Sebastopol City Council
January 18, 2022

City Council
Mayor Patrick Slayter
Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton
Una Glass
Sarah Glade Gurney
Diana Rich
City Manager
Larry McLaughlin
[email protected]
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC
Mary Gourley
[email protected]

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
`MINUTES FOR Meeting of January 18, 2022
As Approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of February 1, 2022 The City Council Regular meeting was held via teleconference pursuant to AB 361.

Please note that minutes are not meant to be verbatim minutes and are meant to be the City’s record of a summary of actions that took place at the meeting.
5:00 pm Convene City Council Special Meeting - Meeting Start Time (ZOOM VIRTUAL FORMAT) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Slayter called the regular meeting to order at 5:03 pm.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Patrick Slayter – By video teleconference Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton – By video teleconference (arrived 5:09 pm) Councilmember Una Glass – By video teleconference
Councilmember Sarah Gurney - By video teleconference
Councilmember Diana Gardner Rich - By video teleconference

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager/City Attorney Larry McLaughlin
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Mary Gourley
Planning Director Kari Svanstrom

1. Interviews for Vacancies on the following Vacancies on the Public Arts Committee) a. Public Arts Committee (Responsible Department: Planning/City Administration) Term Ending Dates: December 31, 2021
i. Jen Vertz Category 2
ii. Barbara Harris Category 1
iii. Jeffrey Stucker Category 3
The City Council conducted interviews with the following and will discuss appointment later in the agenda. 5:00 PM Barbara Harris
5:15 PM Jeffrey Stucker
5:30 PM Natalie Timm
5:45 PM Robert Brent
City Council Action: No action required. City Council conducted interviews and will discuss appointment later in the agenda.

Minute Order Number: 2022-014
ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Slayter adjourned the Special City Council Meeting at 6:04 p.m.

6:00 pm Convene City Council Meeting - Meeting Start Time (ZOOM VIRTUAL FORMAT) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Slayter called the regular meeting to order at 6:14 pm.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor Patrick Slayter – By video teleconference Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton – By video teleconference
Councilmember Una Glass – By video teleconference
Councilmember Sarah Gurney - By video teleconference
Councilmember Diana Gardner Rich - By video teleconference

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager/City Attorney Larry McLaughlin
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Mary Gourley
Engineering Consultant Toni Bertolero, GHD
Planning Director Kari Svanstrom
Police Chief Kevin Kilgore
COUNCIL PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING:

City staff read the protocols for the meeting.
• This meeting is being conducted utilizing virtual settings for teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Orders regarding the COVID 19 pandemic and AB 361. • Live stream and zoom is being utilized for this meeting. In case of technical issues, meetings will be uploaded to the City web site as soon as possible after this meeting. • Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting by use of Zoom as noted on the City’s website and as noted on the agenda.
• Members of the public wishing to speak to the City Council may do so during public comment or may comment on agenda items during the discussion of each item and must be logged into Zoom. Live Stream is a viewing only format.
• Anyone using abusive, vulgar, offensive, threatening, or harassing language, personal attacks of any kind or offensive terms that target specific individuals or groups will be muted and removed from the meeting.

SALUTE TO THE FLAG Mayor Slayter led the salute to the flag.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I've received some communications throughout the day and yesterday mostly, and I'm afraid that there might be confusion about the City Manager reports that are listed on the agenda that are always listed on the agenda.
• There are a couple of written reports that are part of that City Manager report portion of our meeting. • Those are not on our agenda. Those are not calendared agenda items. That information is there for public information. Those are not on our agenda, and we will not be discussing them this evening. • If you would like to make a public comment about either of those particular items, that is addressed during the items not on the agenda public comment portion of our meeting. • I'd also like to make a little statement here about the most unfortunate activity that happened down at our public library recently.
• The lawless actions that were taken in that situation are abhorrent. We cannot stand with that type of activity. Where we do stand is with our entire community, all members of our community, our diversity is our strength, and activities like that tear us down.
• It just hurts my heart that those types of things happen here in our little town. • The other thing I'd like to mention is regarding the statement that our City Clerk makes at the front of the meeting about abusive and offensive language.

• I would also like to include ethnically offensive language. That includes name-calling. • We have seen an uptick in that over the past five years or so on the national front people being belittled, made fun of with derisive names using ethnically offensive language. • What I've noticed, we have a City consultant with a company name that has been made fun of recently in an ethnically offensive way.
• I'm warning the members of the public who have used that terminology that this evening we will not stand with that.
• That language needs to stop, and if it does not stop, then you will be removed from the meeting because you are breaking our rules.

SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Mayor Slayter led the salute to the flag.

PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS: There were none.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Speakers are allowed to speak for a maximum of three minutes so that all speakers have an opportunity to address the City Council.

Power point or visual presentations for public comment shall not be permitted unless approved by the Agenda Review Committee two weeks prior to the requested meeting date.

Speakers may not "yield" a portion of their allotted time to others.

The Mayor has the authority to limit or extend the time allowed for speakers dependent on the number of speakers in attendance.

The Mayor can poll the members of the public for an indication of the number of people wishing to speak, then call on individuals to speak.

It is the goal of the Council to conclude the public comments portion of the agenda within 20 minutes. If the public comment period exceeds twenty minutes, the presiding officer, typically the Mayor, reserves the right to reduce the time per speaker or carry over public comments to after all business items are completed.

The City Clerk will monitor the time for public comments and inform the speakers when the time limitation has been reached.

The Mayor could survey the members of the public, as appropriate, to move agenda items up or back to address the members of the public items of concern.

Public participation is encouraged on all public agenda items.

Council and staff will treat participants and each other with courtesy. Derogatory or sarcastic comments are inappropriate.

The public will likewise be encouraged by the Mayor to maintain meeting decorum.

In Council meetings when citizens are agitated, the Mayor may call a short recess to calm the situation.

If a member of the public is unable to attend the Council meeting, written communications may be sent to the City Clerk by e-mail or by regular mail.

Communications received after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available to the Council at/or as soon after the meeting.

The following public comment(s) were received:

Gale Brownell commented as follows:
• I'd like to comment about neighborhood concerns about the safe parking site. • I have worked in affordable housing field for 20 years, and I have volunteered with the Continuum of Care, which facilitates the use of Federal Funds for homeless services for 19 years. • My experience shows that people most often rise to the expectations. • People who have some concerns need to communicate those concerns to SAVS who are going to operate that site. They should also expect the best.
• We need to have clear rules, and I think SAVS is doing that. • We need, if we have concerns, take them to SAVS so that those can be addressed. • I think we should treat those residents as neighbors and not as outcasts as is sometimes done. • Again, people rise to what is expected of them.
• I think we should help people who will live in that safe parking to bootstrap themselves into a better life. • I think it would be helpful to have tough love as our rule with second chances offered to people. • But not necessarily third or fourth or fifth.
• I also want people to remember that, as I understand it, this is a one-year pilot. • So, if it doesn't work out, it won't necessarily continue. • So please open your hearts a little bit, try to be more communicative and try to be friendly as you can.

Don Pickford commented as follows:
• I volunteer with Arthur George at the Sebastopol Christian Church. • We serve approximately thirty clients each Monday and Thursday morning with showers, hot breakfasts, and big sack lunches. We've been discussing how we might meet more of the needs of our clients. • Some of us have returned to school to finish our degrees. • We reflect on the counseling and support we received as returning students as well as the grant money. • I returned to finish my bachelor’s in psychology at Sonoma State, and I was awarded $4,000 in grant money each of the four semesters I was there as a transfer student. • I had counselors that helped me organize my coursework and grapple with personal issues and habits of mine.
• I was successful and received my bachelor’s in psychology in December of 2018. • I just think that an opportunity, an academic opportunity with dormitory-style housing is something that Sebastopol, that the community of Sebastopol, especially with the outreach to the homeless community • I found a funder called the Oak Foundation that awards grants to agencies that are fighting to eradicate homelessness. The grants range from $25,000 up into the millions. • I'm looking for other people that might be interested in researching, doing grant-seeking. • The picture I have in my head is dormitories and that is better space, it's more consolidated housing for people. Arthur encouraged me to bring this idea to the City Council. • By myself I try to study the textbooks, and I get bogged down, but there's a lot of money out there, and we have a really insular community that cares about its citizens here. • I welcome any input or feedback on that idea.

Tom Boag commented as follows:
• I'm a resident and homeowner of Sebastopol.
• I'd like to speak about the RV Village project underway on Highway 116 and how the location was suddenly changed.
• Thanks to Diana Rich who sent me nine staff reports and proposals that I've read completely. • I understand the Council has already approved the direction but there seems to be a lot of what I think is justified unhappiness among businesses And residents on Highway 116 North area. • So, that's just what I can read from the reports and what I know from talking to neighbors and businesses in the area.
• Understand I'm in favor of assisting homeless. That is Sebastopol homeless, not necessarily imports. • The 116 North location has obvious risks compared to other locations. • I'm disappointed in your haste for this switch.
• Some of which seemed to be pushed by St. Vincent’s de Paul and also the SAVS people. • Earlier there were other locations proposed Wischemann Hall and the Youth Annex and it seemed like your decision came down to the cost of the City.
• The pressure to move the homeless away from the Barlow and featuring letters in your staff reports from them of asking the Northern Sebastopol merchants and residents for their opinions doesn't seem fair to me.
• I'm also concerned for the project layouts that I've seen. There appears to be a very narrow space between the trailers.
• That brings to mind the trailer park that burnt down in the Tubbs fire. • Maybe that was exempted because we have an emergency declaration, but it doesn't seem right. • So, the declaration of an emergency didn't seem to separate, in my mind, the alternate locations. • It just really hustled the decision.

• So maybe we'll hear tonight from other people. But I think there's a group of market, hardware store, bank, charter school, and several streets of residents who are right now unhappy. • This may interfere with the success of this project for the homeless who we all support. • That needs to be revisited and reconsidered.

Linda Collins commented as follows:
• Sebastopol Chamber of Commerce and visitor center.
• First off, thank you all for participating in what's probably going to be a lengthy meeting, a lot to discuss, and some good items to overcome.
• But the reason that I wanted to speak tonight is because I wanted to let everyone know in our community to get the word out that we are having our 76th annual Apple Blossom Festival and Parade on April 22nd and 23rd. (corrected to be April 23rd and April 24th)
• The applications will be ready within the next week or so on our Website. • Also we were hacked. If you have received an e-mail from me stating that our sponsorship is available, do not answer it. It's from three different e-mails that are all bogus. You can tell by the e-mail addresses. • I won't be sending that information out until probably ten days from now. It will come directly from the chamber. You will recognize my e-mail as well as the Chamber's Website. • Please pass that message around. I think I forwarded the majority of it but it was concerning when I opened up some e-mails today and found out that someone is trying to piggy-back on our efforts. • This is a town effort, and we all put a lot of hard work and love into it. • Wwe want to make sure that the funds are directed to the correct entity.

Paul Andre Schabracq commented as follows:
• I just would like to talk briefly about my concern in the manner that the public process has been followed to date for the proposed smart water meter proposal.
• The information provided to date has been inconsistent and inadequate. • I'll cite one example. This proposal's been misleadingly packaged as an energy-conserving measure when in fact there's been no data to actually support this.
• There's no data that tells us how much energy is going to be used to build, deliver, install these smart meters to expand and maintain the communications network, or for the ratepayers to keep them powered up.
• I think this is a real hole in this story that needs to be filled by some independent facts before we go forward.
• There's also a real concern about the adverse health impacts. • The smart meter program actually conflicts with the General Plan, and it conflicts also with Sebastopol's historic opposition to smart meters in general.
• what I would recommend and suggest that we take a course correction here and urge you to keep the legacy water meters and have an opt-in only for those who want more current data, and the opt-in would be from non-transmitting meters.

Sandi Maurer commented as follows:
• I'm the director of the EMF Safety Network.
• Yesterday I sent the Council a letter that gave a recap of how smart water meters work. • The public process on the smart water meter's decision was limited and confusing. • The details about how the water meters work were sparse and the issue was hidden under energy efficiency.
• I echo some of the comments that Paul just made on that.

• The City staff marginalized anti-EMF people, and they created a survey to support an outcome that they wanted.
• What if they had asked do you want a smart water meter or do you want a Citywide radar installation for water meters?
• We want Sebastopol to maintain the legacy water meters and comply with the General Plan, community health and wellness goals and the 2013 ban on smart meters. • If customers want to understand their water usage data, they can opt in to digital non-transmitting water meter, like the fifty-six water meters the City tested. • We don't want smart water meters, and an opt-out won't fix this. • The only reason PG&E smart water helped out at all is because Sebastopol had banned the smart meters and they defended PG&E's multiple attempts to pursue installation. • EMF hired an RF engineer to review the technical specifications and this is how the meters work. • Sebastopol ordered 3,002 Badger Orion meter end points. The end point houses an antenna. • The fifty-six test meters Sebastopol trialed last year did not include an antenna. • 3,002 water meters collectively would transmit a minimum of approximately 12,000 times a day unless they are in activation or troubleshooting mode when one meter can transmit every 15 seconds. • The meters can transmit about half a mile, and they transmit in the 902 to 928 megahertz range. • This is the same frequency range the Navy used for the radar. • The maximum power output per meter is a quarter Watt. Collectively the installation would add 750 Watts throughout the City.
• The antennas are isotropic meaning they radiate in all directions. They work with the Internet of things and are smart City ready.
• You can't opt out of a smart City.
• Smart water meters will harm the EMF aware and injured community. • They will harm our quality of life, they will disturb our sense of peace and safety, and they will create a nuisance throughout our City.
• Please protect our community and the environment.

Zack commented as follows:
• I just wanted to throw out just a general bit of question, confusion around the enhanced development accelerated types of planning and potential zoning conflicts that the planned RV village 845 Gravenstein, including the fact that the entire building at the site the AmeriGas building itself which was intended to be originally just sort of cleaned up and upgraded has been totally demolished. • The Facebook page on SAVS' site is raising an additional $25,000 to add construction elements such as a kitchen, plumbing, shower, that really weren't a part of what the original plan that was passed in the public eye that was supposedly completely funded by grant money that was coming in publicly. • So, if SAVS needs extra money and there are extra permits and things being pulled having to do with zoning, I think it would be helpful to have an update on that in public for the community.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Mayor for acknowledging that he apparently he got my message. • Thank you for clarifying about whether I could speak about the smart meters, which are on the agenda • About that report, there contains on page 18 at the very bottom, words to the effect from badger meter who is the contractor that's providing this stuff.
• It says that badger meter reserves the right to change their product specifications and systems without notice.
• That just kind of nullifies everything, all the other, everything that it's all about.

• I hope that City Council members and the mayor, you look into that. It invalidates everything else. • Also, we need to know, we deserve to know how much this stuff costs. • If you turn the pages, a couple of pages later on the same report, you'll find that on the purchase order, all the numbers, the costs are blacked out.
• Apparently they don't want us to know how much those radioactive land mines cost. • As far as I can tell, the cost of $2.2 million if you count that out, approximately 3,000 of them, one for every water meter in town, it comes out to about $700 apiece. • We just don't need this kind of crime.

Mayor Slayter commented this is your last warning on using culturally and ethnically offensive language.

Linda Berg continued comment as follows:
• It's interesting that you mentioned that because I just happen to have a book, and I looked at the origin of that word up.
• It comes from a lawyer in New York state or it comes from a word, a German word. • I have no idea what you're referring to as an ethnically, because I don't equate it with any kind of ethnic anything. Can you clarify that to me? How do you associate that with ethnic? Angela Ford commented as follows:
• I'm speaking on the Council's recent decision to move forward with purchasing 3,000 smart EMF transmitting water meters throughout Sebastopol and urge you to keep in place our current legacy water meters.
• Legacy water meters emit no health damaging electromagnetic frequency radiation. • They add nothing new to the waste stream.
• They require no municipal fiscal indebtedness or increases in customer water rates and honors the Sebastopol General Plan.
• By keeping current legacy water meters in place, you're ensuring optimal health and well-being for all who live and work here, including elders and chronically ill. • 3,000 smart water meters would add 3,000 EMF radiation transmitters to the City throughout. • when the technology needs an upgrade, it will lead to 5G, using millimeter waves which independent scientists are warning is harmful.
• Number two, you are ensuring fiscal soundness for this City and all its citizens, conservative financial practices are especially smart and savvy in times of inflation, economic uncertainty, and other pressing community needs.
• Electing to become indebted through added municipal debt means that water customers will experience up to 4% hikes in water rates. That will add additional financial challenges to many of our citizens living on marginal incomes such as young females and elderly residents. Young families And elderly residents. • Three, you will be ensuring zero waste.
• Our current legacy water meters are durable and long-lasting. • They function beautifully as they are, and importantly they are recyclable. • Let's keep them, and let's keep them out of the trash. Let's continue to be the Green community we have always been.
• By keeping current legacy water meters in place, you are finally ensuring that you are honoring Sebastopol's 2015 General Plan in which CHW-4 clearly states, minimize community exposure to unsafe electromagnetic fields and calls for minimizing EMF radiation. • Sebastopol's General Plan is intended to serve as a Constitution for all future development within this City.

• I urge you to keep Sebastopol's legacy meters in place and to reverse your recent decisions to step back from the health, economic, environmental, and Constitutional challenges the purchase and installation of 3,000 EMF transmitters throughout our City would present. It is not too late. • Thank you for your time and attention, and always for your work on behalf of our beloved City.

Kyle Falbo commented as follows:
• First, a comment on a point of order regarding agenda item 1 for this evening. • An agenda item that did not receive opportunity for public comment. • I'm curious as to the directions for public comment, which states public participation is encouraged on all public agenda items.
• The inability to speak on agenda item number instead puts me in the position of instead commenting much later in the evening on a related item likely with less time, timely recognition, had the opportunity been provided during the agendized item itself.
• Perhaps this oversight is merely clerical in nature, the 5:00 P.M. meeting was titled, quote, a special meeting instead of just meeting. As such items on this special meeting are not public agenda items. • If this is the case I would suggest a distinct numbering system be applied so in that agenda item 1 for this meeting would've been in a separate meeting.
• One in which it is clear that no public comment would be allowed. • Secondly, I appreciate very much the written response from the Administrative Services Director regarding the 2021 cyber incident which $1.2 million of the City's money was lost as a result of cyber fraud, money that is yet to be fully recovered via our City and county's insurance policies. • The level of detail and transparency in the report in tonight's packet that's been provided is excellent and should be recognized as a model for the level of transparency the City should strive for regarding matters of public concern and interest.
• Some of which you might reflect on have been discussed tonight during public comment already. • My only criticism is that the timeliness of this communication from the Administrative Service Director came as a result of many months of silence as well as multiple public comments by myself and others on the matter.

Martha Glaser commented as follows:
• I'm just wanting to note that the meeting packet on tonight's meeting, the City Manager report item 13, I'd just ask citizens to have a look at it.
• When you do look at it, the issue about the cellular water meter is buried so deeply in that report, it's on page 4, it's under City water meter replacement. Kind of a euphemism. • The phrase energy conservation measures, the theme of the issue that the City water meters have been buried within, it just seems to me that it's such folly to think that these cellular-radiating electromagnetic frequency polluting devices are eco-friendly.
• It's just such a front to the actual ideal of conservation and care and love for the environment that Sebastopol has embodied for such a long time.
• I am in complete agreement with several of tonight's speakers with Paul and Sandi and Linda and Angela that we need to dial back this project.
• It really should never have been given the legs it's had. I think part of the reason it's been given legs is because this stuff is so technical, unfortunately the City Manager's report really doesn't say the information that we need to see. We and all citizens need to see. • The one bullet point under item 6, City water meter replacement provide and install 3,002 new cellular radio connections to all meters Citywide. That is cellular, that's a smart meter.

• It wasn't couched so that people who were presented with a survey could've really understood, not that they couldn't understand it but that it wasn't highlighted that the impact of this is these are actual radiating meters.
• The fact that the City Manager's report does not look at the actual metering of an RF meter, to show what radiation amounts come out, just because we don't have numbers given doesn't mean that they don't pollute. I believe they pollute.
• I would invite other citizens to have a look because this is folly, it's misguided, it doesn't sync up with the values of many citizens and with the City's General Plan as has been mentioned.

Courtney Klein commented as follows:
• I work here in Sebastopol. I'm representing myself.
• I also used to live in Sebastopol and really, really love this town and love this community. • Yesterday we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. and I just read this quote that was really inspiring to Me yesterday by him. The quote goes like this. Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. • I love that idea of creative altruism.
• When I think about all the work that people are doing to mitigate homelessness in Sebastopol that I have met, the homeless advocates, the retired nurses, the retired social workers, the members of the faithbased organizations here who help out the leader of the nonprofit and her name Is Adrienne. Also her team Cheryl and so on. I mean, they're fantastic. I think that they are exemplifying creative altruism. • How lucky are we that there are people out there who have devoted their careers, devoted their education, devoted their time and have the heart to do this kind of work to work to lift vulnerable people up.
• I know that it's very stigmatizing. I know that homelessness is a very stigmatizing thing. • But we're really only seeing 25% of the problem when we drive down Morris Street. • Those is that tier of homelessness, homeless persons who are chronically homeless. • There are many tiers. A lot of the homeless people are invisible, like, they aren't on Morris Street, they're hiding, they're in their cars.
• I am just very inspired by a lot of the activity that's been going on in this town in the name of creative altruism.

Walt Frazer commented as follows:
• I'm speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Sebastopol library. • For the past 40 years or so, the Friends of the Library have been holding quarterly book sales at the library.
• It's established a tight connection between the library and the reading public of Sebastopol. • As I'm sure most of you are aware, the advent of COVID and the closure of the library has interrupted this.
• The friends have responded by setting up a weekly tailgate party to accept and process community donations of books just outside of the library.
• But we are not able to hold our sales or really we hadn't been able to do much activity at all within the library, again, because of the COVID restrictions.
• We approached the City to use City-owned property adjoining the library. • We're told that we needed to apply for a special event permit, a 21-page form that requires fees and the expense of carrying $2 million insurance. This makes it impossible for the friends to hold our small event. • I contacted Councilmember Gurney about waiving some of the requirements to make an alternative site possible.

• We've been offered the use of the garage underneath the Senior Center, which would be appropriate for this time of year, assuming we get rain.
• We're hoping that we can work out something with the City to have a sale on the first Sunday of March. • I just wanted to bring this to the Council's attention and presumably we'll be working on that in the next couple weeks.

Oliver Marks commented as follows:
• I did an Internet of things analyst report, and I think in 2017 I talked to all of the major global suppliers’ people on the subject of the smart water meter.
• I think way too early in the case of Sebastopol, we have no idea what this technology's going to bring us. • 5G is highly questionable still at the moment. I don't know if you're aware of the news today, but all the airlines are saying that the aircraft won't be able to fly when 5G comes in because it'll interfere with their ground communications equipment.
• So there's a lot of hurdles to overcome here.
• I think some of the previous speakers have already said we have inexpensive meters that are working perfectly well underground in the local water system.
• So, why spend a huge amount of money on technology, which is very new and very unproven? • So that's my first part. My second point is just about the SAVS village. • It'd be helpful if when people speak, I'm a resident of downtown Sebastopol, it'd be helpful if people specify if they actually are working for a nonprofit and are actually in that world because there's quite a few people who are speaking, if you're a volunteer, that's fine, but please say that and say if you're actually in Sebastopol because otherwise these meetings get reweighted towards applauding each other basically if you're in that world.

Terri Moon commented as follows:
• I wanted to comment on the smart meter water meter issue. • I watched the recording of your City Council meeting when you discussed this before. • I certainly understand the desire to stay in integrity with agreements that you've made. • But I received an e-mail today from the EMF safety community. It's saying that , you know, different documents show the company responsible for issuing these meters or installing them has all these different e-mails and different information that they told you back in October of 2018, October of 2020, January of 2021.
• They give all these options. They're AMI or drive-by meters or touch or none or remote. • They give all these things, but they never specified anything about that they were going to be EMF meters.
• I'm wondering if they're in integrity with you.
• I understand your decision about wanting to stay in integrity with the people that you've made this agreement with.
• What about the people that you are here to represent? The people who voted for you, do you not want to stay in agreement with them to protect them from harmful EMF radiation? • So, it looks to me from the information that I'm looking at here that they have not been honest, this company. They're even saying that there's going to be a minimal ping of transmission once every 15 minutes or a small ping four times a day. Those were back on June 14, 2021, and July 6, 2021. • What we heard at that recording from last time what that that is not true at all, that these smart water meters are going to be dinging with a lot more frequency than that. • It doesn't sound like this company that you decided to maintain integrity with is in integrity with you. • I wanted to point that out.

• I wanted to really encourage you to leave the meters that we currently have in place and to forego this contract that's going to be a lot of money for a lot of stuff that's going to make people very ill. • So, thank you for allowing me the three minutes to voice my opinion. I appreciate you take it into consideration.

Ludmilla Bade commented as follows:
• I have been a former guest as I'm an unhoused person on Morris Street. • My son has also taken shelter there several years ago when he did not have a stable place to live. • Both of us work in the community. My son has been a resident of the county for a number of years. • He works full-time and now has, is housed. I want to say I took refuge there because I didn't want to just be randomly on the street.
• I took refuge on Morris Street and a couple other places that I could find some safety where just because I didn't want to be just, like, on the street by myself. • There's something about having a community around you that's very helpful. • I really want to say thank you to the City, the Council, for approving this temporary RV Village where people can come together in community and start to gather what their next step is, what kind of other services, what kind of help do they need, how can they contribute to the community. • I'm going to say that when I was out and about and did not have a stable place to be, it was very hard for me to keep working.
• I had to cut down my hours, I did work. But it was more difficult because so much more of my time went into kind of just getting through the day and that kind of thing. • I do want to say I'm an older adult. I became homeless because of a partial disability and because I was exiting an abusive situation.
• I've never been a substance addict or that kind of thing. • I do want to say that homeless people are painted with a very large brush, that people are noncontributing, they're dirty. You've got your own stereotypes, I'll let you fill in the gaps. • For those of us who are older that just haven't been able to keep up with the escalating financial costs of things, of real estate and have been in search of a community that we can be part of and had to temporarily up root after a situation I had with a sublet, I could not afford to move into someplace else. • It really is helpful to have some place to go.
• At SAVS place, I have chemical sensitivities. I just want to make a note, I could say something about the EMF people. Some of us are sensitive to thing that's not everybody else is sensitive to. • It is important to see that even something that isn't affecting everybody can affect some of us. • I really want to say thank you to the people at Sonoma Villages and to the City for looking at providing a place where those of us can come together and work on the next steps and be able to contribute back to the community.

Jude Iam commented as follows:
• I just want to add my voice to each and every speaker who's preceded me who has come out here tonight against these supposed smart meters.
• The last time i looked into this, it was 2013, and before that when the community strove to educate the City Council, and we did a good enough job so that there was a unanimous vote not only against installing them but to have a $500 fine against anyone who attempted an installation. • To have that gone to now borrowing over $2 million, which is meant to be recouped on the backs of citizens through their water bills, my head is just spinning. • I don't know how we got from there to here.
• In the intervening years, there have been endless studies, literally thousands of studies.

• The independent peer-reviewed studies, each of which show that there are problems with the fields that are generated by these meters.
• To have put them out to the community as cellular, this is the only time I've ever heard cellular applied to these meters and to talk about them as energy efficient. • This is an obfuscation of the actual situation.
• I think it's a real disservice to the community that the City Council is doing to have gone from unanimously opposed to unanimously in favor.
• This really needs to be re-examined and put out in an honest way to the community. • I think you will find that, once again, the community is for health and well-being of people and the environment and nature, none of which is benefited by these meters. • So we're having a perfectly good time with the old meters. Please leave those in place. • PG&E is, I think, the largest, richest utility company in the entire United States. We do not need to give them $2 million.
• There are plenty of better places where Sebastopol can use that money.

Jen Vertz commented as follows:
• I am the former Chair of the Public Arts Committee and as of this month I have just recently stepped down after my third two-year term limit. I'm really proud of the time that I spent on there. • I think that term limits might be great for folks in City government that just to be able to keep fresh blood coming in to our City government, which is what I talked to City Council about when I entered my third term.
• I just thought I'd throw that out there and say thanks, everybody, for how much I've loved working with everybody. I hope to again soon.
• I went out to the thrift store today, and I did see a table setup with the SAVS folks out there. • There were four women out there, and they were really nice, and I was just wondering if they were going to be out there more often and if they were going to be out there to just answer questions. • It was nice to be able to go out there, just be able to discuss that in person instead of during public comment and have some of my questions answered.
• So, if there was going to be some sort of schedule, if you could put that out so our neighborhood could go out there and talk to you and have a One-to-One which seems to be really helpful.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• The question came up a couple of times about water rate increases as part of the energy upgrades. • That is not fact. That is fiction. There are no water rate increases as part of this proposal, and if any water rate increases were proposed, that would be a completely separate and distinct item, and that is not part of this proposal, not part of this program. It is not happening. • There was a piece of misinformation that was circulated around town, a hand-written flyer that said that rates were going up 4% annually for the next 15 years. No, no, and no, that is not fact, that is fiction. • The library book sale insurance issues, I saw some interest on my counterparts, colleagues' parts who were involved with the library. I'm sure that those folks will be in touch with our liaisons and with our City Manager to discuss whatever we can do to help facilitate a library book sale. • The agenda item number one, I will admit that our agenda is probably misnumbered. • We do allow public comment on all agendized items. The first part of that agenda item, which is Item 12, public comment will be taken when we potentially take some action on the item, which is when we discuss the interviews.
• The interviews simply are an informational item for the Council to begin the item. We did not end the item.

• PG&E is not a part of the City water business. PG&E is not a recipient of any City funds for the water or the energy upgrade program because they are not a part of our City infrastructure or business. • PG&E is not part of that program. They are not receiving any funds from the City or any rate payers or the little business that the City runs for water.
• The other final thing I'm sure will be taken up during the Committee for the Unhoused report, which is the SAVS table that Jen found so informational and useful. • I would agree that that would be highly recommended to continue those types of activities. • I will ask the Committee for the Unhoused to comment on that once we get to that report. • Those are the questions and comments that I have about things that were brought up by our public on the non-agendized item public comment.
• I will also make a brief comment here about the recent upgrade of the health order from our public health officer and highly recommend that everybody get either vaccinated or boosted. • That's increasingly important, we're seeing. I don't think you have to go very far in the media to see those kinds of reports.
• Medical experts are saying that, and I would like to encourage everybody to do that as well as when you go out, if you are in an environment where you feel it would be appropriate to have increased safety both for yourself and other community members, go ahead and wear an N95. Wear a KN95, one of the upgraded medical-grade masks. They are readily available these days. • I would encourage that.
• I received news that the federal government's home COVID test, that Website is up and running. • You can go on there and register, and you can get I believe it's up to four at-home rapid tests for your use in staying safe and helping to keep our neighbors and our community safe.

STATEMENTS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Conflicts of interest may arise in situations where a public official deliberating towards a decision, has an actual or potential financial interest in the matter before the Council. In accordance with state law, an actual conflict of interest is one that would be to the private financial benefit of a public official, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A potential conflict of interest is one that could be to the private financial benefit of a Councilmember, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A Councilmember must publicly announce potential and actual conflicts of interest, and, in the case of actual conflict of interest, must refrain from participating in debate on the issue or from voting on the issue and must remove themselves from the dais. There were no stated conflicts of interest.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The consent agenda consists of items that are routine in nature and do not require additional discussion by the City Council or have been reviewed by the City Council previously. These items may be approved by one motion without discussion unless a member of the City Council requests that the item be taken off the consent calendar.

The Mayor will read the consent calendar items; ask if a Councilmember wishes to remove one or more items from the consent calendar; and then open public comment to the members of the public in attendance. At this time, a member of the public may speak for up to three minutes on the entire consent calendar and request at that time that an agenda item or items be removed for discussion.

If an item or items are removed from the consent calendar, the item shall be placed at the end of the regular agenda items unless otherwise determined by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tern.

Councilmembers may comment on Consent Calendar items or ask for minor clarifications without the need for pulling the item for separate consideration. Items requiring deliberation should be pulled for separate consideration and shall be placed at the end of the regular agenda items unless otherwise determined by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem.

2. Approval of the January 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes (Responsible Department: City Administration)
City Council Action: Approved January 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes Minute Order Number: 2022-015

3. Approval of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Number 1135 Amending Chapter 8.36 - Disposable Food Service Ware Containing Polystyrene Foam, of Title 8 - Health and Safety, of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (Responsible Department: City Manager/GHD)

City Council Action: Approved Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Number 1135 Amending Chapter 8.36 - Disposable Food Service Ware Containing Polystyrene Foam, of Title 8 - Health and Safety, of the Sebastopol Municipal Code
Minute Order Number: 2022-016
Ordinance Number: 1135

4. Approval of Resolution Extending the City of Sebastopol City Council Proclamation of Existence of a Local Homeless Emergency (Responsible Department: City Administration) City Council Action: Approved Resolution Extending the City of Sebastopol City Council Proclamation of Existence of a Local Homeless Emergency
Minute Order Number: 2022-017
Resolution Number: 6396-2022

5. Approval of the Subcommittee Recommendation of the Locals Who Make a Difference (LWMAD) Recognition Program Honoree (Responsible Department: Public Works) City Council Action: Approved Subcommittee Recommendation of the Locals Who Make a Difference (LWMAD) Recognition Program Honoree
Minute Order Number: 2022-018

6. Approval of Resolution: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request to the Sonoma County Community Development Commission for the Luther Burbank ADA Restroom Facility (Responsible Department:

Engineering (GHD)
City Council Action: Approved Resolution: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request to the Sonoma County Community Development Commission for the Luther Burbank ADA Restroom Facility Minute Order Number: 2022-019
Resolution Number: 6397-2022

Mayor Slayter read the consent calendar.

Mayor Slayter opened for public comment on the consent calendar. There was no public comment.

Mayor Slayter asked if any Councilmember wanted to remove a consent calendar item. There was no request to remove any consent calendar item from Council.

Mayor Slayter called for a motion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Glass moved and Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item(s) Number(s) 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/PRESENTATIONS: (Please Note: Although informational/presentations items are routinely informational in nature, some informational items may contain request for actions such as support, direction to staff, follow up, or receipt of item based on the presentation/information provided.) NONE The City of Sebastopol is a general law City formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived.

PUBLIC HEARING(s):

7. Public Hearing – Introduction, First Reading and Waiving of Further Reading of Ordinance Number XXXX, An Ordinance of the City of Sebastopol Adding Chapter 10.76 Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance and Amending Chapter 10.36 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code. This ordinance pertains to proposed parking restrictions for Recreational Vehicles (“Recreational vehicle” means a motorhome, travel trailer, truck camper, camping trailer, or other vehicle or trailer, with or without motive power, designed or altered for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other human occupancy. This ordinance amends and enacts additional provisions and restrictions pertaining to the parking of recreational vehicles on any streets which are in a residential zone, as well as limiting the permitted hours and time limits of parking on any public street that are deemed to be in a commercial or industrial zone, as codified in Chapter

10.36 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code. (Responsible Department: Police/City Administration) Chief Kilgore presented the agenda item recommending the City Council:

1. Introduce for First Reading and Waive Further Reading of Ordinance Number XXXX, An Ordinance of the City of Sebastopol Adding Chapter 10.76 Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance and Amending Chapter 10.36 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (no permit process)

2. Introduce for First Reading and Waive Further Reading of Ordinance Number XXXX, An Ordinance of the City of Sebastopol Adding Chapter 10.76 Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance and Amending Chapter 10.36 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (permit process); a. Direct staff to return with Resolution Setting User Fees for Permits b. Direct staff to return with an agenda item with:
i. Results of staffing assessment and recommendations for actual staffing personnel and costs
ii. Recommendations for costs of staff vehicle and equipment iii. Recommendation for actual costs of signage

3. Provide direction to staff for modifications to either ordinance

4. Provide direction to staff to return to Council with locations and hours of timed parking in commercial, industrial, and community facility zoned areas of the City. Streets under consideration include, but are not limited to, Morris Street, Laguna Park Way, and parts of Johnson Street.

Mayor Slayter asked for questions of presenter/staff.

Committee for the Unhoused provided comments.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• As a matter of process, this is in fact a staff report submitted by our Committee for the Unhoused as requested by the City Council.
• The ad hoc committee asked to participate in providing comments and input, but ultimately this is the Chief's report and recommendation as he was requested to provide. • What we really are here to do is to try to help work through a discussion and the various points that might arise with the City Council as it's navigating decision-making regarding this proposal. • The one thing I would point out is that this is a proposal that the Chief is bringing forward in light of a couple of pretty restrictive variables.
• One is the need to deal with our RV and larger vehicle parking issues in town, that was a commitment that was expressed to him by the full City Council. This is an overall plan that would address Citywide that issue.
• Secondly, I think it's important to note the cost issues. I will be asking some questions of him a little later because we need to know what the cost implications are for the various options.

• I'd like to take a minute if i could just give a sense of the overall plan here. • You'll see that the Chief is recommending no RVs, as he has defined it in his proposal in residential areas. • Then in the rest of town, commercial industrial, he's proposing that they'd be allowed to be there at night.
• The concept there is to give people a place to sleep, we've heard some emphasis during public comment about the importance of a safe place to sleep.
• I think it's important for the City Council as an overview to understand that those pieces work together that commercial industrial and the residential.
• So, to the extent that we are going to as a City Council limit availability in the commercial industrial areas as we have instructed our Chief to do to the extent that we don't then protect, increase our parking restrictions in residential areas, we have to recognize that there may be an impact on residential areas from our actions in terms of industrial and commercial. • Part of what part of what being an elected official means and trying to come up with solutions that are mitigating and balancing the pros and cons of particular issues. • I just want to say something about my thinking as I've gone through all of this because everybody knows my angst about this.
• I am very, very concerned about people having a place to speak, such as the money who spoke earlier who was unhoused at one point and talked about wanting to have someplace safe to park. • To also acknowledge this stigma and the stereotyping of a lot of unhoused people. • There are many, many in particular women who are unhoused, many of whom who are coming out of abused situations and they just want someplace safe to sleep. • So in an ideal world, a few years down the road, hopefully we will be in a more ideal world where we have solutions for people to go and park their RVs.
• That's why the Committee for the Unhoused has been working on the village because that's part of somewhere for people to go.
• Meanwhile, we have parking of RVs all over town and an increased upset about resistance and anger by our community about people sleeping in their vehicles.
• So when I look at this issue, I think about trying to balance keeping our community, ensuring that unhoused people do not have their rights infringed on and ensuring that unhoused people who are in jeopardy, particularly women, who are having to sleep in their vehicles that they have options but also not getting to the point where we have so many angry people in our community that they start lashing out at the unhoused.
• I think that's part of our responsibility here that we're trying to do, is balancing the need for not having permanent encampments in specific places where our community gets upset.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I think it's pretty clear the real reason we're talking about this for the most part, 95% of it is concern over there being encampments of unhoused people at certain locations in our town. • There may be 5% of the people that live on a narrow street and they're really mad at their neighbor who has an RV down the street.
• But for the most part we're talking about the unhoused and the impact. • As we start to create places for the unhoused to go, such as this RV Village and we start disrupting the encampments that are already in place, what we're going to see is having more and more people in RVs move outs from, for example, Morris Street into the neighborhoods. • So what's that going to mean?

• I know I have been criticized because I have said and another one of my Council colleagues has also said they're not that upset if somebody parks in front of their house and that is still how I feel if somebody parks in front of my house.
• I just don't want them permanently in front of my house. I could be okay about that, but not everybody feels that way.
• We have an extremely unfortunate, beyond unfortunate terrible incident where somebody who was unhoused actually was murdered in our town, and we see this kind of reaction against unhoused people all over.
• This is the kind of reactionary response we're seeing in communities all over the country in response to people who are unhoused.
• So the question at hand in my opinion is how do we come up with some rules that do not infringe on the rights of the unhoused to be able to sleep in their vehicles somewhere and put it someplace that is going to draw the least ire from our community but still provide for the unhoused. • This is what we're doing is we're here.
• We're going to make it not in the residential neighborhoods and we're going to make it in the commercial neighborhoods and in the industrial neighborhoods because that is less likely to incur the ire of the people in our community.
• So that's sort of the balance of why I went along with this, as somebody whose daughter wrote her senior thesis on the injustice of parking regulation from a social justice perspective. I am concerned about this issue.
• I am concerned about the safety of both our unhoused and the community and how we strike a balance. • The other compromise I worked on with my colleagues and with staff was to change the hours that were originally only allowing overnight parking from 10:00 to 6:00, and we changed it now so it's 10:00 to 7:30, which seems like a more reasonable time frame for people to be able to move their vehicles. • So I'm saying that this is a grudging compromise that I have come to that is hopefully ensuring the safety of the unhoused and ensuring the safety of our community.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I'd like to clarify a couple of things.
• I do want to note in addition to the public comment that was attached to your packet, I have received eighteen additional public comments as well. The majority of all these comments have been supportive of a new ordinance related to parking restrictions.
• There have been a couple requests for a change in the overnight parking times. • One of which was a request for the time to begin later at 11:00 P.M. and one for the time to be reduced back from 7:30 A.M. in the morning to 6:00 A.M. So the request would be from 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. • Also noted was a request for no overnight parking due to vehicles in the commercial area of the Barlow being in the floodplain.
• Then there was also a request for an amendment to the proposed ordinance regarding fire season where one member of the community stated that they keep their to go bags in an RV parked in front of their home in the event of a fire during fire season that they can hook up and go. • I only received one request of that. I believe that in all of the fires that we have had in recent years in California and many years before that Sebastopol has only been evacuated one time for fires that did not reach the City. I just want to note that.
• The other thing I want to note too for clarification and for the Council and the entire community is that the overnight parking suffices the Constitutional rulings that the ninth circuit court of appeals has had in the Boise case that we have talked many times about during previous Council meetings in which we do not have an ability to restrict parking overnight and restrict people's ability to sleep in their vehicle.

• It is unconstitutional and it is not something that we want to move toward as there are other cities who are in the middle of litigation regarding that Constitutional, what they feel is a violation at this point. • The overnight parking would only be allowed in the commercial, industrial and community facility areas that are zoned as such within our City, which would primarily be around the Barlow area and some areas up on Gravenstein North.
• There have been a lot of comments I have received both in my in person interactions with people, telephone interactions and e-mails, where people are concerned about RV parking around our parks and schools.
• I would like to point out that is mitigated by the approval of the ordinance with no RV parking in residential zoned areas.
• The majority of our parks and schools all fall within a residential zoned area. • Therefore, they would automatically not be allowed to be parked in that area unless there was an approval of the ordinance that provides the permit system that allows a resident or a guest of a resident to have a seven-day parking, up to a 14-day parking permit for that area as well. • So those are just some things I wanted to point out that might answer some questions ahead of time.

Mayor Slayter asked for questions of presenter/staff.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I do have a question for the Chief, and it's based on e-mails that the Council have received from the businesses at Morris Street where we are planning to allow the proposal as to allow overnight sleeping in vehicles.
• We have received a number of complaints including videos of people raiding garbage cans. • I can't name all the problems. Harming vehicles in a fleet for a business. Needles. Drug deals through the night.
• I'm just checking with you, Chief, about how this ordinance would help us with that issue. • How you want to address that if this ordinance is in play here in town.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• One of the things that it addresses is that recreational vehicles would not be allowed to move on to those roadways until 10:00 P.M. at night or whatever time the Council deems is the appropriate time, and they will have to vacate it around 6:00 or 7:30 in the morning, depending on what that time frame is that Council approves as well.
• That is helpful in many ways. It does not allow people to become established on a roadway. • That allows them to continue to take part in activities that are not within the law and not something that would be approved of by any person in the City, resident, visitor or business owner. • There are still overnight issues that are going to occur. Unless we have additional resources and staffing, we cannot effectively deal with every single issue that comes up. • What we do now is that when we receive complaints about these matters, our officers go out and take the reports and do the proper investigation. We will continue to do that as well. • But I think that the biggest benefit is that it does not allow someone to become established on a roadway and be there for a lengthy period of time on a continual basis.

Councilmember Gurney commented if I may just check my understanding with you, you are saying that because of the temporariness of their stay on the street overnight, they would have less access to the businesses and the business community to commit those acts.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think it will mitigate that.
• I'm not going to say they will have less access.
• They will have access overnight and businesses will have to take the appropriate steps to protect their property as well.
• Again, we're not able to completely eliminate the crimes that occur. • Many times no matter what walk of life someone may be in, whether they are unhoused or not, many times those who are taking part in criminal behavior take part in crimes that are crimes of opportunity. • So when that opportunity Is available and easily accessible, there is a greater chance that a crime is going to occur.

Councilmember Gurney commented that's a helpful response because I think the Councilmembers want to look after our businesses as well and their concerns.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• In conversations with community members as well as with the Chief, it is important to remember that unlawful behavior is unlawful behavior, regardless of who is the perpetrator. • Businesses that have had difficulties with unlawful behavior need to report that to the Police Department so that whatever investigations and measures need to happen and so -- no, this isn't the magic wand to eliminate crime. That's not the proposal.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• This question is directed to our Chief. I brought it up last time and I'm going to bring it up again tonight. • I just received my annual City license for my little Airbnb that I house in my home, and I see that he's proposed again that the Police Department is who would issue permits. • It seems to me that would be an additional expense when we have right over at City Hall a desk that is experienced at issuing business license permits.
• I am curious why he still believes that that's our only option for issues permits if we were to select a permit system tonight
• Could I get a little more explanation on that.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Originally I left that department name open and did not include which department would be handling permits.
• I can tell you that in my Police Department as it is staffed right now we have no ability to perform any type of additional duties related to permits.
• In talking with other staff members and consulting with the City Manager on this matter, it was decided that the Police Department would be the department overseeing permits. • So the initial draft did not have a department named in this. • I am of the opinion that it can be absorbed by any department within the City as long as they have proper staffing or a new department could be created.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I had a couple of questions, Chief Kilgore, and I'd like to echo the question from Councilmember glass.

• This was a struggle for us, but I have to say from a compromised perspective I too am in support of the perspective from the Chief given his concerns regarding the permit system and the enforceability and Cost associated with that option.
• He had encouraged a non-permit solution and I feel that continues to be the best option for us in not a really great series of options.
• I do have a series of question.
• In the staff report it indicates in the definition of RVs, it says with or without motive power. • I'm assuming that means motor power.

Chief Kilgore stated that is correct.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• My question is I want to make sure we understand from the definition we didn't really discuss this with you as the ad hoc committee but does this ordinance as drafted extend to regular-sized lived in vehicles? • In other words, not just RVs and vans but also just a regular four door vehicle that's been -- that is converted to being lived in?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• It depends on what the vehicle is.
• If it is a van or something of that nature that has been converted to having a living type quarter, then that would fall under this recreational vehicle limit.
• However, it is hard to limit other vehicles.
• Because you are not modifying them to have living quarter areas so they don't typically have a rest room, shower or some type of bedding that allows for an assumption of that living quarter area. • So it does not address the vehicles in particular.
• We do have some vehicles that people do live in.
• But to restrict those in a manner may be extremely difficult for us to do and unconstitutional for us to do because we're now creating an issue where a sedan may be cited for something related to this ordinance as well.
• What is provided is that there is also an opportunity for timed parking to be placed in the commercial industrial and community facility areas.
• For example, Morris Street, Laguna Parkway and similar streets like that. • So someone may be able to extend their overnight stay in a sedan for three hours more while they -- while the 7:30 A.M. or 6:00 A.M. time frame kicks in, then they would be present until 9:00 A.M. or until 7:30 A.M.
• But right now, that is the most effective way that we can address this matter.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• That's consistent with what I expected to see.
• It is really applicable to RVs and similar converted lived-in vehicles. • It isn't intended to cover sedans, four doors, regular-sized vehicles.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• In looking at these ordinances I was originally looking at recreational vehicles and oversized vehicles only to find in my research that it is not always an oversized vehicle.

• But the definition as it is written in the ordinance for recreational vehicle does cover the recreational vehicles that we're used to seeing, trailers, busses, vans and similar type vehicles that have that modified area where a home living might be present.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Just to be clear again, the ordinance that we have before us does not address timed parking. • It sounds like you are just reminding us that there is an opportunity for timed parking if we want to address that at a later date?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• That is correct.
• We already have a City ordinance in place that allows for timed parking, so there is no need to address timed parking in this specific ordinance as well.
• This is an additional ordinance.
• Because we already have a timed parking ordinance, we would be able to incorporate any street with the tombed parking that we have already in place.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• This is following up on the question raised by Councilmember Gurney. • We asked you to come back with an ordinance that would be realistic, enforceable as a City Councilmember the practicalities of an ordinance are really important to me or acknowledgment of the responsibilities of officers and all the work that you have to do. • So I have to ask as a follow-up to Councilmember Gurney's question about Morris Street. • As you think about Morris Street and the fact that no one is going to argue it became an established encampment that RV dwellers have become accustomed to turning to, what is your opinion in terms of enforcement and the burden on your department about making any additional restrictions on Morris Street?
• Do you feel that it would be beneficial to the department to enforceability for any other reasons to have a no RV parking rule on Morris Street because of the encampment situation or for other reasons? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think that on specific streets if the Council wishes to do so, you can specify streets that you do not want any overnight parking on.
• If you choose to be Morris Street as an example, that can be done. • As far as the additional responsibilities and duties related to the Police Department staff, in many ways, it makes it simpler and fewer responsibilities for the Police Department if we have specified streets that are marked as no overnight parking, especially those that are in proximity to our Police Department where if we drove down on Morris Street at 10:30 at night and there Is a recreational vehicle that's parked there, it is a simple way to address it because we know there is no parking allowed there so we can deal with it right then and there.
• Now, again, this depends on the staffing that we have. • If our two members of our department who are on duty at 10:30 P.M. at night are tied up on something else, the priority is not going to be a recreational vehicle parked on Morris Street. • There is a vehicle parked there. Nothing is supposed to be parked there. We're going to write a ticket or address the matter. Whatever action we need to take, it's fine. • In some ways, overnight parking is also easier for the Police Department until 7:30 at the morning it's if someone chooses not to leave then it becomes burdensome to get them out of there and moving.

• But I think no matter what, whether there is a greater restriction on specific streets in the City or a less of a restriction on any street in the City that allows for overnight parking, it is a matter of education and enforcement going hand in hand where we have that ability to create what the New thinking would be by anyone coming into the City for specified reasons of overnight parking where they can do that legally and where they cannot.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• What I was trying to determine was whether you felt there was because of the established encampment on Morris Street whether there was a need in order to get the situation under control there to actually just have no parking at all 24/7.
• I think what you're saying is that pretty much either way it is going to be an enforcement issue.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think either way it is going to be an enforcement issue. • Now, one of the things that may be helpful that just came to mind as we're having a conversation about this is that because we have many folks who have established encampments in the Laguna, I think one of the things that may be an overall positive matter and mitigating more encampments there is that if you have someone who comes in at nighttime and they happen to have another guest staying in their vehicle who has their own tent or whatever it may be and property that it does allow people to have access to come on to Morris Street, move into the Laguna, establish an encampment, we have to Mark it as a 72- hour Mark and then go through the process of removing it. • So when you don't have vehicles that are specifically parking on Morris Street that may be able to haul large amounts of property, that would allow for an encampment establishment, i think that would be one thing that would mitigate the ability to do that if there was no RV parking allowed in that area.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I was trying to address the previous question which related to which department might theoretically be responsible for administrating a permit system.
• As the person responsible for clearing the blank space out of the draft ordinance and typing in the word "police," I would like to say the permit system as it is presently drafted contains administrative provisions as well.
• Discretionary provisions are those that require an exercise of judgment on the part of the person administering the permit.
• For example, the permit system provides for a registration check. • It addresses safety concerns.
• It addresses potential revocation of the permit.
• There are things that I think are inherent as presently drafted that would require departments such as the police to administer it.
• I had said previously to the Chief somewhat facetiously that it was purely a pile of permits sitting there and we were going to issue them for seven days, then we can find a department to do that. • But we have to write the administrative aspects of the permit system as it is presently drafted before we can take it out of the Police Department.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I would like to follow up to Vice Mayor Hinton about the permitting being issued and the City Manager has just explained it.
• I'm interested in discussing the permitting process when we get to that part of our item.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I realize it is important now that we change the time. • So our original proposal was our end time to end at 6:00 A.M. I understand why the subcommittee has expanded that to 7:30.
• That seems like a much more reasonable time as well. However, it does run into the school time now. • So we have a number of RVs up by West county high school, for example, by the skate park, and I'm wondering about a no school, you know, have some parameters about RV parking close to schools, especially in light of the time change.
• I know we have something like that in our smoking ordinances. • Considering what I'm hearing tonight about some of the things that go on at night it might make sense. • Could the Chief weigh in on what that may look like.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Many of our students do park on Johnson Street.
• However, as you go up Morris Street and it becomes Johnson street, there is only a specified area there that is zoned as commercial, industrial or community facility. • Community facility would be the community center, something to that effect. • So I believe that the remainder of that, and grant it there is some of that encroachment into where students may park on Johnson.
• But the remainder of Johnson would be considered a residential area, I believe. • I would have to look at the zoning map for that.
• I'm sure that times can be adjusted for that area or that we would be able to adjust the signage that would state where RVs are able to park in that area.

Vice Mayor Hinton questioned is the skate park also commercial.

Chief Kilgore commented I would have to look at the GIS map for that.

Mayor Slayter commented that would be community facility as a park.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• We have Flynn Street and another street right here next to the Police Department that that becomes residentially zoned.
• So they would only be allowed to be near the skate park on Laguna Parkway if it is community facility from 10:00 P.M. at night until 7:30 in the morning.
• As it stands right now, that skate park closes at 10:00 P.M.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• If we enact this ordinance so there a number of people no longer living on Morris Street or people no longer living in the neighborhoods, we are expecting to accommodate about 20 RVs at the RV Village that we believe is going to move forward up at North Gravenstein. • Where do people go?
• People that live in RVs or who are living in their cars, what places can they go? During the daytime and at night
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:

• They can go into other areas of the county, as many of them do when they go to various locations to meet with others, go to work, whatever it may be.
• They would have to leave the area.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm asking that question because I'm pointing out that we, as a society, we are not accommodating a place for people to be.
• My other question is that the assumption of our Police Department that people who are unhoused and living in their vehicle, either RV or not RV, are automatically a lawbreaker and stated she did not know where that came from.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I never stated that, nor is it the assumption of our Police Department. • In fact, our Police Department does not assume anything. • Our Police Department treats everybody in an equitable manner. • Whether they are unhoused or have any other either visible or nonvisible characteristic that Is associated with them does not play into our decision-making on anything. • What plays into our decision-making is whether or not someone is in violation of an ordinance that is set by the City or a law that is set by the state or the government in any manner. • There are many folks are unhoused who have no criminal history and never intend on having any criminal history.
• Sometimes they choose to be unhoused.
• Sometimes circumstances dictate that they are unhoused. • But there is no assumption by me or by our Police Department that anyone who is not living in a foundational residence has any type of criminal association with them. • Now, I think that there are times that some folks who may be unhoused are given that characteristic by people who make assumptions.
• Those people that are committing the crimes are criminals. • That's what they are. Doesn't matter if they're unhoused or housed. Vehicles or no vehicles. Whatever it may be.
• There are times that we have found that when there is an assumption of specific characteristic of a person that has committed a crime, they are actually not the person who has committed the crime. • It's been somebody totally different, someone who is coming into our City to create an issue within our City and to victimize the people who are part of our community. • Though we have people in all walks of life, we have people in every type of job, we have people in every type of location, housed, unhoused, we have the -- any type of faction that could be a criminal or could turn into a criminal, but in this situation there is no assumption by this Police Department or by me that our unhoused community is the sole reason for any crimes that are happening because that is not the case.
• It is completely inaccurate.
• I think the biggest issue that this is addressing is not even the fact that we are addressing an issue that may be characteristic of an unhoused community.
• It is addressing an issue as a whole where we have seen challenges and challenges and challenges related to vehicles, not the community, the vehicles that have created the challenges for us being unregistered, being unkempt regarding their maintenance, creating damage to our roadways and other facts that come into play with that, too.
• I also want to clarify one other thing.

• It looks to me like the area of Flynn Street and Johnson Street at Laguna Parkway, one side is noted as a residential area, and then you have the community facility of the skate park and then the commercial industrial area on the other side.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I did want to bring that up because I know that that's who you are and I want to make it clear, like we have some really impracticable problems here.
• We don't have a place for people to go, but it is not the assumption of our Police Department that everybody unhoused is a lawbreaker.
• I want to dove tail on what mayor Slayter said, which is that unlawful behavior is unlawful behavior. • But being homeless is not unlawful.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• So what our Police Department is about is pursuing unlawful behavior but not pursuing people who are abiding by the law.
• Police Departments in general and the Police Departments that I have worked for including this department, we operate off of behavior.
• When people are committing crimes, when they're doing wrong, that's the behavior that we're addressing.
• It is not what someone looks like.
• It is not their gender or any other physical characteristic or nonphysical characteristic. • It is the behavior as a whole.
• What my goal has been since I came here in March is there's been an extreme amount of time that leniency has been given in an opportunity to have many people who reside in a vehicle on Morris Street, Johnson street, Palm avenue and other places in our City. • There's been a leniency period and a collaboration with our advocates and many other folks who are trying to do all that we can to help the community but also, more importantly, to change the behavior so that they don't have to have these interactions with anyone. • They're sustainable for them.
• That's what we have been working on for so long well over nine months since I have been here and I think even beyond that before I got here.
• It's changing that behavior so that it's sustainable and positive moving forward.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• To get some questions answered from the Chief perhaps from our City Manager regarding the relative cost differences of the proposals that he has put out there permit, not permitting and what if we don't add any staff, what would we get there.
• That's a question I have noted as well. Then the next question is what would be the impact of a modifications?
• If we don't simply approve the ordinance as proposed in one of its forms, what is the impact in terms of a final ordinance and implementation?
• I think that's important for all of us to understand and it is probably a City Manager question. • I know this parking ordinance issue is different from the RV Village that's being established. • However, given some opinions from the community regarding the RV Village, it would be useful for us to hear and for the community in general to hear what would Be the impact if the RV Village is delayed in some way for some reason, would we still be able to implement the ordinance changes that our Chief is proposing or would the impact simply be that it would stay as is?

• That's probably a longer question for our City Manager.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We had an agenda item that discussed our bike lanes on Morris Street. • The question for the Chief is if we pass these ordinances are our bike lanes okay and we don't need to make changes to our bike lanes on Morris Street?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Unfortunately they're not.
• So there are some options with the bike lanes.
• But the problem with the parking lanes as they stand right now is they are not wide enough. • So though many recreational vehicles encroach on the bike lane. • There may be some types of vehicles that are not recreational vehicles such as a pickup truck that may be wider than our current parking lane that may encroach on the bicycle lane and create issues for our cyclists that use that lane as well.
• So there will still need to be some type of addressing of the bike lanes as well.

Mayor Slayter called for a break at 8:18 pm and reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

Mayor Slayter discussed the following:
• I'll start with this one, about cost.
• What does that really mean?
• What do the, if we have staff with this particular item as a significant portion of that person's job description, is that also, is it additional enforcement? • What is the visioning when it comes to potentially adding a position or two? • It provides parking restrictions without a permit system.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• What I believe needs to occur is that our three quarter time employee needs to be converted to a full time employee.
• She is our sole person who deals with parking matters. • She has other duties as well.
• We are trying to provide a little structure for her, should she take on more responsibility with parking, that we can try To move some other things as well.
• We would also need to create one full time position or provide two part time positions that would be equivalent to a full time position that would allow us to effectively address the parking issues as it relates to citations, warnings, and all the new parking restrictions that would be put in place. • We would need to purchase an additional vehicle.
• So that total cost for personnel without permits would be probably somewhere in the ballpark of around $150,000 or more.
• There is also the estimated cost of $355 per sign that needs to go up. • That includes materials and labor by public works for any parking signs that need to be erected for that.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• How many of those are estimated?
• Do you have a number?

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• We don't know right now.
• But to give you an idea it would be $355 per sign.
• So whenever that determination is made, it should be a pretty quick multiplication problem.

Mayor Slayter commented in order of magnitude, is it ten or a million? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think it will be greater than ten.
• We'll have to put parking signs for any kind of three out parking where we're addressing timed parking as well as on any street that would be necessitated by that. • So Laguna Park Way, Johnson Street, other areas that are facilities where timed parking will be. • If there is times parking in a specific area, we still are going to have to erect signs in some fashion that states what the time is are recreational vehicles are allowed to park in that area. • I'm thinking that just in the Morris Street, Laguna Park Way street alone, probably a minimum of 25. • Then we would have to address it like where the RV state parking village is slotted to be in those areas as well.

Mayor Slayter commented it could be 50 to 100 signs.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• It could be with relative ease.
• Discussed a staffing analysis that would need to be done with a service that we are currently using • RGS would provide a greater insight as to what is needed and what that cost would be.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• The Administrative Services Department could not accommodate an issuance with the current staffing levels.
• We would have to review those two departments regarding staffing assessments.

Mayor Slayter commented if it is the no permit model, then is that still the proposal to increase the three quarter time position to full time?
Chief Kilgore stated yes.

Mayor Slayter commented and not a new employee.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• The one would be to increase the three quarter time employee to a full time and either add a new full time position or two half time and plus the vehicle.
• So that would be for parking enforcement.
• We don't really have a 24/7 coverage now.
• It is only when our officers have the ability to do so because they're not responding to other call or handling other criminal investigations and reports which is very, very minimal time.

Mayor Slayter commented what's the staffing for a permit?

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Stated he did not know.
• City would have to do the staffing for that specifically.

Mayor Slayter commented the existing three quarter time position is not a sworn peace officer.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Stated that is correct
• Employee is a non-sworn three quarter time employee right now. • Employee would go to a full time nonsworn employee.
• It would be an increase of $20,000 to $25,000.
• The additional full time would be in the same category. • With our current staffing assessment underway, we are going to recommend that it is full time regardless.

Mayor Slayter commented if the Council, after hearing from the public and through our deliberations decide to make changes to these drafts, what does that do to our process time wise? City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• If the changes that are made this evening are very clear, spelled out in detail and accurate in the motion. • That there is no doubt about what the Council is voting on. • Then those changes could be accommodated tonight.
• If they get to be complex in some way, difficult to keep track of them. • They have to come back and be introduced subsequently.

Mayor Slayer commented as follows:
• What are the impacts.
• What are the legal ramifications of a delay in the establishment of the RV Village? • Its ability to house people.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented are you asking that in terms of the parking? Mayor Slayter commented what is the opening of the village and our ability to enact parking regulations? City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Nothing directly. The parking restrictions are introduced and go to a subsequent reading. • They can be enacted.
• There may be a further need for them at this point in time, prior to the introduction of an RV building. • I think as everyone knows, the publicity is attractive in number, new vehicles into our town is creating more need in and of itself for potential parking restrictions, arguably.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• This gets into the types of definitions and when and where they can park certain types of vehicles. • By my reading this draft, It allows a van, an RV fan. • A normal size vehicle that fits in a standard nine by eighteen or nine by nine foot parking stall. • At a curb.
• It disallows that at any time.

• Am I understanding that correctly?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• If the van has been designed or altered for human habitation for recreation or human occupancy. • A travel van that has a bed and bathroom in it such as a conversion van type that would be the case Mayor Slayter commented a van like that would need to park in a parking lot rather than a curb.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• That's correct.
• Many of those vehicles that are designed for that also are designed to fit in regular parking spaces and many of them using it.
• I used to have one and I did the same thing.
• A grocery store or a box score or something to that effect.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• What I'm worried about is visitors, exactly the scenario that I just laid out. • How is someone's Aunt and Uncle on a road trip to Sebastopol and they stop downtown and park at the curb and they come back with a parking ticket.
• To me, it just seems punitive.
• I'm not sure that there is a way around it.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I don't think there's a huge way around it.
• I think we're a small enough area that a vehicle of that type that would be coming through for that purpose would have an opportunity to park at multiple parking lots that are open to the public.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Regarding the question regard lag good night a parkway, Laguna Park Way, Morris, Johnson, the encampment that we all know of.
• My question is related to the proposed RV Village.
• In a year with a change of venue, a change of location to maybe a permanent location that will hopefully be identified and developed over this next calendar year. • I'm curious about a proximity problem with overnight campers in direct proximity to the RV Village, and I know that they have all the security regulations, there is the curfew, the gate. • I understand all that.
• I'm still concerned that it may be a magnet.
• That then is a problem for the businesses in the Northern part of town. • So that time of a proximity to an RV building, homeless facility, et cetera. • A significantly different layout at that point.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• If I could clarify, the RV Village is located in either, in a zoned area that is commercial, industrial, or community facility.
• So vehicles parks on that North area would be there until 7:30 A.M. allowance only. • My concern is that it is a magnet only in the hours when it is allowed. • It has come from community members and businesses that are in that end of town.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I have a question on the RV question.
• I'm left a little confused.
• My understanding has been all along that we needed to open that RV Village in order to provide a location for a portion of the RV on Morris Street.
• That was part of what needed to happen in order to allow for the changes in ordinances, even though they are not separate issues.
• Is that accurate?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• The question to legal counsel to address the legal issues, was, was the RV Village necessary to clear Morris Street.
• If in fact it had a section that that, Morris Street will be no parking at any time. • The question would be, yes, we'd better have an RV Village. • However, it is treated the same as any other area.
• Therefore my answer is, you could adopt this ordinance without having to have RV Village.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm going to get back to the issue, of your Aunt And Uncle Coming to visit and parking their RV to stop for lunch.
• Where the Chief’s answer was you couldn't park at the curb. • You would have to park in a lot.
• Mentioning a grocery store or a big box store.
• Our store parking lots are for customers only.
• So technically speaking, you can't park here normally sized RV at rite aid and then walk somewhere else for lunch.
• I mean, listening to this thinking we're making a problem for ourselves. • We're making an enforcement problem for our Chief.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• We're not talking about recreational vehicles as we think of it in the typical RV sense. • I think what was pointed out was they are modified for the purpose of living in. • I will tell you, as much as i would love that we had enough staffing to walk around and look in people's windows to find out whether or not the vehicles have been modified for living quarters. • We won't be able to do that.
• I don't really see this as being a significant issue. • The point of this is, if we have someone who is violating an ordinance or a policy and they have a vehicle that fits this description, and they're now violating that, it gives us more teeth that we can do something with.
• Someone pulling up in a conversion van and park on Main Street to go eat at sunshine cafe. • We're probably not going to be able to do anything with that. • We're not going to have the time to peek in the window to see you have a bed and a bathroom and you qualify so here's your ticket.
• So I don't foresee that happening or that being a significant issue for us.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:

• We're already in the situation where our business parking lots for their customers only is a situation of, look, nobody knows if you're really shopping at rite aid when you park at rite aid. • It seems to me we're, maybe we have a future issue to talk about collaborative parking.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I will point out if a grocery store or rite aid has someone who has parked in their lot in violation of their policy, they have to have co-signage posted.
• We don't have the authority to do so nor would we take that upon our duties to do that. • So it would be incumbent upon the business to make a determination if they want that vehicle towed and then post the proper signage that would allow someone to know.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• It is their responsibility and we are making it their responsibility, more troublesome for them. • You're not the enforcer on the private lot.
• I think it is a problem to make it worse.
• So there is a future discussion, I hope, about more of a collaborative parking arrangement in the North end of town.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I don't foresee if somebody parks on the street or main street or a parking space in a conversion type van. • I don't see us taking action.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• In response to the Chief's financial needs to enforce this ordinance, coming from the budget subcommittee, which I'll be sitting on this year, having sat on the previous three years. • I wish we were a bigger town with a bigger budget and we could do all these great things in front of us. • I just know, there is the perfect world and then we have the world we're living in right now, there are budget issues.
• So I'm faced with an ordinance tonight with an idea like we need a new car, we need another officer, we need an officer not full time now to be full time.
• $130,000 more to the Police Department.
• I don't see how that will happen.
• Maybe we don't know how to address it.
• I did hear the Chief say earlier, I think I heard the three quarters employees would be raised to one. • Maybe this would be a situation where like we just talked about with Councilmember, and the Chief is saying, we don't have the people to go around and ticket everyone all the time. • So can we pass this ordinance without a commitment to an extra officer car and full time person? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• You certainly can pass it without that commitment.
• We will handle things when we can handle them.
• Our resources are available to do that.
• I can tell you that it won't be as effective.
• I'm not going to dedicate resources to take care of it if there are other priorities that are present with the employees that we have.
• Anything is possible. It is just about how much we want to be dedicated to it. • I don't subscribe to this having to be under the Police Department.

• It needs more and more staffing with the overtime that we spend because of the very minimal staffing that we have.
• It can be another department if would you like to create that so there is an ability to not provide more funding to the Police Department if that's what the concern is. • No matter what department you assign this to, no department can do it effectively without the proper resources and staff.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I don't want this to be a controversy.
• We have a volunteer fire department, too. That's not ideal either. • We are a small City.
• I'm speaking to the view of where our money comes from. • With more staffing, we could all do a better job.
• This is not about one department.
• It is just about our overall money and might go it for the citizens in the best way possible.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I need to add something in light of the subsequent conversation. • With these changes residential areas will be somewhat dramatic. • Like creating an avalanche of complaints if we don't have sufficient resources to police once they're enacted.
• So do I agree you can say no.
• We are not going to fund the additional staffing.
• But if we do that, we may create a detrimental situation. • It could be that we will have disobedience and we will not have adherence to the ordinance. • What will happen in that case if we don't have sufficient resources to enforce it.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• In daytime hours, we're not allowing parking of RVs in commercial retail industrial areas, correct? • So are we allowing that in our City parking lots?
• Is that both the street and City parking lots?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• On page 8, subsection d as in David, it is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing in a recreational vehicle.
• It needs to be in the lot at any time unless the person is conducting City-related business during business hours at the location for which the parking lot is designated.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm bringing up this concern earlier today, we were talking about people coming to visit our town. • Increasingly, people are driving RVs around on vacation and stopping in little towns like ours and visiting restaurants.
• So where will they park?
• Where do they park if they're visiting our down shops? • Or one of our tasting rooms or Something like that?
• What do we do about that?

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Some of the businesses do have dedicated parking for them. • Parking an RV in a parking lot is not acceptable any way. • You can write amendments to this. You can make adjustments as you need. • The point is that these parking prohibitions are addressing those living in vehicles, in recreational vehicles, who are establishing themselves, taking up space for as much time as they can. • They are meeting the requirement 72-hour regulation by moving the vehicle an inch or two inches, and the regulation of that.
• So there is never a perfect solution to any of these things. • My best suggestion would be that they could find a parking space that is outside of the City limits and request an Uber if they wanted to do that.
• We don't have the infrastructure for every exception that could be made for this. • If we want to provide those exceptions, then that's where we write a more robust permit system. • Then you'll have to have more staffing to address each of these issues and enforce these issues as well. • But there is nothing that will address every type of situation that may come up. • I will tell you, I have seen very few recreational vehicles come through this City for the purpose of just shopping or parking to eat.
• If they do, utilizing the businesses we have here in the City, whether it is one of the grocery stores for them to get goods at and continue their travels, and maybe eat something else or shop around the area or something to that effect.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I think the last two years have been a little atypical because everybody has been stuck in their house. • So I have one other question. What can we do
• I'm thinking of some people that I know. They have a VW van that they park in front of their house. • So it is a camping RV. A camping VW bus. It doesn't take up very much space. • They park it on the street and they park it in front of their house.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• It has modified living areas.
• Please understand that many of these, especially residential areas will be complaint driven. • That's important for people to know.
• If there's an issue in a neighborhood on a residentially zoned street, it will be complaint driven by neighbors or something Tom effect.
• Then we will address that issue.
• I'll tell you that there are many cities across the country and the state that do not allow recreational vehicles to even be parked in their driveway.
• You have to go rental a facility to house that vehicle. • When I had a recreational vehicle, that's what I had to do. • We can't address all of these issues and something as the example that you provide, that it will be something that will be complaint driven where we'll have to have a conversation at that point and see what the end resolution could be with that.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• If we make more complicated changes that we are not able to articulate clearly enough to move on to a second reading, what does our final implementation look like?

• I say that in the context.
• At the moment, we would be scheduled for a February 1 second reading. • Then it would go into effect early March.
• So what happens if we have so many changes that we have to ask for a rewrite to come back to us? • What is our implementation date?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• It would come back the second meeting and then 30 days after that. • So in late March, rather than the date we've given the Council earlier. • If you're going to do something complex, staff would really hope that we nail it down as completely as we can this evening so that it would be a more routine item.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• So the mid-year budget is coming up soon.
• I'm not sure we can talk realistically about money without seeing the money, the expenses proposed tonight in the context of all of that mid area budget review. • I know the City Manager would like us to nail this down. • I can't reconcile what I'm hearing tonight.
• Because of the fire and the pandemic, our circumstances of being ready to roll out. • We've seen more and more RVs on the road.
• How many sprinter vans do you see around town?
• They're almost everywhere.
• Particularly out at the coast.
• The Public Arts Committee this evening, we talked about tourism. • We talked about drawing people to this town and we talked about art as an economic engine. • We know people are traveling in RVs more than usual.
• We also don't have very many hotel accommodations in town. • We are the gateway to the Sonoma County Coast and the State beaches there which are the second most used beaches in the state of California.
• So I'm just wondering, how do we reconcile this increase in RVs with the parking prohibitions that we're considering putting in place.
• Maybe the answer is park in a big lot and we won't enforce it. • I just want us to be aware that RVs are much more prominent on the road and parked around. • Parked around on the street, in front of a house.
• A house that doesn't have a driveway, for instance in a residential neighborhood. • I can't reconcile all that.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think one of the issues is that the reason that we've seen such an increase in the use of recreational vehicles over the last two years is because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • As soon as this is over, you will see a lot of people who will be offloading those recreational vehicles because they will no longer want them and realize how much the cost is that goes with them. • So I think this is not something we need to think about short term. • We need to think about it long term.
• Our long term goal is being that attraction that brings people here.

• The majority of people who exercise the use of a recreational vehicle have a good knowledge that there are very limited locations as to where they may be able to park and keep that vehicle. • Many of them use Ubers.
• Many of them have vehicles in tow.
• They have bicycles and they utilize those effectively. • So it is something that we have to look at in a broad perspective that is long term and not something short term that has created -- because if this pandemic had not occurred, we probably wouldn't be focusing on this matter so, so closely.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm looking for some advice from our City Manager on how to handle the budget money side of the question.
• What I've heard so far. Making a budget.
• We know there is a staff assessment that is being dealt with within the City staff. • What do you recommend we do in terms of the budget side? • Do we have to allocate money tonight?
• Is this something that we could defer?
• What do we do?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• We're not proposing this for the budget.
• So one of two roads in terms of action on these ordinances. • We could do an additional staffing assessment and bring it back as an agenda item. • Potentially not even utilize the budget committee.
• Bring it directly back to the Council as an agenda item. • We could bring it to the budget committee for a review and potentially to the Council as an agenda item. • We could make do with present staffing and muddle on through until July when we are implementing the new budget for the next fiscal year.
• These are all various options.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• If we went to the last option, we would have to go in the meantime for more enforcement than what they would normally do.
• Is that even possible?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• It depends on other staffing issues.
• It depends on events that we don't even know about right now. • Where there may be additional enforcement needed in areas in town. • It is really difficult to answer that question.
• At some point in time, we will have to have a staffing assessment and we will have to create a budget item to cover it.
• I do not see that happening at a time, to the sentence we can accommodate it. • We're already planning on making that full time regardless of any of the discussions. • So hope that somewhat answers the question.
• This is a unique time of year.

• We're in February almost and we are just going into budget deliberations.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• We passed an emergency ordinance in 2017 after the fires. • In order to allow people to park their RVs all over town because so many people were burned out. • The town has never been evacuated.
• We did have a huge number of people coming here.
• It was this side of the county and the other side of the county. • When did that expire?
• We had that in our back pocket if something like that happens again.

City staff stated they did not know that off hand.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• In regard to the funding on that last option, just so everyone is aware, whatever you choose to do, if you choose to move forward with one of these ordinances as they are, or making minimal modifications to them, they won't go into effect until March.
• That gives us April, May, June, before the next fiscal year. • The Department will plan to do what we can with the ordinances as they're passed. • That might give you a better idea and allow the staffing assessment to have greater insight into what is really needed form going into the next fiscal year as well. • So there is that option also to see what we do.
• But the bottom line is that eventually, more staffing will be needed and we'll just, you know, we'll go with the flow with what we've got to handle.
• At least one of the things that it does, which I think is the most important thing for us. • It gives us a foundation.
• A legal foundation to stand on when taking enforcement action on these matters that is both empathetic and compassionate to our communities who are unhoused, but also, able to meet the parameters of the eighth amendment and the Constitution and the ninth circuit decisions. • It gives us some teeth that we can do enforcement with that we have very little ability to do now.

Mayor Slayter opened the public hearing on an Ordinance of the City of Sebastopol Adding Chapter 10.76 Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance.

Steve Beck commented as follows:
• I've been waiting for a chance for what I really wanted to comment on. • My concern of parking on the streets in the residential area. • Discussed members coming for a month-long vacation. People going to work. • Discussed the requirement for a permit for something like that. • Most of our housing here doesn't have quite a driveway that is either long enough or wide enough for most RVs or campers to park off the street.
• They end up having to pay a small fee or a permit.
• It seems ridiculous to me. It will create back lash
• I can't think of a place other than Morris Street where you can park an RV. • They chose to do that. Five years. This needs to be rethought out Lee commented as follows:

• There are so many people who drive vans, Volkswagen vans. • It's a primary vehicles.
• It has nothing to do with sleeping in it or camping in it. • Park for three hours and do your thing and move on.
• They're locals. I would hate to see an ordinance for somebody who drives a van to drive into town and go to the grocery store.
• I think that can be addressed pretty easily.
• I drive a big camper. I drive all over the country and parking is always an issue. You could probably come up with a place to put it.
• The third issue. Staffing costs.
• I think you've reached a point where it is not a critical issue right now. • My suggestion would be wait and see what happens.
• In theory, if the RV residential project is successful, you should see a decrease in costs associated with policing and other services.
• So you may end up being even in the deal. It might work out. • Lastly, the permitting thing.
• I don't think that it is fair to taxpayers including one, which is the fire season. We only evacuated once here.
• But we've been warned to be prepared to evacuate urgently. • Could you rewrite the ordinance regarding residential parking of an RV to be that you can't park an RV on the street if you are a nonresident of that street?
• At that point, residents would be the ones that report it. • So that would solve that problem in terms of how you know it is a problem. • And number two, it would be fairly easy to check the registration of the vehicle. • If it's not registered, right away, police would know it's an issue. • So something that says residents, overnight parking of RVs by nonresidents is against our ordinance. • Makes sense between residents and nonresidents.

Chris Anderegg commented as follows:
• I'm the chair of the Board of the Sebastopol Cultural Community Center • We are in favor of this ordinance.
• It is an enormous impact.
• It deters people from coming to classes or events.
• We did manage to squeeze a concert in in December in between the various spikes of the virus. • We had to pay a considerable amount of money for extra lighting, extra security. • Usually people would be parking on Morris Street. We had the pay for parking. • It was a lot of people attending but it would make it impossible to have concerts because of all the extra costs.
• So it would be great to have Morris Street available. • Right now I would say our teachers and students at night get some kind of harassment several times a week.
• The other thing on an optimistic note.
• There is a sweep of the whole camping area behind the baseball field. • It was a combined effort, the Police Department, the City's public works staff, homeless advocates, and it was successful.
• There was a report on it. People were offered places to go. Their stuff was hauled away.

• It has been successfully reduced in campers and the effect of people on that side. • So for this ongoing project, I think having this collaboration of the City and West County Community Services will help make this whole thing move forward.
• Much easier to run the village.
• Also, I live around the corner of the shooting.
• It was really a very terrible thing to have somebody parked in front of a person's house. • It was a very stressed human being.
• So the I don't think we should use that as a prejudice against homeless people.

Suzanne Lande commented as follows:
• Let's just keep the 72-hour thing where vehicles could be in the neighborhood, neighbors or merchants or others could complain and the police could require movement. • I believe this would be more human
• There are, I think, more people living in recreational vehicles or in vehicles that they're living in that are really counted. I can tell it as I walk around.
• There must be a way to have certain regulations where there is no overnight parking in certain places. • I think Morris Street and Laguna Park Way are ones that come to mind immediately for me. • Just overnight parking. Maybe some other streets too like Johnson and Palm • I think we have more homeless people or people living in vehicles which they do have a home. It's their vehicle.
• I think there is more than are being counted. They're our neighbors. • I go to Safeway, they do. I go to the library. They do. I go to the plaza. They do. • I think it could be a simple situation.
• It could be reevaluated later if it wasn't working.

Kate commented as follows:
• I support this parking ordinance as written.
• I think the Chief and the Committee on for this Unhoused for this ordinance. • I urge Council to pass this as written tonight.
• This is exactly the ordinance we need right now.
• As we have read in numerous public comments for the last two months, transients are impacting our school campuses, our local businesses, our streets, our culture institutions and our communities. • Transients advertises us as a great place to live for free. • Three transients have died in their vehicle.
• There are no record of any transients moving into permanent housing or getting jobs by living for free on our streets and draining our public resources.
• Taxpayers have paid for increased public works and police time. • In addition, there have been fires on Morris Street in the Laguna and behind the feed store. • The Community Cultural Center has just had its main water line broken again. • Taxpayers will pay for this again.
• In terms of cost, I support taking a $72,000 per year that we're paying our homeless outreach coordinator who only serves maybe 300 people and putting it towards this ordinance. • I would support the $86,000 for revitalize or relaunch consultants towards supporting this ordinance as well as I feel that addressing the transient impact on our community will immediately have a positive impact on our businesses, arts and cultural communities.

• That would immediately free up $158,000 to help put this ordinance in place and have proper staffing, which it needs.
• It will be an immediate benefit to our students, our children that live in our community, our schools, our small businesses, our cultural institutions and our public spaces. • In terms of RVs, people can rent RV spots.
• That's why we have KOA campgrounds that charge fees.
• It is highly unlikely that people coming for lunch or visiting for two to three hours will be ticketed. • It is ridiculous to think that this parking ordinance will impact our tourism in our community. • What impacted our tourism which was converted to homeless housing. • It's outrageous that we're being asked to support more transients when we permanently lost a hotel in our downtown area.
• The people living in the RVs are adults. They're not babies. They are adult men for the most part. • They can make choices
• I find these discussions of where will people go, making these men into babies and disrespectful towards the unhoused communities.
• You say they want dignity. Let's treat them with dignity and let them make choices. • We all follow laws whether housed or unhoused.
• People can decide what they want to do. That is what adults do. • Thank you for passing this ordinance.
• I hope to see it implemented adds quickly as possible.

Ludmilla commented as follows
• Thank you all for your discussion and work about this. • I see that the people here really are well intended but I feel ill-informed as the effects. • As a person I was housed for almost three years in or somewhat sheltered in a small utility trailer that I lived as my living quarters, okay?
• The biggest problem I had was where do I put it because I couldn't leave it • I was actually more concerned about police or community messing with my thing and having it towed or moved away, so I kept it on my vehicle.
• Now, when I was working as an in-home support providers in the City of Sebastopol, after a community that I had been in where I had been on private land was destroyed, I had my trailer hooked up to my vehicle and so I took it to work and I parked it in front of my client's work when I was helping her in her house.
• So according to this ordinance, that would be illegal. • Supposedly, I would need to park out of town and hire an Uber to come in and work for $15 an hour as a home supporter?
• Anyways, so it would put an undue burden on people that don't have enough income. • I want to say a big, big vision I have, what I would love to see and what I would love to support is a permitting system that is county wide or even City wide, just in any jurisdiction, okay, where a person who has a trailer, has an RV could apply for a permit to be able to park in the county or in the jurisdiction. • And then you know who I am. I filled out an application. I'm not an unknown. I'm not there to steal your children, pee in the back of your store or do some random nonsense. I'm certainly not there to do drugs. • I'm a person who is who I am. I have an ID. I'm working. I'm in the community for a reason and I'd be happy to pay an annual fee. Then you know who I am.
• I do want to say the components of finding a home aren't just about finding a structure. • I have never asked for a handout.

• A lot of it is being welcome, having a feeling of safety, a belonging, love, esteem and growth • Just taking that away from people, telling them they're not even welcome to park on the street is going in the opposite direction.
• That is harmful.

Kyle commented as follows:
• Tonight's discussion Is another iteration.
• Nothing about what is proposed tonight changes the ordinances of this nature are laws against poverty. • RV bans come down to a lack of support and true understanding of those who are vehicle dweller. • A true understanding of who vehicle dwellers are to begin with. • Our City's lack of progressive growth and affording housing has priced nearly my entire community, childhood peers from being able to remain within our community. • Long-time residents have been priced out of the housing market and many are then forced to park in RVs parked on our streets.
• Many RV residents are just that, our residents.
• These are our neighbors, our childhood friends, people that have participated in our economy for decades prior to a financial downturn that is now living on their streets. • Proposed ordinance is a targeted attack on the City's residents who can't afford the increasing rent prices in one of the most expensive regions in the country.
• Homelessness is the worst manifestation of the widening poverty. • Forward thinking policymakers and advocates are examining the causes and solutions of poverty and homelessness.
• Increased income and employment are key strategies in ending poverty and achieving economic justice and are critical in preventing and ending homelessness. • Social justice and economic justice go hand in hand.
• If instead of seeking or enacting new laws that criminalize homelessness our leaders would seek policies that achieve quality and living wage jobs for all who can work and an increase in low-income high density housing market, actualize progress and preventing homelessness is possible. • Finally, just to speak of the financial aspect, if Council were to approve this ordinance tonight and fund it, they will be indicating that they're willing to spend more money on the enforcement of parking laws on the unhoused than they are on spending on mental health crisis intervention workers such as being utilized under a cahoots type model that provides actual support services for those in need. • Currently there are already relevant ordinances in our city. The Police Chief has indicated they are not being activity enforced. Reasons given previously related to lack of staffing as well as leniency. • If instead a fiscal audit of police activities as they currently are taking place, it might be the reallocation of current resources to the enforcement of vehicle registration, 72-hour parking as well as other ordinances that don't directly target the unhoused might be possible.

Zack commented as follows:
• I just want to say that I also would speak in favor of passing the restrictions. • It is a first step forward in getting some control over the situation around the City limits. • Speaking of the City limits, there have been things brought up from those of us out in the unincorporated areas before because there are real concerns about the spillover away from the City limits and no coordination as far as we have heard from Sonoma county with updates to the surrounding unincorporated areas which are all over the City, the very tiny City limits of the City of Sebastopol. • I think one Councilmember mentioned only a few people are aware of that. • But in fact some 40,000 people live in the unincorporated Sebastopol City limits.

• So at least the areas around town, something to definitely watch along with passing the ordinance in town itself.

Oliver commented as follows:
• I'd like to commend the Chief for all his really hard work on the ordinance, which I put in a public comment.
• I recommend that you go forward immediately with that. I think it's excellent. • As I said in my written comment, Sonoma County has an enormous budget for the homeless and we seem to be reinventing the wheel over and over again and agonizing over all of these existential problems for the homeless which is a loose term for a lot of people who are all crammed in together for various reasons.
• Substance abuse, mental illness, obviously hardship.
• As Kyle said, there are people who have lived in this area for decades and by right should be living in Sebastopol and if there was any justice for a time after that. • We have the COC member lady who was formerly homeless on Morris Street who should know how much money is pouring out of the county into homeless support. • It is just not working. So that's a huge issue.
• Just separately, been Sebastopol talking about tourism and public streets, in December we had a high speed accident of a car driving into a trailer.
• It is fortunate the people who were living in it weren't in it. It is unsafe to be living on the street. • So we've got all these huge problems.
• As far as parking permits, Morris Street is the ideal place to park an RV if there wasn't all of the homeless RVs there right now.
• You would think that would be simple for the Council to figure out that they would make more money for the City if they allowed parking for RVs along Laguna Park Way and so on and so forth. • But that's the definition of insanity to keep inviting more and more people to come and live on the streets of Sebastopol while worrying about the tiny budget that we have here and the lack of tourism and the fact that there aren't people that want to buy art and people can't come because there is no parking. • One final point with my last 30 seconds, when they closed the Sebastopol Inn after the County confiscated that, it was literally full of fire evacuees that summer. • We don't have that anymore.
• So logically if there Is another major fire or earthquake or anything like that, the Council should be able to say state of emergency as they're doing right now and turn off the parking ordinances while people are bringing in their RVs to escape or can't be on the streets because they just got burnt out.

Courtney commented as follows:
• Obviously, you have all seen me here before many times. I'm a homeless advocate. • I love the idea Martin Luther King, creative all truism, get creative in trying to mitigate these social problems.
• There is a lot of science behind it. There are people who study this. There are degrees. There are programs where people can learn about ecology, social problems. This is one of them. • I like safety nets. I think that I always like to figure out what's the kinder way to do things before I really try to lay down the laws.
• I would like to see us take an approach that's as least Draconian as possible. • Although, I understand that at this political level with these many people involved, negotiations are what needs to happen.

• The amount of vitriol that I see from the public, I just pray to God that I will never ever experience abject poverty.
• I hope that we can be a little bit kinder and also smart • I like the idea that Kyle was saying earlier about a CAHOOTS model. • Like let's not burn our police officers.
• Let's let them really focus on things that don't have to do with mental health and financial hardship or fleeing domestic violence or, you know, can we devote our social workers to this and let our police officers deal with matters of serious public safety?
• Why are we burdening them with things that they don't need to be burdened with? • Something to think about.

Maggie and Mike Jensen commented as follows:
• We're both local business owners. We own a business on Morris Street. We have a consulting firm with over thirty employees. We have been on Morris Street for over a decade. • But since the encampment established itself, over the last year we have had multiple repeated vandalism and theft on our business, siphoning gas from our construction trucks, breaking and stealing tools, stealing computers.
• While we're compassionate and realize a lot of that needs to go into the solution for this situation, we are in complete favor of this ordinance, and we feel it should be moved forward with immediately. • As business owners, we can't sustain multiple attacks on our business and crime. • It just isn't possible.
• We will have to move our business out of Sebastopol if this keeps occurring. • In addition we have two kids in high school and the proximity of the encampment to the high school, I just really can't believe our kids are harassed walking to our office and the drugs and the crime within I don't know how many feet of the school is just really, really, really unacceptable. • So as a mother and a business owner, we're in favor of passing this ordinance.

Mia commented as follows:
• I would just like to thank the Chief for developing the parking ordinance. • I am in support of the proposed parking ordinance, and I'm urging the Council to please vote yes tonight.

Jill commented as follows:
• I just want to say first of all thank you for bringing forth these parking restrictions. • I have been in support of that for a long time. I'm thrilled to see these. • Also wanted to thank the committee for bringing them forth. • I really appreciate the common sense approach to this. • I just have dealt with so many issues, having a business over near Morris Street and being on the board for five years at the community center, I can't tell you the number of hours I have spent in meetings with you all and everyone else regarding the issues that we have had here with the vandalism and employees being frightened and all of those are volunteer hours that i put in. • I am so thrilled to see this, and I think it would reduce the amount of money the City is spending on issues that have been created by the folks who have been living on Morris Street. • I think that if we have to figure out how to afford this, it seems as though we could find out we could find the money to pay for homeless advocates and we were able to find someone to put the port a potties on the streets.
• Do we have to continue to pay for the honey buckets and everything else if we are not having the encampments.

• Maybe they won't be burned down like they were over the feed store. • I think that it's optimistic to worry about tourists with RVs coming here having run the visitor center earlier, I have a pretty good idea of the visitors that come here. • I think that if we don't get control of the transients that are in the City, tourists are not going to find our City appealing to come to.
• So I think we need to be realistic and understand this issue has gotten way out of hand, which is why we're here tonight and I'm so grateful that it's being taken care of. • The other thing is I keep hearing discussion regarding poverty and the homeless when statistically homelessness is mostly driven by drug addiction, mental illness and former incarcerations. • I routinely follow the police blotter that shows there have been a number of arrests and calls to Morris Street for parole violations in various altercations.
• So I just want to make certain that that is also known. It is not just about poverty, but traditionally it is mostly men who live on the street like this.
• Not all obviously with the kind lady that's been helping us to understand her situation tonight. • But I think that we do need To move forward with these parking restrictions, and I am super grateful for them and thank you.

Arthur George commented as follows:
• The Council does seem to be on a clear path toward breaking up the encampment on Morris Street and allowing for some form of overnight sleeping, particularly addressing the concerns as to vulnerable women.
• We have a lot of points here.
• One, as to permitting, residential permits, it would seem that a computerized self-enrollment computer system as used for state campgrounds might be utilized here. • There are probably programs that could be purchased off the shelf. Computerized self-enrollment might be supported by permit fees. It might track prior applications in accord with the limitations that the ordinance calls for. This would eliminate additional personnel costs. • As the Council considers the ordinance, some easy fine tuning could be to abandon the prohibition on all commercial streets pertaining to RVs, both mayor Slayter and Council person gurney raised the concerns about RV visitors parking their Winnebago’s or other brand of vehicles on main street for eating in a restaurant, buying the book at copper fields and Council person gurney talked about gateways. • We don't want to prohibit them from parking downtown and ask the police to overlook because that's a Winnebago. That's a luxury conversion. That can't be a homeless person. That's not who we're targeting. • We don't want the police to be making those kinds of decisions. • So the easy way, the easy solution is to abandon that prohibition. • The Council seems to have wandered a bit afield from trying to address Morris Street to tackling the problem downtown, which doesn't exist.
• Addressing Council person glass question where do the RV dwellers go during the day, the Chief suggested out of down.
• It would prohibit them from using the library for education enrichment or using computers to seek employment, lodging, human services.
• This is counterproductive and cannot be what the Council intends. • Again, we do not want to be driving these folks out from all manner of use downtown. • I would ask that the Council really look at that issue, target what needs to be down but not reach so far field that it's leaving everyone unhoused and commercial travelers from the downtown area.

Robert commented as follows:

• I want to thank the Chief.
• I know this is not an easy thing to do and I appreciate you did such a fine job on short notice to pull this together.
• I think the Council should pass it tonight as written, pass it tonight. • We need to keep the clock running now and move it along. • Passing it as written, you're going to find out very quickly how many people will say, oh, that's very nice. • Sebastopol was a real holiday for two years.
• Now we're going to go to Santa Barbara or someplace else. • But we will find out very quickly what will happen among those people who don't want to just park overnight safely because they have another reason for being in Sebastopol and those who will go look for a Sunnier better place to be that hasn't yet passed such an ordinance perhaps. • But I think we should pass it tonight and then we'll see what happens and we can adjust it in the future. • And when we're talking about money issues, I have to say that I am personally very familiar with only one situation on Morris Street, but one which would have brought tens of thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands within two years into Sebastopol's revenue base. • Twenty-five jobs for people who don't already have jobs here. • So there would have been way over minimum wage jobs, probably double or more minimum wage jobs that could have gone to people, probably some who are homeless and looking for a place to rent to live. • We're losing out on that. We have lost out that.
• Six, seven months ago people came in, wanted to rent a place, you know, on Morris Street, had over twenty-five high paying jobs.
• People would have eaten in the restaurants, bought their food, brought their clothes, whatever to live here.
• People who were living across the street could have had a job. But no. The owners came and in the end tore up the vehicle and said no.
• That's seven months already we have lost a multimillion dollar operation that was opening near Northern California, you know, branch up here in Sebastopol. We lost that. • How many more are there up and down that side of town that we have lost? • I think, you know, we're talking about money.
• You are talking about an enormous loss of revenue here for the town and the jobs that would give people a home again instead of just a place to live and a Port-A-Potty. • We need to care about them in a meaningful way with dignity.

Monique commented as follows:
• I am a long-time resident of Sebastopol.
• I support the ordinance as written by Committee for the Unhoused. • Thank you for all the work that went into that to you and everyone else who had a hand in it. • I would ask the Council to please pass this ordinance tonight. • I think it's a good first step in addressing this issue of people without fixed residence. • I clearly understand that social services are needed for them as well, but they also are needed for people who are housed.
• I think we have social struggles in our society that are beyond the scope of this Council to fix. • I would really appreciate the ordinance being passed and i think it's another matter as far as helping our society through its struggles.

Vanessa commented as follows:

• I had a question I had been hoping to get answered.
• I e-mailed but haven't received a response.
• To the point that Councilmember Glass made regarding the site that was approved can house 25 RVs. • Yet, there is probably now 40 plus trailers on Morris Street. • So I just think it's a safe assumption that there will be overflow on Gravenstein Highway North all around the RV site especially because there are campers and RVs hanging out there until this site is ready. • So I just would really like to hear how that's going to be addressed especially since during the town hall with the school, after hours of parents expressing concern we were told over and over your children will not be going through the site.
• There will not be a safety hazard to your children because they will not be walking through the site to get to their school.
• This past week, my Five-year-Old was dodging feces, tools, drills, nails, needles, et cetera -- not needles, but nails.
• Now that I'm hearing what's happening on Morris Street, I'm getting more concerned about what the area around the school is going to look like with overflow. • There will be probably upset with how the site was pushed through. • We understood that the process was like that because there was this sense of urgency to clean up Morris and to clear Morris Street.
• I think if you push through this village but then you don't do anything about Morris Street, it will create even more upset because that was what we were told.
• The whole they think so was the lack of process and how everything went was in the spirit of cleaning up the public health safety hazards that were happening on Morris Street. • Those are my two big questions.
• Also just the surrounding areas of the site which I believe somebody else mentioned this is unincorporated, especially the school, which is in close proximity to the site. • If vehicles and RVs are parked at the school very close to the site that is unincorporated how is the City going to be a part of that and how are you going to help manage that is a question.

Vicky commented as follows:
• I just wanted to ask the City Council to pass this ordinance. • I feel like we need some control over the out of control parking that's happening in Sebastopol, our small town at this point as the RV we've traveled all over the U.S.A and stopped in many towns out of the way. • We have never had any problem spending time shopping or getting supplies. • I think there is a big difference between tourists traveling through a small town and stopping for a few hours than there is compared to the unhoused living in their RVs on our streets. • So I really urge the City Council to pass this ordinance to get control over what's happening in Sebastopol.

Robert commented as follows:
• There has been a lot of good conversation tonight.
• I came in not really knowing much about this. But I hope to say I think the Council will amend the ordinance.
• I do see that it is necessary. There is a problem.
• However, I think that what's before you is overly restrictive, inhuman with unintended consequences than what are discussed.
• I really feel that not allowing there to be really any public parking for those in their vehicles during the day is just unacceptable and just not right.
• Sebastopol is a caring community and we should do more.

• There needs to be a place for people to go during the day in their vehicle and use services. • There's been some comments and some suggestions that I really liked. • Those from Lee, Suzanne and Arthur.
• So some of those suggestions that I support is removal of the blanket restriction during the day from parking in public spaces both in residential areas and commercial areas. • I think some sort of hourly limit would be compromised, but the blanket restriction is overly restrictive and as people mentioned, there is a lot of people who use RVs technically as their daily driver. • I know a lot of families with conversion vans or VW bus type vehicles. • To think that would be illegal to park that just seems absurd. • I'm sure that something could be done to change the ordinance to remove that restriction. • I would say the idea of residential permits doesn't make sense to me as well. • I think the current ordinance has two weeks.
• I think something longer term makes more sense.
• There is a lot of people that don't have driveways.
• As I'm sure you are aware, there is a new state law that you don't need off street parking. • So there will be a lot of people that just have a residence but have a car that fits the description of an RV even though it is not a huge, oversized thing.
• It is a regular car or regular van.
• I would also say I think there could be revision to the 72 hour rule that exists now. • To remove that problem of just moving a car a couple inches. • Why not change the rule that, you know, a vehicle must be moved one hundred feet, two hundred feet, some distance to move that loophole.
• I think something could be done there to make the 72-hour rule or something similar to that more effective.

Hearing no further comments Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• I will work through these and answer them if I can and ask staff to answer those that I cannot. • First question, what provisions for residents to load and unload RVs for trips? • That is one of the exceptions that is noted in the draft. • Chief, can you get us to that promptly or recite it for us what that exception looks like? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Stated that is correct.
• It is on page 7, and it is under 10.76.050 section be recreational vehicles parked or left standing on a street that to allow performance of a homeowner, tenant or out of town visitor for a period not to exceed 48 hours.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• Residential parking, would it be possible to or practicable I suppose is a better term to sort of have a blanket allowance for residents who live here who have property who are legally registered owners of RVs to not to need to go through the permit process and sort of have a blanket allowance for residents who own RVs?
• Is that practicable?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:

• I think that it's doable.
• It will require that the vehicle registration be registered to them at that address so that any officer or personnel who run that vehicle shows that it comes back to that address. • It certainly is something that is able to be accomplished. • I think the part that we run into the difficulty with is guests are showing up as far as needing that permit. • So you have to have a permit section in place for that that extends beyond what the draft without the permit would allow for.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows: Have there been any coordination with the county on enforcement in the unincorporated surrounds?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• The county has their own different avenues they go through for parking enforcement and things of that nature and i have no enforcement authority outside of this area. • So that coordination has much more red tape to go through the county and will lead us down a path that will never accomplish anything.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I have done a little inquiry about that myself and unfortunately have come to the same conclusion, that the county bureaucracy and the red tape there is significant and problematic. • I'm not saying that isn't something we should continue to pursue. • Maybe at an elected to elected level we could have those conversations with our supervisor.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows
• What happens with the existing portable rest rooms and trash receptacles in those facilities? • Will they continue or will we realize a cost savings in that space? City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Those were installed there because of the need.
• There was unsanitary conditions that we hoped to abate in providing those Port-A-Potties. • I think we would have to assess it after the ordinance is in place to see whether it's being abided by and whether those unsanitary conditions no longer exist.

Mayor Slayter commented if they no longer exist and there is no longer a need for those facilities, then that's a cost savings?
Staff stated that is correct.

Chief Kilgore commented there would be a cost savings in the need for roadway repair where vehicles have been leaking and causing damage to our roadways as well and other matters that public works has attended to regarding that as well.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows: Has staff done any research about self-registration software as something that would lessen the staffing needs? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:

• So the issue with self-registering is that there is still a need to confirm and verify that someone lives at the address where they're putting that information into the computer system. • So the purpose of the permitting system is to create a verification avenue that people can be verified and so they would have to provide some type of verification such as A driver's license, government ID, billing, utility Bill, something of that effect and a letter if they're renting or a guest of someone who resides there, they would have to provide a letter from the home owner as well. • So a computer system, as mentioned, is not something that will reduce staff work. • In fact, it probably will be equal to the same amount of staff work because of verifications that are needed.
• There is a bit of a distinction between the use for the state parks, which is an entrance fee kind of situation and a booking of a camp site versus a parking permit.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows: The question about the area that is in the surrounding to the RV Village site and what happens with overflow.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• The answer here is what we discussed earlier in the meeting which is commercial industrial zones have a potential prohibition on the parking and it would be up there as well. • The same prohibitions unless we create some other special kind of A zone and some perimeter around that.
• That's the way the overflow would be handled is that under these drafts, it would be allowed between 10:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. And disallowed at other times of the day. • So that's the case in that instance.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:
• How will the City manage overthrow in unincorporated county areas? • I think we have discussed the difficulty.
• We can't enforce our laws outside of our City limits and that's just the way that works.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• One was a question about the status of the CAHOOTS model and the answer is and the Chief can confirm this and so can our City Manager, the answer is that that CAHOOTS model is being pursued as we on the City Council know and that also the Chief has taken advantage of the county with the mental health team that the county offers.
• So those mental health services are in place.
• How much space between the RVs? So it's ten feet. So it's larger than originally planned. • That's based on advice and direction from our Fire Chief. • So there is substantial space, which is why we have twenty spots there. • There is a question about what outreach is going on tabling, brochures, answering questioning. • The answer is that SAVS is doing outreach and has been today and will continue boots on the ground in the neighborhood and is handing out factual information. • As we heard from the public is making themselves available door to door to do outreach and also we'll be doing additional specific outreach to individuals.
• Is there a plan to erect permanent structures? The answer is no, there is no plan to erect permanent structures.
• The fund-raising effort is in order to help subsidize the portable toilets and other facilities. • Finally the final question specific to this was why not an extension of 72 hour rules?

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I would like to address the 72-hour mark.
• I do agree that there is a need for more restrictions within the 72 hour parking ordinance that we have. • However, I'd also like to remind the community and the Council that 72 hour marks are complaint driven. • If a vehicle is parked one, two, three days, typically it is in the area of three days or more before we hear a complaint from them.
• The 72 hour Mark occurs when we go out there and Mark the tires. • After being there for three days, we still have an additional three days, so that takes us up to six. • So we're looking typically at a minimum of six days that the vehicle will be parked in the same space. • No matter what type of restrictions we put and add to the 72-hour marking, there is still going to be complaint driven and they still are going to have a probable six day minimum of staying put before they move and that creates some of the challenges that we have already faced especially when it comes to vehicles that are not properly maintained and leaking on roadways and things of that nature. • I would like to address the fact of the laws being utilized as they were. • You're right. I gave leniency. Why? Because I think it is the right thing to do. I gave plenty of time for people to get things right. In my job, and in any law enforcement officer's job, it Is a balancing act of providing compassion, empathy, education and enforcement. That's what I do. I standby it. I'm good with it. That's what I expect my people to do, too.
• They have to show all these things to everyone at all times. • This is my expectation and what I'm going to model for them and what I'm going to do. • That route I chose to take has allowed us as a Police Department to form a collaborative relationship with our advocates.

City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• As Councilmember Glass stated early on in this evening's discussion of this item, this is about a compromise.
• This isn't about any one person or any one position getting everything that that one position or one person asks for.
• It is about a compromise. It is about reaching consensus. • It is about being open hearted and generous, but it's also about hearing the impacts that our businesses have.
• It is about obeying laws that we all agree to. That's part of the social contract. • So it's now to the Council to deliberate and come up with what we want to do. • I think that the sense of urgency we have felt, and that's the reason that this item has moved forward and pushed other extremely important items aside so that we can get through this so when we can take up those other items.
• Any major shift of these drafts we all know the implications of that to our schedule and so I will turn To my colleagues and ask for thoughts, opinions and a potential direction.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Unfortunately the 72-hour has not worked.
• We know that our vehicles can just move a couple inches. • We have heard from our Chief before.
• We heard now it takes up to six days.

• It is complaint driven and the RVs in town have doubled and tripled, especially after we announced our RV Village idea hit the news and more showed up.
• I have been very vocal both with our hotel project and this project that I am for local preference first for our unhoused community members that have been here, not the people that just showed up five minutes ago, and we have been guaranteed that that proposal is that we're going to house our local people first up at the village.
• That will help clear the original people from Morris Street, which was tied to why we have done all this. • I also feel like we got a little criticism for our outreach coordinator position which I fully supported it. • Supported it for years before we given got it and I do expect that person will be able to assist our Police Department with an education process of our new ordinance that we're going to pass, I hope we're going to pass because I'm in support of passing this tonight. • As it's been stated, it is not perfect.
• As I stated earlier, I think overnight people should have a place to park, but it's a compromise as my colleague Council member glass stated at the very beginning, and it is a fair compromise and we got to start somewhere.
• If we have any issues, we will have to address them but we need to start somewhere. • That's my concise comments and I will be in support of the ordinance tonight.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• My comments may raise some questions and discussion points. • I would hope the rest of you would be willing to enter into discussion. • I am in support of the ordinance as well.
• The one concern that resonates for me is the one that Arthur George expressed about denying people access to our downtown during the daytimes.
• Especially when he mentioned the library where street campers may need the support system, the computer access, the information for job interviews, job openings. • I think that's really part of the compassionate response that we need to consider. • Also for our businesses to be able to come into town and walk around our community and be part of what is available here, which is pretty unique and very personal. • I think we're a community that has relationships with people more easily than others. • So I don't really know how to suggest in a nice way that we might take care of that concern I have. • Also, I wanted to share with the Council a second concern and that is about no parking at all on residential streets.
• We did talk about a permitting process.
• Vice Mayor Hinton also made in support of some limited parking there and the Chief has provided that option.
• Here is the reason I'm thinking about that.
• I take my own street as an example. There are twenty houses addressed on my street. Thirteen of them either don't have A driveway or share a driveway with their neighbor. So there really isn't possible RV apartment for them anyway.
• So the driveways aren't level. The street parking isn't level. • It's complicated when your aunt and Uncle come to visit. • The houses like mine where we don't have accommodations for a guest who might want more privacy and don't want to sleep on the Hide-A-Bed in the living room. • I’m dramatic in my example because I think our residents may want some flexibility in this ordinance to allow their family members and their guests to be able to come.

• Their restriction I think is two seven week stays over a six-month period that just struck me as a little too little. A little too confining.
• So those are the two places I would like us to talk about. • I know the permitting process is a staffing issue, a budget issue and we just don't have the complete picture on that tonight and that doesn't trouble me because we're going to have a longer conversation about the mid-year budget review and we're going to soon get into the next year's budget discussion. • March is just around the corner, which means may Is around the corner, too, especially when our workload is like this.
• So I would appreciate some helpful conversation on these two issues if people had suggestions. • My colleagues if you have suggestions, I would appreciate that if you just want to deny my concerns and say, no, you are welcome to do that.
• I think they're valid ones and they speak to the tenor and value of our community, both of them. • The point about having access to our downtown and public facilities in the daytime, there is -- there is no prohibition on somebody who has a vehicle going and parking in a public plot or a legal spot and going and using the library.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• My point is the visitors to town.
• If they are using the library and the parking spaces in the public lot for them, they're well within their right to do.
• The exception within the ordinances allows for people to utilize City-owned lots that are designated to a City-owned building or use for business purposes, using the library for that. • Parking on the roadway would, based on the size of the vehicle or the types of vehicle, could be an issue. • But, again, as you have heard from one member of the community who spoke that utilizes a recreational vehicle often that parking is an issue no matter where they are and people who are utilizing it in the way they intend to utilize it find the ways to do so within the rule.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I could go on and on about what's problematic here.
• I actually am in agreement with Councilmember Gurney that there is a problem with tourists who may want to park or who may want to park their RV or their mobile vehicle sometime during the daylight hours.
• I think our ordinance, the idea that they still can go to the library when they're prohibiting any parking of our RV vehicles in the residential areas, then they can't go to the library because they can't get there. • I see two issues here.
• First of all that how do we accommodate visitors, tourists who have an RV that want to visit our town? • I do believe there are a lot of people that come through that want to visit and that are driving an RV. • Then secondly where can somebody that actually may be an overnight sleeper somewhere else drive to someplace near downtown so they could go to the library or use some other facility. • So what that brings up to me is we need to identify a location where there could be short term RV parking like maybe say time limited RV parking in daylight hours because that accommodates people that may want to visit the restaurants and that may want to go use the library.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I may have an answer to this that may help. Page 7 of this particular draft item B.

• It is unlawful for a person to park or leave standing any recreational vehicle on any public street in the City that is owned commercial, industrial or community zoned facility at any time between the hours of 7:30 and 10:00.
• It is not illegal for somebody to park their RV in a parking lot.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• That's why I asked that.
• Can they put an RV in those lots?
• What I'm trying to address here is they're going to need a lot where there are over sized lots.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows: I don't know what parking spaces are available as far as size wide in our City owned lots, but it does not prevent them from parking in a City owned lot to conduct business with that City business.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• That is an issue we may want to think about because we do want visitors to have their RV and visit our town and we may want somebody to visit the library.
• I think we do need to accommodate some RVs during business hours and that is a point that the Council may be willing to take a look at.
• Do we need to figure out where we might be able to look at in our City-owned lots with limited time during daylight hours and then the second issue that i think is problematic is just that issue of homeowners who don't have huge RVs but who have VW vans or whatever that they take camping. • There is plenty of people around town that have those and I do think that's a problem and what can they do to not cause a problem for our residents with that issue. • Those are two issues that I would like to see us be able to address. • I just have to say this is I hope a temporary solution to something that is hopefully a problem that We start to solve because the real problem is that there needs to be places where RV dwellers can go and park their vehicles legally.
• There need to be like RV camping places all Over-the-Counter. • As a member of the COC, I plan to make that a very high priority to try and get the funding so we could have RV parking lots distributed throughout West county so we can tell people there is somewhere to go. • That's the overall goal. Hopefully we could get that done. Maybe in two years.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• We have a number of people saying we aren't doing enough. • We have some people saying we're doing too much.
• To me the message is we're probably doing the right amount. • I'm concerned about what I'm hearing here is that I think we're losing sight of all of the policy decisions we have made, all of the support we have offered for the unhoused in our community. • You know, we've got park village. 10 RVs can be accommodated. We've got two units ready to be deployed and people will occupy them. 5 to 15 safe overnight parking spots we're working on. • We're looking at the 20 RV spots at the RV Village.
• All of these locations, and we have a full-time outreach coordinator that is serving all of the unhoused who will, let me remind you, be making sure that all of them, those who aren't accommodated in all these other ways will get service. She's already working on it. • We need a solution, and we need to come up with a decision tonight and there was a comment earlier by Councilmember Glass about compromise.

• I am concerned that if we start working through a way to allow RVs in the downtown, a way to allow downtowns in the neighborhoods and I could add on a couple of things I'm interested in. • We're not going to come to a decision.
• To the extent that we're going to address those issues, i would say access to downtown is provided through the parking that's available in public lots.
• It may not be perfect, but we can't do everything.
• In terms of residential streets, again, it's compromise. • We had a speaker tonight and we have a lot of people in town who take care of their RVs by storing them. • A lot of them have RVs. They find other alternatives. • To the extent we will discuss anything in here, I would just vote let's just go with it. • If there is a discussion about points, my discussion points would be look at Morris as a 24/7 to clean that out, what we have talked about it and look at the possibility of the RV Village street between Hurlbut and the City limits, 24/7.
• I don't have to go there. I can just vote for the no permit option that the Chief has put forward.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• There is things I'm interested in, too, and if we want to start opening up that can of worms. • I think that to just address the things that have come up, i think our Chief has clearly defined and I have been reading in the ordinance that RVs can park in the City lots if they're visiting a restaurant, going to the library, doing business.
• Maybe we have to restripe a couple of spots, but that doesn't have to be addressed tonight. • It's clearly addressed in the ordinance and so we have a place for those folks. • The people that have visitors, if I had a visitor with an RV that I needed to be on the street in front of my house, i would tell them they need To move the RV down to another location where overnight parking is allowed and I would give them a ride to my house to stay. • It is not perfect but that just seems like we can work within the ordinance we're performing here. • If there are a lot of houses down the load, I think we can revisit, but I'm good on voting on the ordinance as proposed tonight.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• We can deal with restriping or finding RV parking in a municipal lot. • I think we could agree that we can locate that in another meeting and make that a discussion topic discreet in itself.
• Once we know the size of the parking lots, the number of spaces it would take and the driving radius, that's more than we can do tonight, but We believe it is a worthy issue that we could raise later.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I would like to just clarify that as pointed out earlier, the word motive power is actually correct. • I did a little bit of research while we have been talking and what that means is any source of energy used to produce motion or the supplying of power to an engine, vehicle, et cetera, so the way it is written, I just wanted you all to know that.
• Should it pass, there would not need to be an edit of that specific thing. • I just want to make you all aware.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• With the no permit option, which I'm hearing general consensus beginning to form around, it doesn't really address the concerns that I'm hearing from my colleagues about the residential areas.

• We've got on page 7, exceptions period not to exceed 48 hours. • I'm wondering if extending that period of time would be a compromise. • To allow it for the performance of a homeowner or out of town visitor to load or unload the vehicle. • Homeowner tenant or out of town visitor.
• That means that it's sanctioned by the homeowner.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think that's a very practical solution to look at it that way. • I would suggest a 72 hour rule.
• That provides us more gracious timing and I don't think it creates problems, any more problems. • If you are enforcing 48 hours, you are enforcing 72 hours. • I appreciate that suggestion.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I did not hear a concern that 48 hours wasn't enough time to Load and unload. • Is that the question that we are trying to address?
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• The proposal that I am putting forward is to perhaps modify the load, unload and simply allow the RVs 72 hours.
• That provides for brief multiday visits from family members with RVs. • It allows for the servicing of RVs and to the point about 72 hours, I don't have a particular reason to not think that just making everything 72 hours isn't logical.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Well, my concern in this discussion is to the extent that we are implementing tighter controls in the industrial commercial in the nonresidential.
• We're now it sounds like looking at a 72 hour rule in our residential areas which, as our Chief has indicated, is really a six day rule based on complaints. • I think the likely result from what I have heard from our Chief is that we would be pushing vehicles from the industrial commercial into the residential.
• I may have misunderstood what that concern was.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• As the ordinance is written now, this 48-hour period would apply to all areas because there is a specific area in here as well.
• So that same section allows for performance of repairs of vehicles not to exceed 48 hours. • So that is distinguished between the two. These are complaint driven. • So if we extend that to 72 hours, someone calls in, we go out there three days later, it will be another three days.
• If they call in after 48 hours we're able to take action. • Then without a 72 hour marking of that, I guess that we could technically take action after a 72-hour violation of this as well.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:

• If I'm an RV dweller and I'm in town and my choice is to be in an industrial area only at night so I have to move every morning or I can go into the neighborhoods and be in one place for three to six days, I mean, the results are predictable to me.
• They do cause me substantial concern.
• I think that's the problem with modifying what our Chief as proposed. • I'm not waiting 72 hours to call the police.
• I am saying I have a strange RV in front of my house that is not allowed to be here. • I'm okay with the 72, it's not going to result, it's not the same, we still have the qualifier.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I would like to point out that there are going to be times and events where a homeowner tenant, is not going to be home.
• Someone may park a vehicle in front of that home that cannot be verified with the home or tenant, and we cannot get ahold of them.
• Then we have to default to the reasonable assumption that they are an out of town visitor.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented you can't cover everything in a policy, but whatever the will of the Council, I would be willing to go either way.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follow:
• It's the same circumstance if it's 48 or 72 hours.
• In the homeowner is not there and you cannot verify.
• I think we can rely on our neighborhood, I know my neighborhood had one person that was dedicated as the street cop and she knew every car on the street, when something was suspicious, I was ready to call it in to be tagged or tell the neighbor to move the truck because there's too many leaves. • We do know the cars And especially the unusual ones. The VW, or the VW camper van. • I think we can count on the residents to no, in some measure self-police and know when it's not the homeowner, tenant or guest.

Councilmember Glass commented she concurs with the 72 hours.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm going to talk a minute about the discussion regarding the 24-7 approach to Morris Street and in order to help our Committee for the Unhoused with the enforcement there on a street that has become a location where an encampment has been well established. • I would like to hear what my fellow City Council members would say about that proposal. • The idea being to address a specific area where we have seen a problem develop and I'm concerned about the difficulty that might be involved with clearing that location especially with the Chief's comments about the Laguna.
• I would appreciate hearing about that, thank you.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I disagree with that idea.
• I think that we need to treat every place that is zoned a specific way the same way and not make an exception.

• So we are going say, oh, we are going to have none of this RV spending the night on Morris Street or in that area, but now we are just going send them to our downtown merchants instead and we are going to send them to our merchants up by Fiesta or Lucky.
• It seems that we should be spreading that out and it's not fair to just, you know, okay, we are going to try and rectify what has been a problem in another area and send them to another area without using a uniform criteria
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• In response, let's make sure that we recall that this area on Morris Street, in bearing the burden of this problem for many, many years.
• If we are looking at equity, you can look at equity through a lot of different lenses, i understand your perspective, Council member glass, thank you.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• My take is in agreement with Council member glass.
• I think that a specific zoning across different parts of the City should be treated equally and to have carve outs for specific neighborhoods or streets it's not as clear and it's potentially confusing, and honestly I just don't think that's needed at this point.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think also, either the Chief or the City Manager, City attorney advises that it was ill-advised to carve out one particular street and treat it differently.
• Maybe whichever you said that, you may remind us if it's necessary, but I don't think it is.

Chief Kilgore commented I think we are both in agreement with that.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I felt that you could clear Morris Street, still feel that way. • Understand the Council wanting to treat all streets identically. • Morris Street has special sanitary issues that were beyond the norm in a long street of encampments that are problematic.
• I advised in several Council meetings that you could clear Morris Street. • I see the consensus is developing around treating all streets equally. • I support that as well.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I appreciate the comments from my fellow City Council members and having shared my personal opinion on this specific issue.
• I certainly see the benefits of the approach here.
• I will support the result and I would be willing to support the plan to establish a 72 hour arrangement in the residential area. the police would be called immediately if it was known that this was a nonresident and someone when who did not qualify.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm really concerned about passing this without knowing that our RV Village is in operation and happening.

• I want to know if I'm to vote for this, is there, in the RV Village and something happens and it stalls and doesn't happen, can I still pull my support for it?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Yes, you can vote to introduce an ordinance and you can vote against it later. • I have to consider seeing what would happen if you vote for the ordinance in the first and second reading and then RV Village doesn't happen.
• I don't know what you do in that circumstance other than move an item to repeal it or something. • But I'm not sure what happens in that 30 day period.
• But you can vote to introduce an ordinance and then you can vote against it when it comes back for the second reading.

Councilmember Glass commented if I vote for it to move it forward on the first meeting tonight and I could pull the plug in the second reading, if something is, for some reason were to happen where are the RV village is not moving forward?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented you can definitely do that.

Councilmember Gurney discussed the timing of the second reading.

Staff stated the second reading would be February 1st.

The Council discussed the opening of the RV Village.

Staff stated the Council does not have to have the item return to the next Council meeting but staff was told to expedite the ordinance so it would be assumed to bring it back the next meeting.

City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin recommended the committee to tell the Council about their comfort level with the opening of the RV park.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• What is the timing that you both think is the most reliable? • The next February meeting or the one after that?
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I think the target is February 15, I would not be surprised if the RV Village is populated before then. • I think having a second reading, personally, I would think given the urgency here and the need November forward especially on behalf of the community in terms of the parking ordinance that we go ahead and schedule a second reading on February 1, and i will very publicly say here that if for some reason or some odd reason that the RV Village does not end up moving forward than I will definitely withdraw my support for ordinance.
• I don't think that either Councilmember Glass nor i expect out to happen. • We are trying to coordinator these in a timely way. I suggest February 1. • Let's move forward and i suppose the worst case scenario is that we might request that the City Council at that point move the second reading later.
• I just don't think it's likely to happen.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Just like to remind the Council that something is still in need of being done whether it's moving forward or not, this ordinance is written in a way that allows for the ordinance To move forward whether the RV Village is existing or not.
• The overwhelming support for the ordinances by the community, I think, has been evident that shows that there's a great need for us to be able to provide some type of parking enforcement that has some teeth to it, that allows us to address challenges that we continue to face whether the RV safe parking village is present or not.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I made this compromise based on us going forward with the RV Village and that's what I feel like I can vote on.
• I do think that there are a lot of parties that are particularly concerned about this issue that are attending in the meeting and I suspect and i know that there's a lot of people that are not that thrilled about the regulations.
• I figured, I thought this was a reasonable compromise because we have of a growing problem and it's a problem that exists in every City, I just talked to somebody from Santa Rosa saying, if you think it's bad here, you should go to downtown Santa Rosa right now.
• We are not unique. But I made this compromise because I think we are moving toward long-term solutions.
• We are moving that way.
• That's why I can support this.
• I would agree with that whole heartedly, and the fairly commonly repeated refrain of, you know, to buy them a ticket out of town.
• That doesn't solve anything.
• That's going backwards.

MOTION:

Mayor Slayter moved and Councilmember Rich seconded the motion to: Waive further reading an ordinance of the City of Sebastopol adding chapter 10.76, recreational parking ordinance and amending 10.36 of the Sebastopol municipal code, no permit required and then, with the following modifications as follows:
a) Section 10.76.040, parking prohibitions, section e, amend the word impeded to impede b) Section 10.76.050, Expectations, paragraph B, revise that to read recreational vehicles parked or left standing on any public street in the City that is zoned residential so as to allow the use of a homeowner, tenant or out of town visitor for a period not to exceed 72 hours.

Discussion:

The Council was in consensus to return the second reading to the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I think it's worth asking the fellow City Council members. • I think it would be helpful to know, to have confirmation that in fact everyone feels that way too. • Questioned if the Mayor’ support for the parking ordinances is conditioned on the fact that we are offering to our Sebastopol RV dwellers this wonderful managed RV Village.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:

• What I see with the significant uptick in RV and vehicle dwelling happening since the announcement, there's interest.
• People don't want to be on the street in an unmanaged facility. • People want a clean, safe, well-lit place to live.
• What Council member glass said about these kinds of thing needing to be all over the county, every X number of miles down the road, I'm all in favor for that, it needs to be regional.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Thank you for that validation.
• I think it's important and I do agree with Council member glass that we should continue to be fully confident but, the gates are not, places is not filled yet and the gates are not closed yet.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Waiving of further reading an ordinance of the City of Sebastopol adding chapter

10.76, recreational parking ordinance and amending 10.36 of the Sebastopol municipal code, no permit required and then, with the following modifications as follows:
a) Section 10.76.040, parking prohibitions, section e, amend the word impeded to impede b) Section 10.76.050, Expectations, paragraph B, revise that to read recreational vehicles parked or left standing on any public street in the City that is zoned residential so as to allow the use of a homeowner, tenant or out of town visitor for a period not to exceed 72 hours.

The Council was in consensus to return the second reading to the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting.

Minute Order Number: 2022-020
Mayor Slayter questioned if the Council was in consensus to go beyond the 10:30 pm meeting stop time.

The Council was in consensus to complete item number(s) 9 and 12 and continue the remainder of the agenda items.

8. Public Hearing - 7950 BODEGA AVENUE “Huntley Square Townhomes” - Public Hearing to consider: a Zoning Amendment to Modify the Zoning from Multifamily Residential (R7) to a Planned Community (PC), Conditional Use Permit to develop in a PC district, Tentative Map, and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act /CEQA) for a 10-Unit Townhome Project known as “Huntley Square” (Responsible Department: Planning) Mayor Slayter opened the agenda item and recommended continuation of this item to the March 1, 2022 City Council Meeting.

The Council was in consensus.

City Council Action: Item continued to the March 1, 2022 City Council Meeting.

Minute Order Number: 2022-021
REGULAR CALENDAR AGENDA ITEMS (DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION):

9. Discussion of Approval of City Sponsorship For Sebastopol Walks for Calendar Year 2022 (Requestor:

Councilmember Gurney)
Councilmember Gurney presented the agenda item recommending the City Council Approve City Sponsorship For Sebastopol Walks for Calendar Year 2022.

Mayor Slayter asked for questions of presenter/staff.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I feel I would be remiss to say that I'm disappointed that other Council members were not asked to participate and the schedule appears to be finalized.
• I participated in the past and I really appreciated it. • I thought the Walks were successful.
• I have done three of them and when I look at the agenda item, the schedule is full and I was never invited to participate again this year so, just some feedback.
• It feels a little like certain people are being left out. So that is unfortunate.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Thank you, that is an understandable comment. I appreciate you making it. • I don't think it was intended that people feel that way. • You will notice, there's new walk leaders and people I'm not familiar with as well. • I think you are just right, they are changing.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I am so glad to hear Councilmember Hinton make that statement. • Because I would absolutely love to have her join me on the, whatever it's called, the whimsical art walk, it would be you, me and Patrick probably.
• So, let me know Vice Mayor Hinton, it would be really, really fabulous to have you as a co-leader on that walk. But I will reach out to you separately.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• It's a fun idea and maybe it solves the problem except that we didn't get Vice Mayor Hinton's original idea in there.
• If this is successful we can put you on the top of, ask Simon to put you on the top of the list next year.

Director Svanstrom commented she would be happy to thank her in the Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Slayter commented that feel free to do that verbally, but I don't think there's going to be a lot of resistance to sending a letter as well from the mayor and the Council.

Mayor Slayter opened for public comment. There was no public comment.

City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

There was no further discussion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Gurney moved and Councilmember Glass seconded the motion to approve Continued City Sponsorship of the Sebastopol Walks Program 2022, Assist with Publicity for all 2022 events as requested, and Commend Kathy Oetinger for her Contributions to the Sebastopol Walks Program.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Continued City Sponsorship of the Sebastopol Walks Program 2022, Assist with Publicity for all 2022 events as requested, and Commend Kathy Oetinger for her Contributions to the Sebastopol Walks Program.

Minute Order Number: 2022-022

10. Discussion and Consideration of Recommendations from the Committee for Unhoused (Requestor:

Council liaison)
This item was continued.

City Council Action: None Taken. Item Continued.

Reference Order Number: 2022-023

11. Consideration of Approval of Resolution Supporting Legislation Guaranteeing Healthcare to All (Requestor: Councilmembers Rich/Glass)
This item was continued.

City Council Action: None Taken. Item Continued
Reference Order Number: 2022-024

12. Discussion and Consideration of Appointment(s) Vacancies on the Public Arts Committee) (Responsible Department: Planning/City Administration)
City staff presented the agenda item and requested the Council discuss and consider appointment(s) to the Public Arts Committee based on interviews earlier in the agenda.

Mayor Slayter asked for questions of presenter/staff. There were none.

Mayor Slayter opened for public comment. There was no public comment.

City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I actually had a question about Barbara Harris, she is listed as the nonprofit person. • A member who is an active member of the City of Sebastopol registered nonprofit, do you know which nonprofit she is currently actively a member of?
City staff stated they did not.

Councilmember Rich commented is she an active member of the Sebastopol nonprofit? City staff commented they believe she is and would review the application.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Barbara Harris also is part of the community benefits organization representing the senior center for Katie Davis who cannot meet the meeting time.
• That is a pretty immediate connection right there.
• I'm also confused about one thing.
• Are we appointing two spots or three?
City staff stated three.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm pleased to reappointment Barbara Harris and Jeff Stucker. • I think they are part of the group that's done really well, they are like the newcomers to the group and you can tell from their remarks that they are really plugged in. • So, that leaves one seat that, for me, I would like to give To Robert Brent as an appointment. • He has applied several times and what I especially liked was his response to my question where he said, in my reading, I'm an older guy so I'm more moderate in how I present my opinions and I listen to people better.
• I thought that was a really genuine remark and very much recommending for him. • He knows quite a lot about our art world from his personal experience, his business experience in his work with the center for the arts.
• So I thought that gave him a great leg up in terms of being a committed member of the committee with experience.
• So, those would be my three choices.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm in complete agreement with Councilmember Gurney.
• My recommendation is Harris and Stucker are part of the extremely well-oiled machine that is functioning really well on the committee that is happy with each other and they are so excited about working together so let's get those guys keeping on keeping on. • It's more than once and it's just seeming appropriate that in addition to that, he is a famous guy that has done all the incredible things to do with art.
• He was there converting the vet's hall in to an arts center. He deserves the seat. • Natalie is really awesome and that was the first time she is applied for anything.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm in agreement with all of the comments.
• For me, Barbara Harris and Jeff Stucker continuing to, in the group was a yes. • Now, Natalie Tim I was charmed with, but when compared to the experience and background that Robert Brandt has, that reflects a substantial commitment to this project, and also, I really liked his mural idea. • I'm in favor of the three and I'm thrilled that we had so many applicants. It's fabulous.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Basically I'm going to echo everyone else. We have exciting members are both fairly new, and they are doing great.
• Super enthusiastic, I have supported Robert Brent before, I will support him again tonight. • He has been before us. I feel like I have gotten to know him. • Those are my three picks as well.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I think I will just make it unanimous on the three folks. • For all those reasons that everyone has stated and the lamentation for how many good people we have for how many open seats we have.
• Every so often we are in that situation, I wish it was more often but it isn't. • So, we have Robert Brent, Jeffrey Stucker and Barbara Harris who have been by consensus.

MOTION:

Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Glass seconded the motion to approve appointment of the following members to the Public Arts Committee as follows:

APPOINTEE TERM ENDIND DATE CATEGORY
Barbara Harris December 31, 2025 1
Jeffrey Stucker December 31, 2025 3
Robert Brent December 31, 2025 2
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved appointment of the following members to the Public Arts Committee as follows:

APPOINTEE TERM ENDIND DATE CATEGORY
Barbara Harris December 31, 2025 1
Jeffrey Stucker December 31, 2025 3
Robert Brent December 31, 2025 2
Minute Order Number: 2022-025
1) One member shall be an active member of a City of Sebastopol based, art focused, registered non-profit organization, entity or facility
2) Two members shall be persons with experience in the public art field as either an artist, installer or designer.
3) One member shall be a member of the general public.
4) The Council shall appoint a member of the Design Review Board to serve on the Committee.

In the event suitable candidates satisfactory to the City Council in the above categories are not available to serve, the City Council may then select any person or persons in their discretion.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

13. City Manager-Attorney/City Clerk Reports:
o Report Out - City IT Security Protocols
o Report Out - Syserco Energy Conservation Measures Project • Reference Order Number: 2022-026

14. City Council Reports/Committee/Sub-Committee Meeting Reports: (Reports by Mayor/City Councilmembers Regarding Various Agency Meetings/Committee Meetings/Sub-Committee Meeting /Conferences Attended and Possible Direction to its Representatives (If Needed) on Pending issues before such Boards)

15. Council Communications Received
16, Future City Meeting Dates/Events (Informational Only): (See City Web Site for Up-to-Date Meeting Dates/Times)

ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting will be adjourned to the January 19th Special City Council Meeting, 9:00 am (Relaunch Sebastopol Interviews). (ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT) January 19th Special City Council Meeting will be adjourned to the January 26th Special City Council Meeting (City Council Retreat) 9:00 am (ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT)
January 26th Special City Council Meeting will be adjourned to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 1, 2022 6:00 pm (ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT)
Mayor Slayter adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:41 pm the January 19th Special City Council Meeting, 9:00 am (Relaunch Sebastopol Interviews). (ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT).

Respectfully Submitted:

Mary C. Gourley
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC