving things. Sorry, I'm going to go back to my relocation assistance section. for let's see for non-homeowner residents the cost of all reasonable expenses incurred in moving to comparable housing up to a maximum distance of 50 miles and then let's see And then for homeowners who are unable to reasonably relocate their mobile home to a comparable mobile home park, and then again within Sonoma County is how we've listed it right now, the payment of in-place fair market value for their mobile home based on the information, dah, dah, dah, dah, and the cost of all reasonable expenses incurred in moving to comparable housing up to a maximum distance of 50 miles. So basically it's moving expenses.

So we haven't excluded parts of Napa because parts of Napa are within that 50-mile range.

Not to move the mobile home. It's just to move yourself.

But again, if we believe that more choices is better, and I understand that that's an idea. If you take all of Sonoma County going all the way up to Sea Ranch or you're talking about, the northernmost tip of Napa where you've created a much larger geographic area. But again, I'm trying to understand why we wouldn't want to go ahead and define like we've done by a radius rather than county. What am I missing?

So if I said 50 miles from right here, let's all drive together. I'm not getting very far to the north in Sonoma County or south in Marin County. I'm getting to, what, Novato? Napa?

You'd get beyond Novato. It's 60 miles to San Francisco. So you're going to get to Corte Madera.

Okay.

You're not going to get, you probably won't get to Mill Valley. Sorry, I've driven that. You think you'll get to Mill Valley? Okay, yeah. Yeah.

To the question, Mr. Mayor, about why like radius versus county, I just think it's easier to define. I think it's like where are the boundaries, where are the borders?

But if we're trying to stay within a reasonable distance so it doesn't tick over into a take or an abusive ask, and that's where I'm...

I guess it's like the reasonable person test just to, you know, is that the moving expenses... to move to Marin or Napa or further away in Sonoma County from here seem within the realm of the same amount of dollars to me. If we're talking San Mateo and Santa Barbara and going that far or much further east, I think then it becomes a little, the burden or the owner.

I just think the value of having some choices makes sense, particularly because there's a big unknown because we can talk about it now, but we really don't know should this be enacted or what will be out there. So anyway.

The only thing I would add is I think when we're looking at comparable housing that there's potentially some uniformity within a county itself as opposed to going 50 miles might get into more higher cost of living areas or lower cost of living areas. And so I could see that being kind of an impact on terms of the cost that's being imposed. BECAUSE IF THE OBLIGATION IS TO RELOCATE THEM TO A MUCH HIGHER COST OF LIVING AREA WHERE THE SPACE RENT IS GOING TO BE TWICE WHAT IT IS HERE, AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE UNIFORM IN, SAY, SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTY GENERALLY, I THINK A LOT OF THE TIMES WHEN WE SEE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY DONE, IT'S KIND OF DONE ON, LIKE, A COUNTY OR A METRO, MICRO KIND OF BASIS. SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

SO MY INTERPRETING, YOU'RE SAYING MARINNE'S TOO EXPENSIVE, SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, LET'S JUST LIMIT IT TO SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTY. Is that fair? I see one nod, okay. Again, we've expanded it, which I think is good. How do the rest of you feel? One live, two lives, okay. You've got consensus up here on that item.

No, I haven't said, I think, anyway. You smiled. I smiled.

I took that as a yes.

No, it's just, Nevada's not as expensive as some of the places in Sonoma County. I think Novato needs to somehow be included in there, so I would extend to Murray. I'm just, you know, it's not that far. I can get to Novato in, what, 20 minutes? Easily. And I don't drive that fast, but if I drive in the morning, 25, 25 minutes. Can I add just one little word here?

The whole reason we were talking about expanding the radius was so that we could put in the I'm not...

I mean, the environment screen was part of the presentation, so is that still not coming into play?

So going back into the recommendation for the comparable park, our recommendation was basically to keep it the way it is today, not to change it. the what we just discussed was adding another county what the tri-park recommendation is is to add cal enviro screen as well as disadvantaged community designations on top of that parameters so the way it currently is does not take into consideration enviro screen no

and there was expressed concern last time about comparables and I think you used the word, Patricia, what word did you use? Safe or healthy or something.

So that's the definition, that was added to the definition of safe and sanitary.

Safe and sanitary was added.

Okay, so that's kind of independent, okay.

right so this is so much fun anyway so the enviro screen would get us to a point if we just accepted that I mean the one thing I worry about with the Ducks in where we not you know the Ducks in the plaza but the Ducks the DUCs is that is that we live in counties where we have low income blocks next to high income blocks and we don't really have large sections of disadvantaged communities, you know, so I think that that can. You know, I think that that could eliminate the places, it could be very nice I just would use a different form of qualification. than that because of the nature. If we were in LA, it would be different, right? But we're not there. We're here in this, you know, in Sonoma County. So, and if the EnviroScreen is what will get us the most area with the highest level of positive attributes, then maybe, then when you said, I just thought they were like on top of each other, sorry. I thought the EnviroScreen, you could do the EnviroScreen and the counties and that that would be the best. That's what would seem to me the best, but I don't know. I'm not an expert on this.

My, yeah, I prefer some little bit of flexibility for these kind of things. And also prefer some of the three and the parks, tri-parks, the suggestions, because I don't think we have another additional and mobile home, the park, would be available next 10 years or, you know. That is my idea. I really don't know, 50 miles, that's fine, and also including American Kenya. Over there, this is cheaper, you know, than here.

Let's move it 50.

Yeah.

So, you know, I mean, I look at EnviroScreen as a tool to evaluate the parks, and I think that's what it's supposed to do. So I don't have a problem expanding to include Napa, but I would also apply EnviroScreen to that.

Okay, done. Yep, done. There we go. We're happy.

All right, we're talking about now back to what we have discussed, and maybe we have consensus about the definition of disaster. Yeah.

Okay, I think this.

I agree using existing definitions, state level or on a federal level because they are not official and more objective.

So the recommendation has been expressed. Do we concur?

I concur.

Yes. Yes. Okay, next.

I don't think.

no so now we need now that we did the direct comment we had other conversations about other things that we wanted to direct staff to if that was more conversation between the the two legal groups or not and then I'd like to hear what the next step is from staff coming back to us and a timetable for that

sorry the timetable part um all right so um i think first i my understanding is we'll still try to meet with the attorney that's what i heard today um this all happened while i was gone so i'm still in catch-up mode right now um and then we will And part of that conversation will include the declaration of perjury or affidavit conversation. So we'll do that the Coming back with an ordinance. I mean, I think we're almost there so I don't feel like there's a lot So it's just a matter of time to meet And then bring it forward my Based on what we have here, there's not that much change unless he tells me otherwise. I don't see why we can't do an introduction, at least advertise, put a notice out for an introduction of a draft ordinance for your consideration. And then if you have changes that you want to make, then we can discuss whether or not it needs to be reintroduced.

Was I reading between those comments we're talking September? Are we talking October?

I'm thinking October.

Again, I'd like to... It's the end of August. I may be accused of kicking the can down the road, but given the thoughtful process that I would like us to continue to go through, if we have it done by Thanksgiving, I think we're good now. I'm not suggesting that we slow things down, but at the same time, this is not the only challenge you have So I just want to be realistic and I want to be expressive in front of the residents because it's nice to leave with at least a semblance of clarity as far as next steps and when. So I'm giving you more leash but it doesn't look like you want it.

I mean you've given me more leash I will and in the sense of like, okay, that that's a good I just I'm still with the things that we've talked to like they're coming forward the inclusionary ordinance the general plan Right all these priorities. That's where it's gonna come Down to so I don't think there's a lot of change again. Like I said, it's just more about discussion So we will plug it in as soon as we can That's fair So

Any other comments up here from the audience as far as did we miss anything?

Yeah, on the timing, the only thing for me that is helpful considering my aging brain

is the sooner like so maybe mid-october early november just you know like that you know this so we want to keep the momentum we want to keep the momentum so in our memory so in our memory that's the thing we want to keep so if i may just to clarify kind of the direction on the timeline because we can communicate that i think we as staff need to go back and look at in addition to everything that's on jennifer's plate all the other things that are coming forward to the council the next couple of months so we can make sure we're bringing you balanced meetings and we're managing the priorities and direction that we have on all the other things. So I'd be hesitant to commit to a specific meeting or a specific month. We want to be, you know, moving along and get these things done in an orderly fashion without delay. We don't want to create any more uncertainty or stress or anxiety about the issue, but I think we need to come back and we can share and communicate out what our kind of target date is so everybody's in the know and we can make sure that we're not over committing ourselves to anything.

Yeah, I would like it to.

I would think that you would like it to be done before you leave the council. Yes, exactly.

That will not be before the end of the year, right?

And it's not just me personally. I think that, you know, like, I think bringing in, then you have to bring someone else up to date on all of this.

Yeah, that is right. Yeah. Learning, yeah.

so without getting into specific dates we can get into specific years 2026 so if there are no other comments from up here I can see people are packing up I would like to adjourn