Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the SB707 Brown Act topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Petaluma prepares for SB 707: council adopts remote‑technology disruption policy and plans July return of remote public comment

Petaluma City Council and Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency · May 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff briefed the council on SB 707 changes to the Brown Act that restore call‑in and two‑way remote participation for eligible bodies; council placed a one‑hour IT good‑faith repair policy on the consent calendar and planned to resume Zoom public comment July 6, 2026.

Caitlin Corley, city clerk, and Assistant City Attorney Dylan Bridal presented California Senate Bill 707 and a city Remote Technology Disruption Policy at the May 4 Petaluma City Council meeting. SB 707 updates the Ralph M. Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to provide call‑in and two‑way remote participation for public comment; the law also expands accessibility and translation expectations.

Under the staff recommendation — which appeared on the consent calendar as item 8 — Petaluma will restore remote Zoom participation for eligible meetings starting July 6, 2026. The recommended disruption policy requires IT to make a good‑faith effort for up to one hour to restore remote participation if a platform outage occurs; if remote access cannot be restored within that hour the council decides whether to continue, recess or adjourn. Staff also proposed sending email and website notifications if Zoom goes down — a measure the city said is voluntary but unique compared with other jurisdictions.

Council members asked how the city will gatekeep remote commenters, whether remote speakers must identify themselves and whether advisory bodies would be offered remote participation as well. Staff said the Brown Act does not require remote participants to give their names and that committees are not automatically eligible under SB 707; the city plans a phased approach and additional clerk support to handle increased demand. Several members of the public urged the city to expand remote options for commissions and to prioritize accessibility for people with mobility limitations.

The consent calendar adoption advanced the disruption policy; staff will bring more operational guidance and outreach materials before July.