Sonoma City Council
August 17, 2022

.

City Council:

Jack Ding, Mayor
Kelso Barnett, Vice Mayor
Madolyn Agrimonti
Robert Felder
Sandra Lowe
This meeting of the City Council will be conducted in person, and telephonically through Zoom. The City Council will attend the meeting in person. The public is encouraged to attend either in person or remotely through Zoom.

The meetings will continue to be live streamed on the City’s CivicWeb Portal (sonomacity.civicweb.net) and YouTube Channel. Please see the agenda below for information on public participation.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers, 177 First Street West
Wednesday, August 17, 2022
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83552502390
6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
****
AGENDA
Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.

The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the items are described.

No new items will begin after 9:00pm unless a majority of the members present vote to allow the items to be heard.

Page
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL (Agrimonti, Felder, Lowe, Barnett, Ding)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION USING ZOOM
Public Comment Process for ZOOM Attendance at Meetings

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. It is recommended that you keep your comments to three minutes or less. Under State Law, unless otherwise permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the merits of the matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. Upon being acknowledged by the Mayor, please step to the podium and speak into the microphone. Begin by stating and spelling your name.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1: Proclamation in Honor of Women's Equality Day - August 26, 2022

3.2: Presentation Recognizing Toby Ford-Monroe, Mason Matulaitis, and Nate Jordan for their Heroic Efforts in Saving the Life of Mikey Serbicki

3.3: Presentation Recognizing Bob and Kristy Brindley, just1mike Foundation for their Contributions to the Community with the Installation of the AED SaveStations at the Sonoma Valley High School

3.4: Introduction of New City Staff (Interim City Manager)

4. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Council or staff request specific items to be removed for separate action.

4.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided)

4.2: Approve the City of Sonoma Responses to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2021- 2022 for the following reports:1) “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance”; 2) “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future”; and 3) “What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations” (Public Works Director/City Engineer and Planning & Community Services Director) RECOMMENDATION: Approval.

Agenda Report - 2021/2022 Grand Jury Responses - Pdf
4 - 68

4.3: Receive and Accept the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Book (Interim City Manager and Deputy Finance Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and accept.

Agenda Report - FY22-23 Budget Book - Pdf
69 - 70

4.4: Adopt a Resolution Adopting Terms and Conditions of Employment for NonRepresented Executive/At-Will, Management/Administrative, and Confidential Personnel and a Resolution Approving the Compensation Adjustments for the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel and Implementing the Adjusted Salaries and Wages of the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel (Interim City Manager and Human Resources Manager)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.

Agenda Report - Terms, Conditions, and Compensation - Pdf 71 - 75

4.5: Adopt Resolutions Approving the Tentative Agreement with Sonoma Employees Association (SEIU) 1021; for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2025 and Implementing the Adjusted Salaries and Wages of those Employees and Rescinding all Prior Resolutions Regarding Fixing of Salaries & Wages (Interim City Manager and Human Resources Manager) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.

Agenda Report - SEIU MOU - Pdf
76 4.6: Adopt a Resolution Adding a Regular Council Meeting on September 12, 2022 and Cancelling the Regular Council Meeting of September 7, 2022 (City Clerk) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Regular Meeting Cancellation & Addition - Pdf 77 - 79

5. PUBLIC HEARING

6. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
(Matters requiring discussion and/or action by the City Council)

6.1: Discussion, Consideration and Possible Direction to 1) Allocate the Required Funding and Staffing to Develop a Revised Parklet Program 2.0. 2) Determine if Developing a Revised Program Should Wait Until Spring 2023 to Evaluate 80 - 124

Covid-19 Impacts During the Upcoming Winter; 3) Require Parklets Remaining after October 31, 2022, to Meet ADA Requirements and Established Standards for Parklets with a Platform; and 4) Expand the Scope of Work to Include the Sonoma Plaza Master Plan Process (Interim City Manager and Associate Planner)
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and direction.

Agenda Report - Parklet Update - Pdf

7. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS

7.1: Committee Reports - Council Members are appointed to various boards and committees - local, county-wide and regional. Any updates from a council member will shared at this time. A list of all appointments is available on our City Website for easy reference.

8. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

10. ADJOURNMENT
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted as legally required. Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk/Executive Assistant.
*********************************************************************************************************************************** Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to any item of business referred to on the agenda are normally available for public inspection the Wednesday before each regularly scheduled meeting at City Hall, located at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA. Any documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at the City Clerk’s office, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA during regular business hours.

If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on the agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, at or prior to the public hearing.

The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the items are described.

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES: The Council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Council Members) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

CLOSED SESSION: If action is taken during a Closed Session meeting which is required to be reported out at this meeting, the Council will return to Open Session and report out immediately. However, if the Council is unable to do so due to time constraints, it will report out at the immediately following Regular Council Meeting under "REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION".

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: A Council Member voting with the majority on any item appearing on this agenda may move for reconsideration of that vote provided the motion is in conformance with the rules adopted by the Council governing such motions.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (707) 933-2216. Notification 48-hours before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Planning and Community Services
and Public Works
Staff Contact
David A. Storer, AICP, Director
Michael Berger, PW Director/City Engineer
David J. Ruderman, Assistant City Attorney
Agenda Item Title
Approve the City of Sonoma Responses to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2021- 2022 for the following reports:1) “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance”; 2) “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future”; and 3) “What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations”
Summary
On June 14, 2022, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury issued three reports entitled “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance”, “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” and “What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations”. The three Grand Jury reports contains a combined total of 31 findings and 17 recommendations for the City to respond to.

The City has 90 days from June 14th to reply (i.e., deadline is September 12th, 2022). Attached are the responses to the three reports (which are also attached for reference).

Recommended Council Action

1. Modify the responses and file with the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County as requested.

2. Provide staff with further direction prior to September 12th, 2022. Failure to respond in a timely manner to the Grand Jury Report would be a violation of the Penal Code.

Alternative Actions

1. Modify the responses and file with the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County as requested.

2. Provide staff with further direction prior to September 12th, 2022. Failure to respond in a timely manner to the Grand Jury Report would be a violation of the Penal Code.

Financial Impact
The recommendations from the Grand Jury involve staff time which is ordinarily carried out through implementation of the Housing Element goals and objectives.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Agenda Item #4.2:

Attachments
1) 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Report – “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance”
2) 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Report – “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future”
3) 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Report – “What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations”.
4) City of Sonoma Responses – Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance a) Findings
b) Recommendations
5) City of Sonoma Responses – Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future a) Findings
b) Recommendations

6. City of Sonoma Responses – What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations
a) Recommendations
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 1
Affordable Housing: Monitoring and
Compliance
Who is Watching the Henhouse?

SUMMARY
In response to citizens’ complaints and reports published in The Press Democrat, the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the monitoring of Affordable Housing within Sonoma County. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is housing priced on the basis of family income, not the market rate. Monitoring involves verification of tenant incomes and continued eligibility for an Affordable unit, the owner’s or manager’s collection of required information, and the ongoing maintenance of the property and its amenities. Housing departments for the County and its nine Cities are required to monitor compliance with the regulations for occupancy of Affordable Housing.

All housing is in short supply; this includes Affordable Housing, which should be available only to those who qualify. This report examines the monitoring of existing Affordable Housing. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the potential for increasing its availability.

The Grand Jury investigated procedures used in the County and its nine cities and found that monitoring was inconsistent among the housing jurisdictions. All of the agencies were overly reliant on self-reported information from owners and managers. Direct observation and verification through on-site monitoring were rare and essentially ceased during the COVID-19 shutdowns. A low priority was often given to monitoring, and the staffing to do it was usually insufficient. The Grand Jury concluded that there was little probability that illegal behaviors, if they existed, would be detected using current procedures.

Recommendations from the Grand Jury include increased on-site personal monitoring at housing locations, more standardization of procedures, consistent and on-going training with developers and property managers, and better coordination and cooperation amongst agencies to increase efficiency.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 2

BACKGROUND
Housing in Sonoma County is widely acknowledged to be in short supply and very expensive. A chart1 in The Press Democrat for March 13, 2022 showed the median price of a home in January 2022 to be $789,000, up from $715,000 just a year earlier. As reported by the North Bay Business Journal, Sonoma County median rent for a one or two-bedroom unit is $2,167, and residents are increasingly unable to afford a suitable place to live.

Common complaints include:
• My adult kids can’t afford to live here and will have to move somewhere else. • My rent is so high I can’t afford to pay my other bills. • I couldn’t afford my house if I had to buy it today.
• Sonoma County needs to have more affordable places to live.” The term “affordable housing” can have different meanings:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to an executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

The Federal Government, State, County, Cities and private organizations have created programs that make home buying or apartment rental more attainable. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), means that families pay rent or purchase homes at prices determined by their incomes rather than by the housing market. These programs have strict and specific conditions that define eligibility. Income and family size are central, but other factors such as individuals with disabilities, senior status, or veterans may sometimes be a consideration. Since many more residents are qualified to receive Affordable Housing than housing is available, it is reasonable to ensure that the limited supply is occupied by those for whom it is intended. It is also logical to ensure that the housing is managed and maintained appropriately. Local County and city housing departments are charged with monitoring compliance with the conditions of the programs. A draft of the Sonoma County CDC Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures, presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2021, outlines their recommendations. Each of the nine cities would benefit from also having clearly defined procedures if they do not already exist.

In 2021, The Press Democrat published award-winning reports on a situation in Sonoma County where individuals rented apartments for which they were not eligible. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this specific situation. This case has been well documented by the press and investigated by County authorities and is still a subject for potential lawsuits.

For these reasons, the Grand Jury did not center its attention on this individual problem, but rather, asked more general questions. What are the requirements for access to Affordable Housing? What are the requirements for verifying and monitoring compliance with the

1 Prices are from the sales of single-family homes recorded in Sonoma County.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 3
regulations? How is the monitoring done? Is the monitoring sufficient to assure compliance? How common is fraud? How can monitoring be improved? This report attempts to answer these questions.

METHODOLOGY
This investigation was initiated in response to citizen complaints received by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury conducted interviews with key individuals in Sonoma County who are involved in the Affordable Housing arena. They included:
• County and City officials
• Non-profit agencies
• Affordable Housing agencies and advocates
The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated documents from a wide range of sources addressing Affordable Housing, including many websites, from Sonoma County, the nine cities, State and Federal agencies. The most important of these are listed in the Bibliography.

DISCUSSION
What is Affordable Housing?
Affordable Housing is defined in multiple ways and categories. Still, all are based on the ability of a tenant or buyer to pay no more than a specific percentage of their income for housing. The rules and requirements are complex; Article 89 of the Sonoma County zoning code, Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives, is 215 pages long. Eligibility resides in four or more categories, with income levels compared to the area median income (AMI) in Sonoma County. The AMI is determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using sampled census data for a four-person household. This number, which is currently $103,300, is used to calculate similar numbers for smaller and larger households using formulas developed by HUD. Rent levels are then defined in relation to family size and income level.

As an example, the tables below show income and rent limits used by the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) for rental housing in several (but not all) programs under its control. Other programs may use different limits, but the basic principles are the same; housing cost for the tenant is based on income, not on the market price of a comparable apartment or house.

Persons in
Household
Acutely Low
Income (15%
Area Median
Income)
Extremely
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
50% AMI
60%
AMI*
Low
Income
80%
AMI**
Median
Income
100%
AMI
Moderate
Income
120%
AMI
1 $10,850 $24,450 $40,750 $48,900 $65,150 $72,300 $86,750 2 12,400 27,950 46,550 55,860 74,450 82,650 99,150
3 13,950 31,450 52,350 62,820 83,750 92,950 111,550
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 4
4 15,500 34,900 58,150 69,780 93,050 103,300 123,950
5 16,750 37,700 62,850 75,420 100,500 111,550 133,850
6 18,000 40,500 67,500 81,000 107,950 119,850 143,800
7 19,200 43,300 72,150 86,580 115,400 128,100 153,700
8 20,450 46,100 76,800 92,160 122,850 136,350 163,600
Table 1: Maximum Income to Qualify for Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
As of January 1, 2022, the CDC uses the table above to determine eligibility for multiple categories of Affordable rental housing.
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Unit Size (assumed #
occupants)
Extremely Low Income Rent
Limit (30% AMI)
Very Low Income Rent
Limit (50% AMI)
Low Income Rent
Limit (60% AMI)*
Studio (1) $611 $1,019 $1,223
1 Bedroom (2) 699 1,164 1,397
2 Bedroom (3) 786 1,309 1,571
3 Bedroom (4) 873 1,454 1,745
4 Bedroom (5) 943 1,571 1,886
Table 2: Maximum rent limits for Inclusionary Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
*Housing Affordability Index vs. HUD definitions/thresholds The above table shows the maximum rent for an Affordable Housing unit as of January 1, 2022.

These rent limits are calculated using the formula in California Health & Safety Code 50052.5 & 50053. The rents are based on the income limits for an assumed household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. For example, the rent for a three-bedroom unit is based on the income limits for a four-person household. Unless otherwise specified, utility costs are included in the maximum rent as set by federal housing laws.

Affordable Housing can also be further directed to specific groups such as seniors, farm workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and in some cases, specific professions such as educators or health care workers.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 5
Subsidies for Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing is most common in mid-size to larger developments and can be considered in two categories.

1. One hundred percent Affordable Housing developments: These projects are often constructed and managed by mission-driven non-profit organizations such as MidPen or Burbank Housing, but for-profit developers are also represented here. Building and amenity standards for developments are also expected to ensure comparability to marketrate housing.

2. Inclusionary Affordable Housing: To encourage construction of Affordable Housing, local ordinances may specify a percentage of Affordable units, usually 10-20%, which must be included in a project. Inclusionary housing is almost always built by ‘for-profit’ developers who will rent or sell these units at lower Affordable rates while the other units will be rented or sold at the market rate. Both apartment complexes and single-family home developments are subject to inclusionary housing ordinances. These ordinances take effect only when a development reaches a specific size set by the County or city, for example 10 units.

The limitations on income and allowable prices often bear little relationship to the real-world costs of building, managing, and maintaining a housing development. Materials and labor costs for a project are the same whether the end product is Affordable or the market determines prices.

Affordable Housing projects typically have multiple funding sources, including Federal and State loans that have long-term fixed low interest rates and may allow deferment of repayment and eventual forgiveness. Funding can also come from Federal or State grants, and construction costs may be reduced by accelerating approvals and modifying some requirements such as the number of off-street parking spaces required.

Subsidies are available to supplement rent payments and thus allow some qualified residents to occupy either Affordable or market-rate housing. The best known of these are Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) which are funded by HUD and issued through local housing authorities. In Sonoma County, Section 8 vouchers are issued through the CDC and by the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority. A voucher holder can occupy any acceptable rental property where the landlord accepts the voucher and agrees to the program's requirements. The voucher is valid anywhere in the County or beyond, and the holder pays only an income-based portion of the rent; HUD pays the remainder directly to the landlord.

Unfortunately, the need for Affordable Housing greatly exceeds the available supply. Each Affordable Housing development has a waiting list that may include several years wait before a unit becomes available. Section 8 vouchers within Sonoma County also have a long waiting list.

New applicants can only join the Section 8 waiting list through a lottery process. The last lottery was held in October 2021 and the next is not expected until about October 2023. Again, the wait is measured in years.

How Much Affordable Housing is There in Sonoma County?
The website of Affordable Housing Online suggests that there are 8,700 Affordable rental apartments in Sonoma County. The site delineates 2,510 income-based units for which direct subsidies (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) are available and 6,023 apartments which are subsidized indirectly (e.g. as inclusionary units).

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 6
The CDC website identifies individual Affordable Housing developments, community by community. It shows a smaller number of apartments (8,129), but it is not clear when it was last updated. Santa Rosa lists individual complexes within the City, showing 3,817 Affordable units, while the CDC website shows 4,076 units in Santa Rosa. Again, it is unclear how current these numbers are. New construction is ongoing, and all of the specific numbers for Affordable units will probably be out of date by the time this report is published.

The number of Affordable apartments may appear to be large, but very few, if any, are actually available and unoccupied at any given time, resulting in long wait lists. Moreover, given the approximately half-million population of Sonoma County, there is not a sufficient supply to meet the need for an Affordable place to live.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing requirements of the greater area. It then prepares a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each county and its cities. The allocation for Sonoma County for 2023-2031 calls for 14,562 new housing units to be added over the next several years. Of this total, 3,999 are designated as very-low-income housing and 2,302 as low-income housing units. In each category, roughly one-third is allocated to Santa Rosa, one-third to the eight other cities of the County, and onethird to unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. If fulfilled, RHNA allocations would increase the number of Affordable units by more than two-thirds. The demand for oversight of these new residences would increase accordingly.

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Monitoring Requirements Access to Affordable Housing is a precious commodity and it should only be available to those who qualify. It is the responsibility of the local housing authorities to ensure that this is the case.

Monitoring of compliance with conditions and regulations is required on a regular basis for virtually all Affordable Housing programs. The diagram below illustrates the various obligations inherent in CDC oversight of Section 8 rental properties.

Figure 1. Participant Responsibilities in Section 8 Affordable Housing.

Source: Adapted from the CDC website.

Property owners must sign a rental agreement or lease with the Section 8 participant. The property owner agrees to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing as confirmed by regular Housing Authority inspections. The primary benefit to the property owner for participating in the program is that the federal government guarantees a portion of the rent.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 7
Property Owner Responsibilities Include:
• Perform all management and rental functions, including screening and selection of tenants.
• Maintain the units and property in accordance with Housing Quality Standards. • Prepare information required under the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract and furnish the information to the Housing Authority.

Sonoma County Housing Authority Responsibilities Include:
• Make rental assistance payments to the landlord in a timely manner. • Regularly evaluate family eligibility including income and family size. • Inspect units at least once every two years.
• Investigate potential fraud or program abuse by tenants or landlords.

Tenant Responsibilities Include:
• Supply information determined necessary by the Housing Authority or HUD to administer the program, including the completion of scheduled income reviews. • Act responsibly as a tenant, paying rent and utilities on time and minimizing damage to the property.
• Notify the Housing Authority and the owner 30 (no more than 60) days before moving or terminating the lease.

Inclusionary Rental Housing Monitoring Requirements: How is it Done in the Real World? Monitoring of inclusionary housing is clearly defined by County ordinance:

Rental Unit Monitoring: “The CDC shall monitor the rental of affordable units for compliance with the Affordable Housing Agreement and the provisions of this Article. On an annual basis, the owner shall pay to the CDC a fee for monitoring each unit subject to the Affordable Housing Agreement, which fee shall be established by resolution of the Board of Directors of CDC from time to time. (Ord. No. 6085, § IV (Exh. C), 10-7-2014)” Other housing jurisdictions may have similar or less specific monitoring expectations, while some do not define their procedures at all (see Table 3 below). Thus, housing personnel must deal with different sets of expectations for multiple properties within their jurisdiction. There are two approaches to monitoring compliance with Affordable Housing requirements:
• Self-Reporting: The owner/manager/landlord of a rental property is required to reconfirm eligibility for at least a percentage or specific number of Affordable Housing tenants, often on a set schedule. This involves verification of income and other factors, such as occupancy numbers, depending on the program under which the unit is rented. This information is reported to the CDC or to the local housing jurisdiction for units not under CDC purview. The housing departments are then required to verify that the information supplied by the landlord is accurate and complete. There is currently no CDC requirement for on-going compliance training for owners, managers, or staff. Within the cities, training is also limited.
• On-site monitoring: It would be wasteful of staff and resources to replicate the activities of the landlord, but spot-checking of some number or percentage of units is feasible. A housing department monitor visits a site, interviews the manager or owner, examines Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 8
selected records, verifies their accuracy with the tenants, and inspects the property, including one or more units.

In practice, on-site monitoring is done by first making an appointment with an owner or manager and describing what needs to be seen or done on a visit. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring is rarely or never done because the required documentation may be incomplete or unavailable. It could also be intrusive to tenants, and the owner, manager, or tenant may simply be unavailable when the monitor arrives. Interviewees stated that on-site monitoring was rare even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was eliminated during the COVID-19 restrictions, when non-essential contact was minimized to avoid spread of the virus. In most cases, on-site monitoring has not been reinstated. In practice, the County and Cities rely almost totally on selfreporting from developers and managers.

The costs of on-site monitoring and verification of self-reported data are the responsibility of the housing agency, and monitoring is often seen as an unfunded mandate. It is therefore not surprising that housing agencies in Sonoma County are motivated to accept the data supplied by owners and managers as accurate. Monitoring is also limited by staff availability, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. This has resulted in an inability to actually visit sites and interact with residents and managers. The lack of personnel was a significant concern to almost all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed. Again, this results in reliance on self-reporting by development owners and managers.

There are good reasons for owners and managers to monitor compliance accurately. Non-profit developers of Affordable Housing are mission-oriented. They are committed to providing Affordable Housing to those who qualify for it. Non-compliance is not only wrong, but also a threat to their continued access to low-cost financing and other concessions. For-profit complexes with inclusionary units also have good reasons to assure compliance. They too could lose access to low-cost financing, be subject to fines or lawsuits, and generate bad publicity and public distrust if they fail to comply with Affordable Housing agreements.

Incentives for owners and managers to minimize monitoring also exist for various reasons. • Compliance verification takes time and effort and therefore involves costs. • It can be intrusive to a tenant when the monitor needs to enter or inspect their apartment or house.
• Not everyone follows the prescribed guidelines; an unqualified friend, relative, or associate could be favored.
• Through mismanagement, Affordable units could be rented for more than the allowable amount.

Compliance monitoring is a significant burden to the housing departments which conduct it. The burden will increase significantly as RHNA requirements are met and the supply of Affordable Housing units is greatly increased. Unfortunately, the person-power, time, and resources allocated to monitoring already appear to be insufficient. The table below illustrates the size of the monitoring task and the resources currently available to do the work. Future RHNA Allocations represent the number of units which are expected or required to be added in each community between 2023 and 2031.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 9
Housing
Authority
Current
Number Of
Apartments
Future
RHNA
Allocation
Monitoring
Personnel
On-Site
Monitoring *
Cloverdale 221 117 None dedicated No
Cotati 88 94 None dedicated No
Healdsburg 352 299 None dedicated Rare
Petaluma 1,206 787 One + one open
position Annual
Rohnert Park 564 629 None dedicated No
Santa Rosa 4,076 1,919 One (80%) Not since Covid
Sebastopol 327 86 One, occasional No
Sonoma 389 131 One, part time Some
Unincorporated
So Co 109 1,632 One Rare
Windsor 398 607 One, part time No
Total 7,730 6,301
Table 3. Monitoring Tasks and Resources
Source: Interviews with multiple housing personnel
*On-site monitoring should include file reviews, grounds inspections, and apartment/house inspections. This monitoring was suspended during the COVID restrictions.

Inclusionary Housing Ownership Monitoring Requirements
Single-family homes are a smaller segment of Affordable Housing and are governed by somewhat different rules and expectations. Potential homebuyers are evaluated and their incomes are verified. The price of the house is then set, based on the income of the family.

Mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, etc. are factored into the amount paid. Continued income verification is not required, and incomes can increase beyond the Affordable level at which the house was purchased. However, if the house is resold, it must be sold as Affordable. The Grand Jury recommends that this information be attached to the title of the house and apparent to any title company involved in a resale. The requirement is central to the original contract; it allows the buildup of equity through mortgage payments, but ensures that the house remains Affordable for the next buyer. Housing departments should maintain an inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that their titles are flagged for restricted sale, and not at market rate.

Is There Significant Fraud in the Management of Affordable Housing? The Grand Jury investigation cannot provide a definitive answer to this question, nor can the housing departments that are charged with monitoring. No one the Grand Jury interviewed expressed fears of widespread misbehavior. Nevertheless, owners and managers have provided almost all of the information concerning compliance, with little or no opportunity for direct documentation by housing department monitors. Staff who were responsible for monitoring see this as a potential problem, and most expressed the desire to re-initiate on-site monitoring visits.

How Can Monitoring be Improved?
Housing personnel from the nine cities and the CDC meet regularly to discuss planning issues and the administration of their housing programs. Monitoring can be included in these Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 10
discussions, but the Grand Jury found there is, as yet, little coordination or cooperation in the actual monitoring process. Each city has its own personnel, procedures, and expectations, and none claim to give monitoring their highest priority. The quality of monitoring throughout the County could be improved if the various agencies agreed on a common set of goals, expectations, and procedures that set higher and more uniform standards. The CDC once provided leadership in this process and appears ready to do so again.

Petaluma and Rohnert Park make use of a customizable program from City Data Services that, among other things, helps streamline the monitoring process by moving it online. This, or a similar system, could help in tracking activities, managing documentation, and generally improving the quality of monitoring while simplifying it.

Essentially all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor. It is easy to suggest hiring more people, but that is especially unlikely to happen in the smaller cities due to budget restrictions. The Grand Jury believes it could be advantageous for the County and cities to cooperate by jointly using (and paying proportionately) staff to monitor countywide.

Alternatively, the agencies could jointly contract with a consulting firm to do the monitoring.

This would benefit the smaller cities in particular, since they have small staff sizes and fewer monitoring obligations that are more likely to be overlooked.

If self-reporting is to remain the main source of compliance information, it is important that those who collect and report it are adequately trained to compile the data. The people who do the reporting need to know how and why monitoring is important and necessary. The CDC, in conjunction with the Cities, could create an informational document or policy and procedures manual to provide upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring process.

CONCLUSION
Monitoring of compliance with the rules and regulations of Affordable Housing programs is complex. Responsibility lies with individual housing departments in the County and its nine cities. Staffing in these agencies is often insufficient, and there is little coordination amongst these organizations. Monitoring in general and on-site monitoring in particular have long been low priority. Requirements have been largely met by accepting self-reported data from owners and managers of apartment and housing units. The COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed in response to it placed almost total reliance on self-reported information. Systems that are already overburdened do not appear to be prepared for the large increases in Affordable Housing that are planned for the near future.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

F2. The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

F4. COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 11
F5. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

F6. Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done.

F7. The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

F8. There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

F9. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

F10. The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

F11. The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)
R2. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4)
R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)
R4. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission use informational documents and policies to provide ongoing training in the monitoring process for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects by January 1, 2023. (F7) R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8) R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)
R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11) R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10)
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 12

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Community Development Commission (R1, R2, R3, R4, R8) • City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8).
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Affordable Housing Online Affordable Housing Online
• Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022 Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/ • Sonoma County Board Of Supervisor Agenda 12/7/2021, Consent Calendar Item 2021- 1179, Sonoma County Community Development Commission - Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures Attachment 1-Existing Procedures Manual (not amended at this time), with Exhibits Summary Report
• Association of Bay Area Governments Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and Paloma Perez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 https://housingactioncoalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/HK-Housing-Handbook-2020.pdf • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Gallaher companies to pay $500,000 to settle claim from whistleblower who alleged affordable housing fraud, The Press Democrat, August 21, 2021 Gallaher Companies To Pay 500000 To Settle Claim From Whistleblower Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 13
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Former Gallaher employees at Santa Rosa apartment complex say they were pushed to take part in housing fraud schemes, The Press Democrat, September 3, 2021 Former Gallaher Employees At Santa Rosa Apartment Complex
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, In wake of newspaper investigation, Sonoma County launches review of affordable housing oversight, The Press Democrat, October 9, 2021 In Wake Of Newspaper Investigation Sonoma County Launches Review Of Affordable Housing
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Sonoma County to bolster oversight of affordable housing compliance after Press Democrat investigation, The Press Democrat, December 8, 2021 Sonoma County To Bolster Oversight Of Affordable Housing Compliance • Press Democrat Staff, Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award, The Press Democrat, March 16, 2022 Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 1
Affordable Housing: Past, Present and
Future
“Do It, or the State Will Do It For You”

SUMMARY
Housing in Sonoma County is widely considered to be in short supply and very expensive. The State of California, working through the Association of Bay Area Governments, has mandated that in the next few years 14,562 new houses and apartments should be built in the County.

Specific allocations give approximately one-third of the units to Santa Rosa, one third to the other eight Cities, and one-third to the unincorporated areas of the County. This housing expansion is expected to occur between 2023 and 2031 as part of the State’s larger strategic plan; it is referred to as the 6th cycle housing element, following a much less ambitious 5th cycle covering 2015 to 2023. The 5th cycle plan was essentially aspirational and advisory. The 6th cycle plan is mandatory; jurisdictions that do not meet expectations can be fined or even lose local control of housing to the State.

Of the almost 15,000 new homes and apartments in the allocation, more than half are designated as Affordable Housing for very low, low, and moderate-income families. These income categories are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI), which is determined annually by HUD. For Sonoma County, the 2022 AMI for a family of four is $103,300. HUD then defines very low income as 30-50% of AMI, low income as 50-80% of AMI, and moderate income as 80-120% of AMI. (Some programs define low-income as below 60% of AMI.) The 6th cycle allocations for Sonoma County include 3,999 very-low-income units, 2,302 low-income units, and 2,302 moderate income housing units.

Affordable Housing costs cannot exceed 30% of a family’s gross income. This means that rent and utilities for a family of four earning $50,000 cannot exceed $15,000 per year or $1,250 per month, regardless of the much higher market price of equivalent housing. To be economically viable, Affordable Housing development employs a variety of subsidies, inducements, and demands. This report examines factors that affect the development of Affordable Housing, both positive and inhibitory. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance,” looks at governmental oversight of existing Affordable Housing.

Some housing developments are 100% Affordable; every apartment in the complex is rented at a rate determined by family gross income. Affordable Houses are sold on the same basis. These developments are usually created by non-profit, mission-oriented organizations, and they rely heavily on grants, subsidies, and concessions. A second type of development, referred to as inclusionary housing, requires Affordable Housing units to be included within a market rate development. Different inclusionary housing ordinances govern Sonoma County and each of its Cities. They specify that 5% to 20% of apartments or houses, in projects of five to ten or more units, must be dedicated in one or more of the Affordable Housing categories.

Many programs exist to support construction of Affordable Housing. Financing is usually a central concern. Federal tax credits, which can be sold to investors to provide cash for planning and construction, are the most common. Low interest long term loans and HUD loan guarantees Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 2
also provide financing. Grants are sometimes available, often to support Affordable Housing directed to specific groups such as farm workers, veterans, or seniors. Builders of Affordable Housing may be eligible for specific concessions such as reduced or waived costs for fees, expedited review, modification of housing density limitations, or reduction of requirements for amenities such as off-street parking or landscaping.

Recent changes in the State law also encourage the production of Affordable Housing.

California Senate Bill 9 allows, with specific limitations, construction of a second rentable house on an existing lot. Senate Bill 10 encourages zoning changes that allow the development of smaller projects as infill, within existing neighborhoods and especially near public transit centers such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more easily through the approval process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects. Other laws simplify construction of rentable Accessory Dwelling Units (sometimes called in-law units) on a lot with an existing house.

There are also many impediments to the creation of Affordable Housing. Land costs in Sonoma County are high and typically constitute about 20% of the cost of a project. The availability of financing is highly competitive and very complex. Proposals are subjected to careful scrutiny and analysis before consideration, and the process is very slow. For example, federal loan guarantees may take seven months to a year for approval. Projects normally need several different forms of financing, each of which has its own application procedures, regulations, and timetable.

Inclusionary housing ordinances differ for each jurisdiction in the County. The same is true of various mitigation fees, designed to offset the costs to the jurisdiction of additional demand for parkland, fire and police services, sewage, traffic, and separately to school districts. There are also different fees and procedures for building permits in the Cities and County. The complexity generated by different fees and rules, each subject to interpretation, increases the cost and difficulty of building Affordable Housing. The cost of permits and mitigation fees is significant; a range of 11-20% of building costs is cited by several interviewees.

A major problem in the development of Affordable Housing is public opposition, often summarized by the phrase “Not In My Backyard” or the acronym NIMBY. Opposition takes many forms: anti-development or environmental concerns, traffic worries, potential property value losses, and more, including both open and unspoken racial and ethnic prejudices. It is vital that local opinions are heard and that accommodations be made whenever reasonable. Several interviewees indicated that no Affordable Housing will be built if a small number of opponents cannot compromise.

This is a self-initiated report by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury).

The Grand Jury makes several recommendations that could simplify and accelerate the development of Affordable Housing and help the County and its Cities reach their Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 3
• CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HLT Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
• LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits
• NIMBY Not In My Backyard
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• YIMBY Yes In My Back Yard

BACKGROUND
In 2021, The Press Democrat published a series of articles detailing the rental of Affordable Housing units to unqualified individuals at an apartment development near Santa Rosa. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this particular situation. A companion report, Affordable Housing: Compliance and Monitoring, details the Grand Jury’s investigation of the general problem of oversight of existing Affordable Housing in Sonoma County. Further questions arose during the investigation, leading the Grand Jury to an expanded look into Affordable Housing in the County and its cities.

The term ‘affordable housing’ can have different meanings depending on context:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to a company executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

Affordable Housing in the context of this report refers to housing that is priced on the basis of ability to pay, and not on the market rate of a rental apartment or of a house to buy or rent.

Affordability is defined relative to the Area Median Income (AMI), the income at which an equal number of families earn more and an equal number of families earn less. The AMI value is determined annually by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is specific to an area.

The AMI for a family of four is derived from selected census data. As of January 1, 2022, this value for Sonoma County is $103,300. This number is updated annually. AMI values for other sized families are determined mathematically using this number as a basis. Four-person family income limits that define eligibility for Affordable Housing are then defined in several categories as shown below.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 4
Table 1. Income Limits to Qualify for Affordable Housing Source: CDC
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Annual costs for Affordable Housing are then determined as a maximum of 30% of gross income. As an example, a family of four with a gross income of $45,000 would be classified as Very Low-Income. Their maximum housing costs would be 30% of $45,000 or $13,500 per year / $1,125 per month. Utilities are included within the 30% limit, as are property taxes and insurance for owner-occupied housing. The calculations above are only relevant if an Affordable Housing unit is available. Housing officials, builders, and advocates have all told this Grand Jury that Affordable Housing units are in very short supply with long wait lists.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing situation in the region, including Sonoma County, and makes recommendations for specific housing goals.

The County is currently involved in planning its 6th Cycle Housing Element, a part of the County’s general plan. The housing element includes:
• A housing needs assessment.
• Evaluation of past performance—in this case 5th cycle success or failure. • An inventory of potential housing sites.
• Community outreach.
• Analysis of constraints and barriers to housing development. • Establishment of policies and programs to meet the goals.

The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the period of 2023 to 2031. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from ABAG demands a large increase in all areas of the County, including significant numbers of new Affordable Housing units. For example, unincorporated Sonoma County is mandated to create 3,881 new housing units—apartments or single-family homes— during this period, and 1,632 of these should be Affordable in the low and very-low income categories. This is a sharp increase over the total of 515 units allocated to unincorporated Sonoma County in the 5th cycle. The nine cities of the County also have specific 6th cycle allocations as shown in Table 2.

Category Percent of AMI Maximum Annual Income
Acutely Low Income 15% $15,500
Extremely Low Income 30% $34,900
Very Low Income 50% $58,150
AMI* 60% $69,780
Low Income ** 80% $93,050
Median Income 100% $103,300
Moderate Income 120% $123,950
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 5
Table 2: The Final RHNA Allocation
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031 RHNA allocations in the past have been strong recommendations and housing goals for Sonoma County and its nine cities. These recommendations and goals have not always been met. Recent legislative changes make the 6th cycle allocations more of a mandate, with the threat that if counties or cities do not fulfill their obligations, they can be fined and even lose authority to the State over their housing programs. The chart in Appendix A outlines this process.

In this report the Grand Jury examines the larger questions surrounding the need for additional housing in Sonoma County, and in particular its shortage of Affordable Housing. What is planned? What progress is being made? What are the incentives? What are the obstacles to meeting housing goals? This is a self-initiated investigation of a topic of wide concern and activity.

METHODOLOGY
For this investigation, the Grand Jury conducted 21 interviews including:
• Housing representatives from Sonoma County and its nine cities • Individuals involved in planning, construction, and management of Affordable Housing • Housing advocates and advisors
The Grand Jury also examined multiple websites and documents dealing with aspects of Affordable Housing policy, programs, and regulations. In addition, Grand Jury members attended public meetings on this topic.

DISCUSSION
California is infamous for its housing costs and shortages, and Sonoma County is no exception.

Based on house sales data, The Press Democrat reported median resale house prices in January 2022 exceeded three quarters of a million dollars in the County; median prices in Healdsburg or along the coastline were twice as high. Houses that were too expensive a year ago are more expensive now. The State of California recognizes that we have a housing crisis, and in Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 6
particular a significant shortage of Affordable Housing. Sonoma County has become a place where people with ordinary incomes cannot afford to live.

Factors that Favor the Development of Affordable Housing Governmental Policies and Commitment
The State of California has mandated the creation of new housing, including significant amounts of Affordable Housing. This mandate is quantified through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determination of needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG allocates housing units through its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Sonoma County and each of the nine Cities officially favor increasing the supply of housing, although not always with full acceptance of RHNA allocations. Results from the 5th Cycle Housing Element are also informative. Although the 5th cycle continues through the end of 2022, and all housing jurisdictions reported progress, though not all their goals, such as those for low-income and very low-income units, will be attained. Fifth cycle allocations were recommendations, and they were small compared to the 6th cycle requirements. The jurisdictions will need to increase their efforts to avoid the possibility of State sanctions or State assumption of local control over housing: “Do It, or the State Will Do It For You” Changes in Law
The State of California has passed several new laws to encourage housing development in general, and Affordable Housing in particular.
• SB 9 Housing Development: Approvals, which took effect January 1, 2022, allows construction of a second full unit on a lot that already has a single-family home or duplex. Because cities and counties maintain local control under SB9, and can impose limitations on lot size, etc., it is unclear how often it will be used. It allows larger structures than the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or ‘in-law” unit, and can be available for rent. This law also allows for the modification to an existing dwelling unit to include rentable space as a Junior Additional Dwelling Unit (JADU). However, in most jurisdictions, there is no guarantee that the ADU or JADU will be affordable housing.
• SB 10 Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density, which took effect January 1, 2022, eases the development of small housing complexes (10 or fewer units) as infill within cities or near transit hubs such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Infill can be described as building on unused and underutilized lands within existing development Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 7
patterns. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research states that infill is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally and socially sustainable. While maintaining local control, SB 10 allows pro-housing governments to re-zone appropriate land parcels with fewer potential roadblocks. It does not change the approval process for the building(s).
• SB 35 Planning and Zoning: Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process, has been in effect since 2018. It allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more quickly through the approval process. It also restricts the ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects, and in some cases removes requirements for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the project. • SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019, modifies planning and zoning law. It prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws or raising administrative barriers that would reduce or delay housing construction. This law was set to expire in 2025, but SB-8 (2021) extends parts of the legislation to 2030 and 2034. • AB 491 Housing: Affordable and Market Rate Units, enacted in 2021, requires that Affordable Housing apartments in multifamily developments be integrated within the complex and have the same access to common areas and amenities. AB 1043 (2021) adds “Acutely Low Income”, defined as below 15% of AMI, as a category of lower income households that can be targeted for Affordable Housing.

Local housing ordinances have also been passed or modified to increase the percentage of Affordable units in a project and to lengthen the time period that the units must be rented as Affordable Housing. Many earlier projects had 30-year timespans for required affordability while current restrictions usually range from 50 to 99 years.

Paths to Affordable Housing
The two major paths to the creation of Affordable Housing are:
• 100% Affordable Housing complexes: In this type of project, every apartment or house is intended to be available under the umbrella of Affordable within one or more of the categories of Table 1. These developments are most often apartment complexes, built and managed by not-for-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and Mid Pen Housing. These organizations are mission-oriented; they exist to provide Affordable Housing.

Projects are often opportunistic in that they depend heavily on the availability of land, often publicly owned. In addition, funding may be directed toward a specific need such as senior housing. Commercial builders may also construct 100% affordable projects. • Inclusionary Housing: Sonoma County and its cities have adopted ordinances that mandate that a percentage of apartments or houses in a development must be Affordable.

The mandate usually applies only when a development includes at least some specific number of units, typically 5 to 10. The percentage of Affordable units varies with the jurisdiction, usually 10-20%, often divided between low-income and very low-income.

The inclusionary units must remain Affordable for a defined time period, typically 50 years or more. Inclusionary housing ordinances guarantee that the supply of Affordable Housing will grow in conjunction with market-rate housing. They also foster integration Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 8
of Affordable units within market-rate developments, leading to greater economic diversity.

Less common routes include:
• Rehabilitation and Repurposing: A variation on the theme of new building is rehabilitation and re-direction of an existing complex. For example, an apartment building could be purchased, then updated or rehabilitated, and re-occupied as Affordable Housing. Likewise, a motel can be remodeled and repurposed as transitional housing. • Housing Land Trusts: A less common avenue to Affordable Home ownership is exemplified by a Housing Land Trust. The Housing Land Trust maintains ownership of the land on which a house is built; the house is sold in accordance with Affordable Housing income limits.
• Accessory Dwelling Units: ADUs are additional housing units that are legally added to a residential property. Sometimes referred to as in-law units, they can be attached to or separated from the existing residence. ADUs may
be new construction or converted from existing
space. A Junior ADU (JADU) is a smaller version
of an ADU. It is an independent, legally rentable
unit that must exist within the existing dwelling
unit or an attached accessory structure such as a
garage. They can contain a very simple kitchen
with small appliances and share a bathroom with
the original dwelling. Consequently, development
costs for JADUs are lower. Both ADUs and
JADUs can be rented.

Who Builds Affordable Housing?
Non-Profit/Mission-Oriented Builders
Mission-oriented non-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and MidPen Housing construct and manage developments in which every unit is Affordable. These organizations exist for the sole purpose of providing high-quality housing for those who cannot afford to rent or buy market-rate accommodations. They are widely respected and supported within Sonoma County.

Builders of Inclusionary Housing
Most housing developments within Sonoma County are required to include some percentage of Affordable units. They fall under inclusionary housing ordinances, which are in effect in Sonoma County and all of its nine Cities. Requirements vary, but most include provisions for both low-income and very low-income units. The ordinances typically specify that inclusionary units must be comparable to the market-rate units with respect to appearance, appliances, access to amenities, etc. Units cannot be concentrated in one building or area, but should be integrated throughout the development. The intent is to make the inclusionary houses or apartments difficult to identify as Affordable Housing and thus to avoid stigmatization.

A developer may decide that the mandated number of inclusionary units is inappropriate for the project. Most ordinances have provisions that allow payment of an in-lieu fee to either reduce or eliminate the inclusionary requirement. If ‘feeing out’ is approved by the jurisdiction, the fees Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 9
go into a housing fund to support construction of Affordable Housing. Unfortunately, these fees rarely provide enough funding to actually build an affordable unit.

While a few jurisdictions support feeing out as a way of providing more flexibility to support future Affordable projects, other governing bodies oppose or have eliminated the payment of inlieu fees as counter to the desire for more Affordable Housing.

Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
The Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (HLT) is a non-profit organization supporting lowor moderate income housing. In the housing land trust model, the land on which a house (or possibly a condominium) is built, is owned by the HLT while the house itself belongs to the purchaser. The family income of the buyer, usually with zero down payment, determines the purchase price of the house. The owner is then responsible for the mortgage and taxes plus a small monthly lease payment on the land. The house deed is restricted; any resale must be in the category (low or moderate income) of the original purchase. Thus the house remains Affordable through the period of the land lease, usually 99 years. HLT houses can be inclusionary units in a development or one-off opportunities. The land title can be deeded to the HLT by the developer, donated by an owner or government agency, or purchased by the HLT.

Manufactured and Factory Built Housing
Both manufactured and factory-built housing have cost advantages over conventional construction methods and thus can increase the supply of Affordable Housing. • Manufactured housing generally refers to homes that are built totally in a construction facility and transported intact to a site such as a mobile home park. The cost of manufactured homes is typically less than that of custom-built homes. They are also more limited in size and design. Often the land on which a home sits is not owned by the homeowner, and rent must be paid. Although construction standards have improved, manufactured homes may still carry the stigma of being flimsy and unlikely to increase in value.
• Factory built housing refers to housing that is often modular, constructed in a facility and transported and assembled on a building site. It can be considerably less expensive than traditional on-site building. Modules can be more easily adapted to meet local building codes, and its design can be much more flexible than manufactured housing. However, many of the cost advantages of factory-built housing can be negated by long transportation distances and associated costs.

Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Older apartment buildings may have included Affordable units that had shorter term restrictions (e.g. 30 years) before reverting to market rate. Other apartment buildings, motels, or homes may simply become available for purchase. If funds are available, developers or jurisdictions can purchase such properties, modernize or rehabilitate them, and repurpose the units as Affordable Housing.

Project Homekey, a successor to Project Roomkey, is a statewide effort to combat homelessness.

Administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, it makes grants to local housing entities to enable them to develop interim or permanent housing for unhoused people. Rehabilitation through Project Homekey has been used to purchase and reAgenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 10
purpose the Azura Hotel in Santa Rosa and the Sebastopol Inn in Sebastopol. They were then repurposed and converted into accommodations and support services for homeless individuals who were highly susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Both properties will eventually be converted to permanent Affordable Housing for households earning no more than 30% of AMI.

Targeted Housing
Affordable Housing is sometimes targeted to specific groups. Often the availability of directed funding provides an opportunity to generate Affordable Housing for defined populations. Senior Citizen housing complexes are the most common. Based on available funding from the U. S.

Department of Agriculture, a recently approved project in Cloverdale specifies housing for agricultural workers. Veterans, individuals with disabilities or special needs or other groups may qualify for specific projects.

Incentives to Build Affordable Housing; Loans, Grants, Tax Credits The cost of building an Affordable house or apartment is not inherently different from the cost of building a market-rate property, but the potential income from the Affordable unit is significantly less. Incentives are used to help projects be economically viable. A summary of these programs is provided below. A more detailed listing of programs is presented in Appendix A.

Federal Programs
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): This program is the most important Affordable Housing support mechanism, worth $8 billion per year. The credits are issued to the states by the Federal Government. State housing agencies award the credits to developers of Affordable Housing. Developers can then sell the credits to investors to obtain funding for a project.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): This HUD program allocates funds on a formula basis to states, counties and cities for projects that improve the quality of living for residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the AMI. Examples include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and provision of homeless shelters. • HOME Investments Partnership Program: This program provides block grants to states and localities that are often used in partnership with local nonprofit groups to build, buy, or rehabilitate Affordable Housing.
• Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined with the (LIHTC) program.

State Programs
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities: This program invests cap-and-trade money in Affordable Housing infill projects close to transportation services and infrastructure. In 2022, this program provides $130 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2): This Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 recording fee, charged every time real estate documents are recorded.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 11
• Multifamily Housing Program (SB 3): The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 provides $1.5 billion in bonds for this program which provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental Affordable Housing. • No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for housing the unhoused and people living with mental illness. The actual funding started in 2019.
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Loans: CalHFA offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for developers and low to moderate income first-time home buyers.
• Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. These grants provide gap funding for infrastructure improvements on qualifying infill housing projects.

Sonoma County and Local Funding programs
• Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): CHF was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of low, very low, and extremely low income Affordable Housing. CFH provides loans and grants from various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees. • Cities: Some cities utilize the fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees assessed on new residential developments, in-lieu fees, and linkage fees assessed on new commercial developments provide the funds.

Concessions
A variety of modifications to requirements for new construction are intended to increase the supply of Affordable Housing. Some of the most common are:
• Density bonuses: Zoning ordinances usually define the maximum allowable residential density on a site. Inclusion of greater than
required numbers of Affordable units can allow up
to 50% higher density in a project, resulting in
increased potential revenue.
• Fee reduction or waiver: Some jurisdictions may
waive or reduce mitigation fees for Affordable
Housing. This is common for ADU and JADU
construction; for example, Petaluma waives fees
on ADUs of less than 750 square feet. Fee waivers are also sometimes possible for other Affordable Housing construction projects. Santa Rosa has a fee reduction program for high density multi-unit Affordable Housing in the downtown area. Fresno allows deferral of all mitigation fees until an Affordable Housing unit is occupied, and recently expanded a fee waiver program for infill and transit-oriented units. • Development incentives: A variety of concessions or incentives support construction of Affordable Housing. For example, in return for increased inclusionary units, the Shiloh Terrace project in Windsor proposed a reduction in the number of parking spaces, changes in height restrictions and a reduction in open space requirements.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 12
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) waivers: CEQA serves to inform the public on environmental effects of proposed discretionary projects through environmental impact reports. Under some circumstances, CEQA requirements can be waived to speed up the process.
• There can be flexibility in other site-specific factors such as public transportation access, numbers of trees, covered parking spaces, walkability of the area, playground space, etc.

Public Education
Public opposition to housing growth is common, and informational programs and processes can help modify public opinion. Sonoma County and its cities all provide information on their websites that is intended to increase public awareness of local policies. Planning documents such as Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 outline housing policies and goals, including Affordable Housing. Generation Housing, a Sonoma County advocacy group, provides educational materials such as State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022, and a housing project tracking tool that provides identification and status information on Affordable Housing projects in the County. There is even a public support movement, Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY), that argues for increased housing density in cities.

Factors that Inhibit Development of Affordable Housing
Although there is Federal, State and local support for the concept of Affordable Housing and there are many programs to support it, there are also barriers that keep its supply well below its demand. Some of these barriers are common to all housing construction, and some are more specific to Affordable Housing.

Public Acceptance of Affordable Housing - NIMBY: Not in My Backyard The need for more housing, including Affordable Housing, is officially recognized by the State of California, Sonoma County, and its nine cities. These housing needs are widely understood but not universally endorsed by the public and some cities, especially with respect to Affordable Housing. Often an opinion, stated as “Affordable Housing in some other city or county” is more popular than “Affordable Housing in my town”, which is perhaps better than “Affordable Housing in my neighborhood” and much more acceptable than “Affordable Housing next door to me.” The strongest opposition to a project most often comes from those it most immediately Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 13
affects. Factors that contribute to Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)ism with respect to Affordable Housing include:
• Fear of any new development that will change the character of the County, city, or neighborhood. Many residents of Sonoma County are simply happy with the way things are. Many came here to escape more crowded environments. They see no need for population growth, more houses, new apartment complexes, high-rise buildings, busier roads, or losing their view, etc.
• Fear and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing residents: Affordable Housing is often seen as solely aimed at groups who will, in accord with negative stereotypes, alter or degrade the neighborhood. It should be noted that ordinances demand that Affordable Housing developments and houses be compatible with their neighborhoods and not stand out as different or of inferior construction. Inclusionary apartments should also be interspersed with the market-rate apartments in a multi-unit building. • Environmental concerns: In 2006 Sonoma County voters strongly supported the reauthorization of a 1990 sales tax increment to fund the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. The rural and agricultural nature of the County is seen by some as incompatible with growth. Support for CEQA is generally high. Water shortages due to continuing drought, air quality degradation from more traffic, and loss of wildlife habitat are cited as concerns. Many environmentalists favor new housing, especially infill, because denser, city-centered developments, and modern construction methods can be more effective in reducing water and energy usage. • Infrastructure and resource concerns: New housing means more traffic and congestion, more streets and roads, more schools, stores and offices, more sewage and trash, yet all within the limitations of water, land, transportation, and the costs to the community of expansion. Residents fear that they will be paying the costs of newcomers, even though general housing expansion and Affordable Housing development are aimed at current Sonoma County residents who cannot find or afford a decent place to live. • Property value concerns: There is a common fear that the presence of Affordable Housing will lower the value of existing properties nearby. Don’t Put it Here!, a study from the New York University Furman Center, found that Affordable Housing had neither a positive nor a negative effect on nearby property values. A review of several studies by the Urban Studies Program at San Francisco State University found no effect on nearby property values in 13 of 14 investigations.
• Natural disaster preparedness: Sonoma County has experienced major disasters in the last few years and needs to be prepared for the next challenge: fire, flood, or earthquake.

Many areas in the County have only one or two potential escape or access routes. In an emergency, roads could quickly become impassable, overcrowded, or clogged with traffic. More housing raises fears of reduced safety. This concern needs attention from emergency management entities regardless of additional housing; it is not solely a concern for new housing.
• Racial and ethnic concerns: Few people openly admit to racial or ethnic prejudice.

Nevertheless, racial and ethnic stereotypes, although often unspoken, remain. There is concern that those people will not ‘fit into the neighborhood”. A potential cultural Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 14
enrichment is seen as a threat. This is a problem that extends far beyond Sonoma County and needs to be understood and countered nationally and beyond.

Inconsistent and Complex Governmental Regulations and Commitment to Affordable Housing Although all jurisdictions in Sonoma County support the addition of Affordable Housing, the levels of support, commitment, and accomplishment are not uniform. • Inclusionary housing ordinances vary widely from city to city. The minimum number of units in an inclusionary development can be 5, 7, or 10 depending on city policy. In-lieu fees can be welcomed, tolerated or prohibited. The minimal number of inclusionary units ranges from 5% to 25%, with most jurisdictions requiring 15%. The mix of low, very low, and (sometimes) extremely low priced units is inconsistent between cities.

Santa Rosa and Petaluma have different requirements that favor city center developments over those outside the inner core.
• Zoning ordinances in some cities favor single family home construction over multifamily housing. Affordable single family homes for purchase are often directed at moderate (up to 120% AMI) or median income levels, whereas Affordable rental apartments are more commonly directed at low income (less than 80% or less than 60% AMI) or very low income (less than 50% AMI) families.
• Lack of political will from County officials or city councils: Elected officials are expected to consider the opinions of their constituents, and sometimes there is strong opposition to a project. For example, a project in Cloverdale was approved by a split vote in early 2022, but only after two council votes and considerable discussion. The City of Sonoma created or expanded three historic districts early in 2022, greatly limiting the possibility of expanding housing in those areas. The North Bay Bohemian cites a recent ordinance in the City of Sonoma that requires that any property on which a second housing unit is proposed must have at least three mature trees and ten shrubs.

These requirements would limit SB 9 implementation. In addition, a proposed multiunit development in Sebastopol has been on-hold since 2019 due to public concerns, but may be able to move forward based on SB 35 implementation. • Commercial development may be considered more favorably than housing, including Affordable Housing. Interviews with housing officials indicated that new housing had a negative impact on their budgets. Despite mitigation fees and taxes, services for new residents usually cost more than the income they bring to the jurisdiction. In contrast, a large commercial development such as a car dealership or a big box store brings in added sales taxes while not requiring social services, new schools, parks, etc. Similarly, a hotel generates occupancy taxes for a city.
• City Boundaries and Their Spheres of Influence: Each City has a well-defined boundary within which it has jurisdiction. The Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission, which regulates city and special district boundaries, delineates Spheres of Influence:
areas adjacent to the cities and potentially appropriate for annexation and siting of Affordable Housing. Cloverdale has utilized this, resulting in City Council approval of the design and development plan for the Bumgardner Ranch Project in September 2020.

Other jurisdictions have hesitated to annex adjacent property. Most cited the costs of bringing infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, parks and other amenities) to the added territory in order to develop it into housing.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 15
• In November 2018, Santa Rosa voters defeated an Affordable Housing bond measure (Measure N), and Sonoma County refused to put a similar measure on the ballot.

Additionally, some housing advocates we interviewed don’t think Affordable Housing measures would pass today because of low levels of public acceptance.

Land and Construction Costs
Any factor that increases building costs has a disproportionate effect on Affordable Housing, since higher costs cannot be offset with higher rents or house prices. Land values in Sonoma County are high and rising. In their 2022 report State of Housing in Sonoma County, Generation Housing (Gen H, a non-profit advocacy group), indicates that the average cost of a quarter acre home lot rose 117% between 2012 and 2018, from $128,100 to $278,600. The land accounted for 34.7% of the cost of building a house. Apartment
developments require less land per unit than individual houses. Nevertheless builders report that land costs usually represent about 20% of the cost of such projects.

Skilled and unskilled building workers are in high demand and able to command good wages. It can be hard to find
construction workers. Interviewees indicated that project labor agreements (or prevailing wage agreements) can add to labor costs by as much as 20-30%. Construction
materials are also currently expensive and hard to get because of pandemic-induced supply problems. Lumber prices surged in 2021, and components that had been plentiful remain scarce.

A New York Times article in February 2022 indicated it took 20 weeks to acquire a garage door, without which a house normally cannot get an occupancy permit. Other shortages of materials can delay projects for weeks.

Availability and Complexity of Financing
There are many government programs that help finance Affordable Housing, yet there is never enough money to fund everything. Funding programs are almost all highly competitive, and application processes are complex and slow. For example, HUD advises applicants for Section 221(d)(4) loan guarantees that the time to complete the process is 7 to 12 months; documentation requirements are extensive and carefully checked, and application fees are significant. • 100% Affordable Housing projects can have larger hurdles to overcome. Extensive evaluation of the site, project details, local need, and especially the economic viability of the project need to be documented in detail. Financing is particularly complex. One person interviewed by the Grand Jury described a 100% Affordable Housing project that needed ten different sources of funding, and that a typical project uses seven. Multiple funding sources often have different affordability, documentation, monitoring, and timing requirements.

Complex Multistep Approval Processes
Even when a jurisdiction is strongly pro-housing, the pathway from concept to finished construction is complicated. For a typical inclusionary or 100% Affordable Housing project, steps include:
• Site identification and acquisition: A private builder may already own appropriately zoned land or be able arrange a loan and purchase through normal channels. A nonAgenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 16
profit organization might first need to arrange low cost loans or grant funding for the purchase, or it could also depend on a donated site with restrictions on how it could be developed. This step may take a few months to over a year. • Preliminary design reviews: County or local design review boards concern themselves with multiple aspects of the project, including geology of the site, appropriateness of the project, housing density, size and appearance of the buildings, space use, landscaping and amenities, site access and parking, neighborhood impact, environmental considerations, access to utilities, and access to public transportation and services.

Financing for the project may be arranged, or at least in process. Public opinion is sought, and hopefully an economically viable project is given preliminary approval.

This step usually takes several months to more than a year, and occasionally a project can lie dormant for longer periods.
• Final design and approval involve public review, payment of a variety of mitigation fees, procurement of permits, and approval by city or county authorities. At this stage there may be modifications to plans to accommodate public or environmental concerns.

Sometimes a builder might want to alter the number of Affordable units by the payment of in-lieu fees. Funding must be finalized. This step may also take several months or more to complete.
• Construction can now begin. Recent shortages of materials and labor have slowed this step. It is in the interest of the builder to complete the project quickly since money is being spent but no rents are being collected.

Builders interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the process from concept to occupied housing usually takes four years or more. 100% Affordable Housing projects can be slower because of the greater complexity of obtaining funding.

The planning stages, which include negotiations between builders and planning staff, can be lengthy and involved. Several individuals the Grand Jury spoke with were critical of the complexity and bureaucracy involved in the planning process. Builders felt that their concerns were sometimes not understood.

CEQA Exploitation and Misuse
The California Environmental Quality Act was passed in 1970 with the aim of identifying and mitigating the environmental effects of public projects. As detailed in a recent article in The Atlantic, the scope of CEQA has expanded to cover almost any private project that requires a level of governmental approval. CEQA lawsuits are relatively easy and inexpensive to bring, but they can demand lengthy and expensive environmental studies and significantly delay a project, add to its costs, and even cause its abandonment. Studies cited in the article indicate that multifamily housing is the most common target of CEQA lawsuits, and that up to 80% concern infill housing, projects that are often likely to be more environmentally friendly than e.g. industrial construction. California SB 35 attempts to limit arbitrary use of CEQA.

Mitigation Fees: What Keeps Them from Building Quickly or At All Additional housing, including Affordable Housing, adds to the need for infrastructure and government services, such as fire and police. Mitigation fees, levied on both new construction and remodeling of housing, are designed to offset some or all of these costs. Fees vary widely in Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 17
Sonoma County, but all are a significant cost of development. As an example, the fee schedule for Sebastopol is shown below.

Every other jurisdiction has its own set of fees, and both the amounts and the nature of the charges are different in each jurisdiction. For example, in Cloverdale, the list of fees is different, but the average total shown on their website is about $41,000 for a house and $30,500 per apartment unit. In January 2022, the fee total for a single family house in Santa Rosa was $51,862. In Windsor, traffic mitigation fees alone are $11,475 and $6,941. Developers complained to the Grand Jury about both the cost and the inconsistency of these fees.

In addition, school district mitigation fees are charged separately and also vary considerably.

The Rincon Valley School District charges $2.86 per square foot of newly constructed housing.

The equivalent figure for Cotati/Rohnert Park is $3.79 per sq. ft. while Cloverdale has a proposal for $4.79 per sq. ft. Some jurisdictions set fees that are directed at a specific problem or situation. As an example, the continuing drought has led to the adoption of a Water Demand Offset Policy in the City of Santa Rosa. Funds from this fee would be used to implement projects or plans to offset the water needs of the development.

Building Permits, Review Processes, and Personnel
Virtually any construction or rehabilitation of housing requires building permits from the governing authority. Again, there is great variability in the nature and costs of required permits and in the time needed to secure them. Grand Jury interviews of builders and developers indicate that they accept that permitting oversight is needed to ensure quality and meet accepted standards (code), and that costs are involved in approval processes. Builders also wish that more self-certification or video-based remote certification was available. They accept that permit personnel are generally reasonable and professional in their actions. Nevertheless, the inconsistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in processes and procedures is seen as a hindrance to development. They further complain that the permitting process is often very slow, and permit departments often fail to meet their own goals for timeliness. Slowness was considered to be more of a problem than permit costs.

Nevertheless, the total cost of mitigation fees and permit fees is significant. Interviewees indicated that, depending on the nature and cost of a project, between 11% and as much as 20% of the total cost of construction can go to paying fees.

Complex multi-step review processes also add to costs by slowing the pace of a development and increasing the amount of paperwork involved in it. Cotati has attempted to ease this problem by essentially combining preliminary and final review processes into a more streamlined and direct Purpose Single Family House Multiunit Apartment
(per unit)
Park Land $7,276 $4,958
Park Facilities 5,922 4,036
Traffic Impact 8,174 4624
General Government 3,017 2,056
Fire Facilities 1,000 681
Stormwater Facilities 5,502 2,830
Total $30,891 $19,185
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 18
negotiation. Lack of sufficient personnel in planning departments was cited as a problem in several interviews. In Sonoma County, staffing of planning departments can range from one person to four or more. Understaffing complicates all aspects of development of additional housing. In contrast, Petaluma takes a novel approach by contracting with an outside consultant to manage their effective Affordable Housing programs.

Unoccupied Housing: Time Shares, Airbnb, Pacaso, etc.

Areas with high levels of tourism can experience large numbers of second or vacation homes that are unoccupied for much of the year or, in the case of Pacaso properties, occupied serially by non-residents. Time-share properties provide housing for short term visitors, as do vacation rentals such as VRBO and Airbnb. Properties of this sort are important to tourism, but they can also be a problem for tourist destinations; in Sonoma County this includes Healdsburg, the Russian River area, and the City of Sonoma. Every house or apartment that is removed from the housing supply, and made unavailable to residents, helps to increase the price of the remaining properties. At the same time corporate buyers purchase houses and leave them vacant while their values increase. This further contributes to the inflation of house prices and leads to the exclusion of local residents.

CONCLUSION
The State of California is committed to significantly increasing the supply of all housing, including Affordable Housing. In Sonoma County and its nine Cities this commitment is expressed through ABAG and the requirements of RHNA. The Grand Jury has confirmed that while there is strong official support for these goals, there is sometimes less commitment to their achievement. Many programs that support development of Affordable Housing are in place. Yet many barriers also exist and greatly inhibit housing development. The principal barriers identified in this report include:
• The sheer complexity of navigating the bureaucracy in all aspects of a project • The high cost of land in Sonoma County
• The difficulty, complexity, and slow pace of financing a project • The shortage and high cost of building materials and supplies • The shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor as well as labor costs • The complexity and costs of mitigation fees and building permits • The inconsistency of costs, procedures, and regulations among the jurisdictions within the County
• Public opposition and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing and its recipients Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 19

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.

F2. Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.

F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

F4. Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.

F5. Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.

F6. In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.

F7. There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

F8. Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.

F9. Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.

F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

F11. The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.

F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

F13. The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.

F15. Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.

F16. Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

F17. Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 20
F18. The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to marketrate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.

F19. Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

F20. Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.

F21. Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.

F22. Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.

F23. Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.

F24. Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17) R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22)
R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)
R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F19, F20, F21, F22)
R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 21
factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Permit Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) • City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• California Department of Housing and Community Development, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml • California Department of Housing and Community Development, Infill Infrastructure Grand Program (IIG) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/infill-infrastructure-grant • California State Treasurer, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Compliance Monitoring https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/compliance.asp • State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/
• State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Infill Development https://opr.ca.gov/planning/land-use/infill-development/ • City of Santa Rosa, Water Demand Offset Policy and Fees, March 29, 2022 https://srcity.org/3641/Water-Demand-Offset-Policy-and-Fees • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission,
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 22
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Community Development Block Grant https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/communitydevelopment-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhood-investment/fundingopportunities/cdbg • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Housing and Neighborhood Investment, Income and Rent Limits https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/developmentservices/community-development-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhoodinvestment/income-and-rent-limits • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Project Homekey https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission/divisions/homeless-services/be-part-of-the-solution/fundingopportunities/project-homekey • County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/
• Gray, M. N., The Atlantic, “How Californians are Weaponizing Environmental Law,” March 12, 2021 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signatureenvironmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ • Generation Housing, State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022 https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022_Feb_SOH_SonomaCounty.pdf • Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and Paloma Perez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 California Housing Resource Handbook-2020 (Holland & Knight)
• Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County https://www.housinglandtrust.org/ • Manuela Tobias, North Bay Bohemian, Sonoma Among Cities Resisting New State Housing Law, April 12, 2022 https://bohemian.com/ca-cities-resisting-new-housinglaw/ • Nashelly Chavez, The Press Democrat, Developer enlists 2017 law to advance stalled Sebastopol affordable housing project, April 13, 2022
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/developer-enlists-2017-law-to-advancestalled-sebastopol-affordable-housing/ • NYU Furman Center, The Center for Housing Policy Insights from Housing Policy Research, Don’t Put it Here! https://furmancenter.org/files/media/Dont_Put_It_Here.pdf • Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022
https://library.municode.com/ca/sonoma_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH 26SOCOZORE_ART89AFHOPRREIN
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, https://www.hud.gov/ • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts, July 2021 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/HAP_Contracts_HCV_Guidebook_Ch apter_July_2021.pdf
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Income Limits https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html • U.S. Department of Agriculture https://www.usda.gov/
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Home Investment Partnership Program https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/home Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 23
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Low Income Housing Tax Credits
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html
• YIMBY Law, Fighting For Housing https://www.yimbylaw.org/

APPENDIX A
California Housing Law Enforcement

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 24

APPENDIX B
Funding Sources for Affordable Housing
There are many sources of funding for Affordable Housing, but there is no consistency in its availability from year to year. Sometimes a city may save its cash resources for a few – or several – years and then spend them all in one year; other times a city may qualify for some particular funding one time but may not qualify another time. Currently, the most popular source is Affordable Housing Tax Credits.
https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200121-Gen-H-Housing-FundingOverview.pdf Federal Programs
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low and moderate income tenants. The LIHTC was enacted as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and has been modified numerous times. The Federal Government issues the tax credits to the states. State housing agencies then award the credits to private developers of affordable rental housing projects through a competitive process.

Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding. Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period. (Burbank Housing follows this model) but the property must be maintained as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years. • 9% Tax Credit subsidizes 70% of the eligible costs and is available for projects such as new construction or substantial rehabilitation that do not use tax-exempt bonds. Priority is given to developments that are close to public amenities such as transit, schools or parks.
• 4% Tax Credit subsidizes 30% of eligible costs and is available for projects that do use tax-exempt bonds.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Funds are used for projects that improve the quality of living for lower-income residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median income as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project must meet certain criteria, including being beneficial to low and moderate income people. This could include housing rehabilitation and homeless shelters. Santa Rosa and Petaluma receive their funds directly while Sonoma County manages the funds for the smaller cities.
• HOME Investments Partnership Program (HOME): HOME provides block grants to states and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups. At least 15 percent of HOME funds must be set aside for specific activities to be undertaken by a special type of nonprofit called a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a private nonprofit, community-based organization that has staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 25
State Programs
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC): This program invests cap-and-trade money in projects that connect Affordable Housing with low-emission transportation services and infrastructure. Funds are from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). It provides grants and loans for Affordable Housing, infill and compact transit-oriented development, and infrastructure connecting these projects to transit. In 2022, the state’s budget allocated $130 million from cap and trade auction revenues.
• SB2 Building Homes and Jobs Act: Effective January 1, 2018, this Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 fee charged every time real estate documents are recorded. This money funds a variety of housing activities, depending on the needs of the community. These include farm worker housing and mixed-income multifamily housing developments which provide Affordable Housing for Californians with lower and moderate incomes.
• SB3 and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): In 2018 the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, which funds $1.5 billion in bonds for this program, was passed. The program provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental housing.
• No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for the unhoused and mentally ill. The actual funding started in 2019.

Loans
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA): The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income first-time home buyers.
• Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. Section 221(d)(4) insures loans with up to 40 year duration for construction or rehabilitation of multifamily housing.

These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. The application process is slow and complex, and HUD advises use of an experienced intermediary. HUD 223(f) loans are made for purchase or refinancing of existing multifamily properties. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.

Sonoma County and Local Funding
• Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): The County Fund for Housing was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of Affordable Housing located in Sonoma County. The purpose is to accelerate the pace of development of Affordable Housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. CFH provides loans and grants to qualified developers, public entities, groups and individuals to build Affordable Housing. Various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees provide the funding. County Fund for Housing (CFH) (ca.gov)
Agenda Item #4.2:

Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 26
Cities
• Some cities utilize the impact and in-lieu fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees are assessed on new residential developments and in-lieu fees are charged when developers pay a fee instead of providing inclusionary housing. • Linkage fees are assessed on new commercial developments: They are impact fees levied to fund the development of Affordable Housing. They are collected by Sonoma County and cities such as Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 1 What Happens When the Grand Jury
Makes Recommendations?
A Follow-Up Report on Water in Sonoma Valley

SUMMARY
The 2019-2020 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury produced two investigative reports on the supply of water in Sonoma Valley. “Emergency Water Shortages in Sonoma Valley” and “Sonoma Valley Regional Water Resources” examined the consequences of the closure of the Sonoma Developmental Center and its impact on the water supply in Sonoma Valley.

The report on emergency water shortages was generated when the Valley of the Moon Water District expressed concerns that their backup emergency water supply was in jeopardy due to the deactivation of the water treatment plant at the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC). The investigation also brought to light a broader issue, namely that the closure of the SDC created the need to review the current water resources in Sonoma Valley.

During their investigation, the 2019-2020 Grand Jury interviewed officials with water districts, water suppliers, city water departments and examined relevant documents and reports. From the information collected, the Grand Jury authored a report containing “Findings”, which identified areas for recognition or improvement. Respondents were required to accept or dispute those Findings and to explain why they dispute a Finding. The Grand Jury’s report also contained “Recommendations” based on the Findings. Respondents were asked to attach a summary of the implementation, provide a timeline for implementation, or to attach an explanation of the scope, parameters and timeline that need future analysis. If the respondent said “will not implement,” they were requested to provide the reasons for the decision. Recommendations were directed to the Valley of the Moon Water District, the City of Sonoma, Sonoma Water, and Permit Sonoma.

The California Department of General Services was also invited to respond. In June of each year, the Sonoma County Grand Jury publishes reports based on its investigations. The reports are available on the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury website. The following Grand Jury compiles the responses to each of the investigative reports and creates the Continuity Report, which is then published the following June. Usually, this is the end of the Grand Jury’s involvement. Further accountability must be driven by the residents of Sonoma County, the media, or possibly, future Civil Grand Juries. The 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury decided to follow up on the responses for the two 2019-2020 reports to determine if the various water officials did, in fact, follow through with their commitments.

During the current investigation, this Grand Jury contacted all required respondents of the prior reports to determine the status of the actions they discussed in their original responses. If the actions have not yet been completed, we requested the anticipated date of completion. The Grand Jury determined that six Recommendations have been implemented, three are being implemented, and three will not be implemented. One of the Recommendations will not be implemented because, upon further review, it was considered to be of no benefit and two Recommendations pertained to the SDC, but as the SDC had already closed, no further action was possible. The draft proposal of the SDC Specific Plan is now due by December 31, 2022.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 2

GLOSSARY
• LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
• SDC Sonoma Developmental Center
• VOMWD Valley of the Moon Water District

BACKGROUND
Water is essential for life. It is not hyperbole to state that our survival relies upon the steady supply of safe and affordable water. We need it to grow our food, maintain healthy communities, and support our economy. We need water to preserve wildlife and maintain nature, from our verdant forests to our rivers and waterfalls. Unfortunately, we also need it to fight wildfires.

Climate change puts all of this at risk. Our climate is warming and this presents many challenges. Warmer temperatures intensify droughts and wildfires, reduce snowpack levels, raise sea levels, and can sometimes drive shorter, more intense wet seasons that create floods.

Californians’ concern about water is not new, but it seems to have generated more attention in the last several years. Since 2015, the Sonoma County Grand Jury has published five investigative reports on water in Sonoma County:
• 2019-2020 “Emergency Water Shortages in Sonoma Valley” and “Sonoma Valley Regional Water Resources”
• 2018-2019 “Will There Be Water After an Earthquake”
• 2016-2017 “Planning for Groundwater Sustainability”
• 2014-2015 “Sustainable Water for Sonoma County, Water for the Present and the Future” Each of these reports included interviews with water officials, including those with water districts, water suppliers, and water personnel within the County and the various cities within Sonoma County. Each report made Recommendations to the appropriate agencies to evaluate and determine if every Recommendation was reasonable and if implementation was possible.

Their responses are included in the Grand Jury’s Continuity report, the following term. Often the response is that the Recommendation will be implemented in the future, but the timeline is either vague or absent. The results of the current review focused on the 2019-2020 Grand Jury reports and are outlined in both the Discussion section of this report and in the matrix in Appendix A.

Sonoma Developmental Center
Many of the Recommendations in two previous reports include references to the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC). To put things in proper perspective, a brief background of the SDC is in order.

The State purchased 1,640 acres of land in 1890 to create a center for people with developmental disabilities. During its existence, the Center had plenty of water, its own dairy, a farm, an orchard, and poultry and pigs were raised on-site. At peak occupancy, up to 4,500 patients and staff were housed here. Over the years, the property has gone through many changes, including four name changes. It has been known as the Sonoma Developmental Center since 1985.

Sonoma County purchased 162 acres of this property in 1974 and named it Sonoma Valley Regional Park. Sonoma County has purchased additional acreage over the years, some of which Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 3 has become Sonoma Valley Regional Park and some has been incorporated into Jack London State Historic Park.

With the decline in
resident population
and damage from
the 2017 Nuns Fire,
the SDC was
officially closed on
December 31, 2018.

During its tenure,
the SDC had a self‐
contained water
supply, a water
treatment plant, and
a distribution
system. In addition,
it had connections
to the Valley of the
Moon Water
District (VOMWD) and the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Sonoma Aqueduct for use during an emergency.

The water treatment plant had a capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day and the four water tanks could hold two million gallons of potable water. As the population of the SDC declined, so did its need for water, eventually cutting back processing to 40,000 gallons a day. As the facility ramped down, staff members resigned or took early retirement, creating concerns in meeting mandated staffing requirements. Inadequate staffing led the State Water Resources Control Board’s Drinking Water Division to take enforcement actions. Consequently, the Department of General Services shut down the water treatment plant in September, 2019 – nine months after the closure of the SDC.

Surface water was sourced from Asbury Creek and Hill Creek, both of which fed into Fern Lake.

Before its closure, the treatment plant was served by Roulette Springs. Another source, Lake Suttonfield, was utilized on an “as needed” basis. In total, there are two reservoirs, two springs, five wells and rights to the water in Sonoma Creek on the SDC property. The State currently owns all the water rights to the land, but these rights may transfer to the new owners upon the sale of the property.

In 1963, to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts, the State of California created a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in every county. Per LAFCO, these boundaries, or “Spheres of Influence”, are defined as “the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency.” The Valley of the Moon Water District covers territory from Glen Ellen to the City of Sonoma with the exclusion of the SDC. In 2017, LAFCO determined that the VOMWD Sphere of Influence included the SDC. Potentially, this could mean that the VOMWD would assume control of the groundwater, the treatment plant, and distribution systems serving the site. If the State agrees, this would become official once planning is finalized and the property’s ownership changes hands.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 4

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury held interviews with:
• Representatives of Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, the City of Sonoma, Permit Sonoma, and the Local Agency Formation Commission The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated a wide range of sources:
• 2019-2020 “Emergency Water Shortages in Sonoma Valley” and “Sonoma Valley Regional Water Resources”
• A variety of websites of water districts, water suppliers and cities in Sonoma County • Technical documents and reports of water districts, water suppliers, and cities in Sonoma County

DISCUSSION
Previous Recommendation Status
Each report and its Recommendations are written independently, which can result in some repetition of Recommendations. Consequently, while the matrix in Appendix A includes 14 Recommendations, twelve of them are unique. Of these Recommendations, six have been implemented; three are in the process of being implemented, and three will not be implemented, two of which pertain to the SDC’s closure prior to implementation of the Recommendations.

A complete matrix of the Recommendations and Responses is available in Appendix A.

Recommendations: Were They Implemented?
Recommendations Related to VOMWD and the City of Sonoma In response to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendations:
• The City of Sonoma and the VOMWD have extended the water main and created an intertie to link their distribution systems and thus, enable the two entities to share water during emergencies.
• The VOMWD has launched a three-year plan to rehabilitate its wells and have signed agreements with two owners of private wells to supply water as needed and to drill an additional well.
• In its water bills, VOMWD has included inserts of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and has announced a new webpage for emergency water supply and preparedness. • The City of Sonoma and the VOMWD stated they have a mutual aid agreement to provide ongoing cooperation on projects. The Grand Jury requested, but did not receive, a copy of the formal agreement.
• The City of Sonoma and the VOMWD agreed to investigate the possibility of a joint regional Urban Water Management Plan instead of two separate reports. They determined that there was no significant cost benefit to issuing one joint report and thus, this change was not a high priority.
• Permit Sonoma agreed to share the results of the Water Supply Assessment with the City of Sonoma and the VOMWD. Originally due in 2021, this report now has an anticipated completion date of May 2022.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 5 Recommendations Related to the Sonoma Developmental Center It is important to note that the implementation of many of the Recommendations involving the SDC in the earlier reports will rely on additional information to be obtained from reports that have not yet been released. These reports include the Water Supply Assessment and the Regional Water Supply Resiliency Study. When the responses were written, these reports had an anticipated release date of 2021, but now neither report is expected to be available before this Grand Jury report is submitted for publication.

The Recommendations that were relevant to the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) were either not possible to complete or implementation was delayed. This is due to the closure of the SDC and the length of time it is taking to develop the SDC Specific Plan (Specific Plan).

SDC Specific Plan
The SDC Specific Plan, which will help determine the
future of the SDC, will consider various uses of the land.

Some of the many components the plan will include are
housing, recreation, water resources, the possible
preservation of historic buildings, conservation of natural resources, wildlife corridors, economic viability of the site, and transportation patterns. The completed Specific Plan, after review and approval by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, will be submitted to the California Department of General Services for final approval. Originally due by December 31, 2021, this plan is now due December 31,
2022.

CONCLUSION
Prior to making arrangements for the sharing of existing water resources, the closure of the Sonoma Developmental Center had a negative impact on the water supply in Sonoma Valley.

There has been no effort to arrange for the sharing of water resources and there is no longer any access to potable water in the storage facilities at the SDC. The production of the reports required for the Specific Plan has been delayed for one year, as has the final Specific Plan.

When the Specific Plan is finalized, the water authorities in Sonoma Valley must meet with the California Department of General Services to determine the new water requirements and the best way to source them without negatively impacting the existing needs of the region.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Nine of the Recommendations to Sonoma Water, Permit Sonoma, the City of Sonoma, and the Valley of the Moon Water District that were expected to be implemented in the future have either been completed or have been initiated and are in the process of implementation.

F2. Two of the Recommendations relating to the Sonoma Development Center cannot be implemented in the absence of an SDC Specific Plan.

Asbury Creek
Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 6 F3. The Recommendation that the City of Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon Water District and Sonoma Developmental Center implement plans to share existing water resources to reduce risks in emergencies was not implemented.

F4. Some Recommendations have not been implemented due to the delay of required reports or studies.

F5. The future sources of water for the Sonoma Developmental Center property are undetermined at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that in any SDC Specific Plan, the water resources of the site are utilized for any future development with limited reliance on water from the Sonoma Aqueduct. (F5) R2. By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that a SDC Specific Plan includes an outline for the sharing of water resources of the site during emergencies. (F3)

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Permit Sonoma (R1, R2)
• Sonoma Water (R1, R2)
• Valley of the Moon Water District (R1, R2)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Prunuske Chatham, Inc,. Sonoma Developmental Center Draft Resource Assessment, April 2015 https://sonomalandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Attachment-BDraft-SDC-Resources-Assessment-with-all-Exhibits.pdf • State of California, DGS General Services, Sonoma Developmental Center Annual Report, March 1, 2020 https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-
/media/Divisions/DGS/LegReports/Accessible-Reports/2020/SDC-Annual-ReportPosted03022020.pdf?la=en&hash=DC7F3C662879CB2E659FC5E659935EB5F7A2E1D3 Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 7

APPENDIX A
REPORT TITLE: EMERGENCY WATER SHORTAGES IN SONOMA VALLEY RES = Respondent CSO = City of Sonoma VOM = Valley of the Moon Water District SW = Sonoma Water PS = Permit Sonoma
RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES 2021-2022 UPDATED

RESPONSES
R1. By December 31, 2020, The
Valley of the Moon Water
District, City of Sonoma, and
Sonoma Developmental Center
initiate cooperative planning to
reduce risk in emergencies,
including promptly
implementing ways to share
existing water resources.

DGS
CSO
VOM
The state DGS, which is not legally
required to respond, notes that the
Specific Plan for SDC may address
facilities that support the land uses of
the Specific Plan, including water
facilities. As future water uses must
be vetted through the land use
planning process of the Specific Plan,
it would be inconsistent with state law
for DGS to support a separate process
to support these issues.

This Recommendation will not be
implemented because it is not
reasonable in terms of timeline or
overall scope and approach. At this
time the SDC receives its entire water
supply through the Sonoma Aqueduct.

There are no additional water sources
to share at this time. The City is
monitoring the progress of the SDC
Specific Plan.

The District agrees with this
Recommendation. The District feels
that Sonoma Water must be involved
in this effort as it is supplying water to
the SDC campus.

This Recommendation was
not implemented.

R2. The Valley of the Moon
Water District evaluate by
November 30, 2020 whether
District operation of Sonoma
Developmental Center water
distribution and storage facilities
would offset deficiencies in
emergency water for both Valley
of the Moon Water District and
Sonoma Developmental Center
VOM The District agrees with this
Recommendation; its current plans
and priority are focused on
rehabilitating a number of local wells.

Improved capacity of these wells will
provide the quickest solution to
making water available during
emergencies in the short to medium
term.

The agreement to
rehabilitate their wells will
take place over 3 years and
will double the production
capability. They have
agreements with two
owners of private wells to
provide water as needed
and to drill an additional
well.

R3. The Valley of the Moon
Water District and the City of
Sonoma interconnect their
distribution systems, and
establish an agreement for
sharing water during
emergencies by December 31,
2020.

CSO
&
VOM
The City and VOM agree with this
Recommendation. Plans are
underway with the City for the
physical interconnection between the
City and the District’s distribution
system. Work is expected to begin on
this project in the spring of 2021.

The City installed a main
extension with a special
connection on the end
adjacent to one of our
(VOM’s) fire hydrants. The
proximity of these to point
(destination of final
connection) allows a towbehind water pump,
powered by a diesel engine,
Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 8 RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES 2021-2022 UPDATED

RESPONSES
to be set up quickly and
will allow water to be
transferred in either
direction to the City or the
District. This is the
permanent interconnection,
not a temporary work
around.

The Grand Jury has
confirmed that this has
been completed and
training of personnel from
both water agencies has
taken place.

R4. Sonoma Water, Valley of the
Moon Water District, the City of
Sonoma, Permit Sonoma, and the
California Department of
General Services form an
agreement by October 31, 2020,
that potable water storage
facilities at Sonoma
Developmental Center shall
remain active and available for
shared access during
emergencies.

DGS
CSO
VOM
PS
SW
The State (DGS) is open to utilizing
excess onsite tank storage capacity on
an interim basis for other parties to
store their water for access during
emergencies and interruptions, subject
to the approval of the SWRCB (State
Water Resources Control Board).

The City is monitoring the activities
of the SDC Specific Plan for when it
can participate in plans for shared
water access during emergencies.

VOM agrees with this
Recommendation but conditions at
SDC prevent the District’s ability to
achieve the desired outcome in the
short term.

Permit Sonoma indicates this
Recommendation requires further
analysis. PS does not have authority
or control over SDC’s potable water
storage facilities. However, in its role
leading the SDC Specific Plan
process, PS is committed to facilitate
the best outcomes for the community
and will evaluate emergency water
use agreements as part of the planning
process.

Sonoma Water does not have
jurisdiction or control over the SDC’s
water storage facilities. SW will
continue to work on coordinated water
resources planning. SW is leading the
development of a Regional Water
Supply Resiliency Study, anticipated
to take 18-20 months to complete.

This Recommendation was
not implemented. The City
of Sonoma and VOM have
installed a main extension
to enable them to share
water during emergencies.

See R3 above.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Study is in progress. The
first phase will be a
Technical Memo on
drought analysis and will
be released in May, 2022.

Phase 2 will review
additional topics. No date
has been set for phase 2.

R5. The Valley of the Moon
Water District accelerate its
program for expanding well
VOM The District agrees with this
Recommendation and will continue its
accelerated program for the
The agreement to
rehabilitate their wells will
take place over 3 years and
Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 9 RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES 2021-2022 UPDATED

RESPONSES
capacity and water storage by
December 31, 2020.
installation of new wells and tanks.

This is a high priority in both its
Water Master Plan and Strategic Plan.
will double the production
capability. They have
agreements with two
owners of private wells to
provide water as needed
and to drill an additional
well.

R6. The Valley of the Moon
Water District establish specific
emergency water-use restrictions
and communicate them to its
customers by September 30,
2020.

VOM VOM plans to implement this
Recommendation with the insertion of
the Water Shortage Contingency Plan
to its customers on its outgoing water
bills beginning September 23, 2020.

In addition, the District will post on
its website specific actions taken
during a water shortage emergency.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

R7. By September 30, 2020, the
Valley of the Moon Water
District inform customers
annually, or when conditions
change, regarding risks and
deficiencies in the emergency
water supply and any actions
taken to mitigate them.

VOM The District agrees with this
Recommendation and has created a
new webpage for its customers about
risks and water deficiencies in the
emergency water supply. The District
began notifying its customers about
the new webpage on outgoing bills
starting September 23, 2020.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

R8. Permit Sonoma establish, by
September 30, 2020,
communication with water
system managers for the City of
Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon
Water District, and Sonoma
Developmental Center to inform
the SDC Specific Plan process.

PS This Recommendation has been
implemented. PS is committed to
robust and meaningful engagement
with these entities and other
potentially affected entities as part of
the SDC Specific Plan.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

REPORT TITLE: SONOMA VALLEY REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES
RES = Respondent CSO = City of Sonoma VOM = Valley of the Moon Water District SW = Sonoma Water PS = Permit Sonoma
RECOMMENDATIONS RES. ORIGINAL RESPONSES 2021-2022 UPDATED

RESPONSES
R1. Sonoma Water, the Valley of
the Moon Water District, the
City of Sonoma and Permit
Sonoma work with California
Department of General Services
to seek an agreement, by October
31, 2020, that potable water
storage facilities at Sonoma
Developmental Center shall
remain active and available for
sharing water.

DGS
CSO
The state (DGS), which is not legally
required to respond, is open to
utilizing excess onsite tank storage
capacity on an interim basis for other
parties to store their water for access
during emergencies and
interruptions, subject to the approval
of the SWRCB (State Water
Resources Control Board).

The City is monitoring the activities
of the SDC Specific Plan and can
participate actively when water
options are considered.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 10 VOM
PS
SW
VOM agrees with this
Recommendation but conditions
prevent the District’s ability to
achieve the desired outcome in the
short term.

This Recommendation will be
implemented in the future. Under the
current schedule for the SDC
Specific Plan process, the Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) is
scheduled to be prepared in 2021. It
is likely that VOMWD and the City
of Sonoma will be involved in its
preparation. PS will communicate
the final WSA to both entities as
soon as it is available.

This Recommendation requires
further analysis. Sonoma Water does
not have jurisdiction or control over
the SDC’s water storage facilities.

SW will continue to work on
coordinated water resources
planning. SW is leading the
development of a Regional Water
Supply Resiliency Study, anticipated
to take 18-20 months to complete.

The California Department
of General Services has
requested the VOM
undertake this report with
an anticipated completion
date of May, 2022.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that the
Regional Water Supply
Resiliency Study is in
process. The first phase
will be a Technical Memo
on drought analysis and
will be released in May,
2022. Phase 2 will review
additional topics. No date
has been set for phase 2.

R2. Permit Sonoma establish, by
August 31, 2020, a continuing
dialog with water system
managers for the City of
Sonoma, the Valley of the Moon
Water District, and the Sonoma
Developmental Center to inform
the SDC Specific Plan.

CSO
VOM
PS
The Recommendation has been
implemented.

The Valley of the Moon Water
District agrees with this
Recommendation. As of 9/2/20, the
District, PS, and the City of Sonoma
have engaged in meetings and
ongoing discussions in order to
inform the SDC Specific Plan.

This Recommendation has been
implemented. PS is committed to
robust and meaningful engagement
with these and other potentially
affected entities to inform the SDC
Specific Plan process and to shape its
outcome.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

R3. Sonoma Valley water
agencies take an active role in
the SDC Specific Plan process,
by September 30, 2020
CSO
VOM
This Recommendation has been
implemented. The City will continue
to monitor the SDC Specific Plan
Process and participate as feasible
and relevant to Sonoma.

The District agrees with this
Recommendation. Valley of the
Moon District staff will represent
VOM on the SDC Specific Plan
Planning Advisory Team as well as
The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 11 PS
the SDC Technical Advisory
Committee for the Specific Plan.

To the extent applicable, PS has
implemented this Recommendation.

PS has initiated ongoing
communications regarding the SDC
Specific Plan process and related
issues, and will continue to support
and facilitate their involvement in the
planning process.

R4. Permit Sonoma
communicate the results of the
Water Supply Assessment to
water system managers for the
City of Sonoma and the Valley
of the Moon Water District as
soon as they become available.

CSO
VOM
PS
This Recommendation will be
implemented in the future. The City
has established communication with
PS so that PS can communicate the
results of the WSA.

The District agrees with this
Recommendation. The District looks
forward to reviewing the results of
the WSA when it is made available.

This Recommendation will be
implemented in the future. The
WSA is scheduled to be prepared by
2021. The VOM and City will be
consulted or otherwise involved in
the preparation of the WSA. PS will
communicate the final WSA as soon
as it is available.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury
has confirmed that the
California Department of
General Services requested
the VOM to have the
report prepared. The
anticipated date of
completion is May 2022.

R5. The City of Sonoma and the
Valley of the Moon Water
District establish a mutual aid
agreement that provides for
ongoing cooperation on
planning, services, projects and
such other collaborative efforts
that they deem to be to be
mutually beneficial (e.g., sharing
of such resources as staff,
equipment and emergency
water), with a copy of the mutual
aid agreement to be sent to the
Grand Jury by December 31,
2020.

CSO
VOM
The Recommendation has been
implemented.

The District agrees with this
Recommendation. The District and
the City of Sonoma are both parties
to a mutual aid agreement along with
other entities. The City is currently
working on engineering and bidding
process for the physical
interconnection between the
distribution systems.

The Grand Jury has
confirmed that this has
been completed and
training for both entities
has taken place.

R6. The Valley of the Moon
Water District and the City of
Sonoma meet by October 31,
2020 to discuss the issuance of a
regional 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan rather than
two separate ones.
.

VOM
&
CSO
The Recommendation has been
implemented. The Valley of the
Moon Water District and the City of
Sonoma met in August to discuss
combining efforts for the Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP).

They are waiting for a revised quote
from the UWMP consultant to
combine the work.

By the time this
Recommendation was
issued, the two reports
were well underway. Both
entities work with the same
consultant and they verify
the consistency of the data.

They have determined that
there is no significant cost
differential to issue two
reports. There is no
opposition to combining
Agenda Item #4.2:

What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations? 12 the reports but it is not a
high priority at this time.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22 1

FINDINGS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
(2021 – 2022)
“Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance.”
The City of Sonoma provides the following in response to the Findings made by the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury:

F1. Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

Response: Disagree with respect to the City of Sonoma. The City of Sonoma records “Affordable Housing Agreements” for its Inclusionary “For Rent” and “For Sale” units. The City requires agreements for not just Very Low Income (VLI) and Low Income (LI) but also for Moderate Income units and, in 2021, created a new “Middle Income” category to which its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applies. Within each aforementioned agreement, the owner provides documentation under penalty of perjury and on forms prepared by the City. The owner must provide on-going documentation annually to the City, which is reviewed by assigned staff. The City has retained the services of a consultant (Rise Housing) to oversee compliance and monitoring.

F2. The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

Response: Disagree with respect to the City of Sonoma. The City provides forms for use by the property manager or owners that are submitted to the City on an annual basis. The owners of units are required to report information as deemed necessary by the City to ensure that the units remain affordable for the terms of the respective agreement. Owners do not simply self-report data based on what they deem necessary information. They report under penalty of perjury. The City’s consultant will be conducting a full audit in 2022/23 and will develop a new procedure for the City.

F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

Response: Partially agree. The City of Sonoma is able to conduct on-site monitoring as the need arises. The City would typically receive a complaint and respond accordingly. Any in-person monitoring would be performed by Planning Department staff. Given the size of the City, on-site visits should be manageable.

F4. COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

Response: Partially agree. The City of Sonoma received its annual reports during COVID-19 as required by its agreements but did not perform any on-site inspections.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22 2
F5. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

Response: Partially agree. The City of Sonoma would conduct on-site monitoring as the need arises based on complaints. Staff would notify the managers or owners in advance as “surprise” or “unscheduled” visits could be considered inappropriate based on the affordable housing agreements.

The City’s consultant will be conducting a full audit in 2022/23.

F7. The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

Response: The City of Sonoma is unaware of what “informational documents” that the CDC has for its programs. The CDC is a County agency. As a result, the City in unable to respond in agreement or disagreement with this Finding made by the Grand Jury.

F8. There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

Response: Agree with respect to the City of Sonoma. The City does not have compliance regulations other than those contained within the respective recorded affordability agreements. These agreements outline the responsibilities of developers and manager for “rental” or “for sale” units. Breach or default of the agreements may result in judicial action taken by the City. Each developer or manager needs to have its own procedures to maintain compliance with the agreements. However, staff turnover in the private sector is high, which may impact developers’ ability to comply. The City’s consultant is developing procedures which will facilitate training for City staff.

F9. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

Response: The City of Sonoma cannot “agree” or “disagree” with this Finding that was made by the Grand Jury. It is more than likely to be true declaratory statement. It is helpful information to know about and is appreciated.

F10. The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

Response: Disagree regarding the City of Sonoma. The City’s affordability requirements in Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.44.060 (C) – Continued affordability, state the following regarding deed restrictions (emphasis added):

C. Affordability Agreement. Affordability shall be guaranteed through an “affordability agreement” executed between the developer and the city (on a standard “For Sale” or “Rental” form approved by the Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22 3
city council). The project specific “affordability agreement” shall be approved by the city attorney and planning director particular to the project. The agreement shall be recorded on the subject property with the county recorder’s office before the issuance of building permits and shall become effective before final inspection of the first unit. The subject agreement shall be legally binding and enforceable on the property owner(s) and any subsequent property owner(s) for the duration of the agreement.

F11. The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

Response: The City can only respond for itself on this Finding as it is unaware of the results of the interviews that the Grand Jury conducted with other housing representatives. The City of Sonoma partially agrees as to itself. The City has a small staff that monitors the agreements and is likely to devote more time on monitoring and compliance as the number of agreements increases. Within each agreement that has been recorded over the last year, there is a provision for a monitoring and compliance fee to be paid by the developer to the City to cover staff costs. At present a full-time compliance monitor is neither cost effective nor necessary. A large number of the City’s affordable housing units are managed by well established, reputable non-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and SAHA.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury,
2021-22
1 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY (2021-2022)
“Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance”
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)
Response: The responsibility for monitoring affordability agreements in the City of Sonoma is outlined in the Sonoma Municipal Code (Section 19.44.060(C)). As such, the City Council directs policy and directs staff accordingly. Each jurisdiction in the County (including the SDC) is best suited to determine its own priorities and policies rather than try to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.

The City would consider reaching out to the other agencies in the County by December 31, 2022, to determine what standards and procedures currently exist.

R2. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume onsite monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4) Response: The responsibility for monitoring affordability agreements in the City of Sonoma is outlined in the Sonoma Municipal Code and within each affordability agreement. As such, the City Council directs policy and staff accordingly. The City has the right and opportunity to conduct onsite monitoring should it choose to do so and has that right in perpetuity. This enabling power is provided in the affordability agreements on an as-needed basis.

R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)
Response: Task completed. The City of Sonoma has recently reviewed its inventory of affordability agreements with the assistance of a consultant and its legal counsel and has determined that the City has sufficient staff to conduct on-site monitoring and annual reporting as required by the affordability agreements that it currently has. The City now has the power and authority to collect annual fees for monitoring outlined in its standard form affordability agreements for “for sale” units and “rental” units. Further, the City will determine at a point in the future when it needs additional staff or consultant services as it builds its inventory during the completion of this present 5th Housing Element Cycle (one year remaining) and the 6th Cycle. The City requires affordability agreements not only for VLI and LI units but also Moderate and Middle income units. See SMC Section

19.44.020(C)(1)(a and b).

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury,
2021-22
2 R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8) Response: The affordability agreements outline the responsibilities of developers and managers for “rental” or “for sale” units. Breach or default of the agreements may result in judicial action taken by the City. Each developer or manager needs to have its own procedures to maintain compliance with the agreements. Staff turnover in the private sector is high in most cases. And may be the cause of inconsistent monitoring and compliance on their part. The City trains its staff to review the affordability agreements and receives advice from its legal counsel to update them as necessary. The City is working with its consultant to formalize an annual monitoring and compliance program for its purposes.

R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)
Response: The City of Sonoma will reach out to the other Cities within the County by November 1, 2022, to determine if the existing software that is used by the Cities of Rohnert Park and Petaluma is something that will complement the City of Sonoma’s tracking system.

R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11) Response: The City of Sonoma has retained the services of a consultant (Rise Housing) to assist it in the implementation of its affordability agreements, which includes among other things, monitoring and compliance. The contract was approved in the First Quarter of 2022 and is a one-year contract.

This assistance will allow the City to determine the focus of its future tasks and the City may wish to extend the contract if additional services are necessary.

R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10) Response: The City of Sonoma will review its existing “for sale” agreements by December 31, 2022, to verify that all of the affordability agreements have been recorded pursuant to the provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code. The City’s consultant, Rise Housing is doing this work currently. The updated inventory addresses both ownership and rental units. The City is coordinating with the County regarding properties once owned by the redevelopment agency.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22
1 FINDINGS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
(2021-2022)
“Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future.”
The City of Sonoma provides the following in response to the Findings of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury:

F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

Response: Disagree regarding the City of Sonoma. The City of Sonoma participated in the RHNA process and fully endorsed the allocation provided to it of 311 units. The City of Sonoma met or exceeded its 5th Cycle RHNA in all four income categories with two years left in the Cycle.

F4. Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.

Response: Disagree regarding the City of Sonoma. The City of Sonoma’s Development Code in Title 19 promotes and encourages affordable housing and has the highest requirement for inclusionary housing in the County at 25%. Further, the City requires 5% for ELI, 10% for VLI and 10% LI for “Rental” units. It requires 5% LI, 10% Moderate and 10% Middle Income for “For sale” units. The City is of the opinion that “Historic Districts” help streamline housing development by clearly identifying historic resources and outlining a process for development. Sonoma’s efforts on Historic Districts do not discourage housing and were initiated in 2016.

F7. There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

Response: Partially disagree. Each jurisdiction within the County has developed its own Affordable Housing policies and procedures over time that reflect local priorities as determined by elected and appointed officials. It is not uncommon to have varying development regulations. Indeed, it is rare that a jurisdiction will have identical requirements to another jurisdiction. The time needed to process affordable housing projects is determined by the complexity of the project, environmental and financial constraints and public input (to name a few).

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22
2 F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

Response: Disagree. The City of Sonoma processes affordable housing projects in the same way as other projects being developed within the City. Sensitive sites require thoughtful deliberation and often involves required environmental (CEQA) review through a public meeting process. Appeals of actions taken by the Planning Commission and Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission are not uncommon and are a part of the democratic process. Appeals add to the time taken to approve projects, but also provide all parties with due process of law. The City of Sonoma is very sensitive to its past and has developed multi-family design standards that ensure that new development (including affordable housing projects) is permitted in a streamlined manner and is consistent with the adopted General Plan. Affordable housing units are often approved as part of an overall project and must comprise 25% of a projects’ total units in developments of five units or more.

F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

Response: Partially agree. Units are required to be built on-site and fees are paid as established by law. The City collects AB 1600 fees for non-residential projects which are then placed in the City’s newly created Housing Trust Fund that promotes affordable housing. The City agrees that it is very likely that jurisdictions have differing fees for affordable housing projects. These fees are very likely based on the size of the project and relate to local impacts. And these aforementioned fees would have been established using a nexus study unique to the circumstances of that respective city. Such fees impose the cost of development on the developer based on their voluntary choice to engage in development rather than shifting the costs to mitigate the impacts of development to city taxpayers, which could require tax increases.

F13. The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

Response: This Finding appears to be directed to increasing speed and efficiency in the unincorporated areas of “Sonoma County”. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the City disagrees with respect to the City. The City’s Planning and Building Departments process both discretionary permits and ministerial permits according to the procedures contained within the Sonoma Municipal Code, Permit Streamlining Act, and as expeditiously as possible.

F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.

Response: Disagree regarding the City of Sonoma. The City of Sonoma’s development regulations require all deed restricted affordable housing units to be built on-site and does not collect in-lieu fees at present. In-lieu fees are only allowed for small (4 or fewer units) developments or for fractional units, i.e., where the 25% requirement leads to a fraction of a unit to be constructed with affordability restrictions.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the Findings of the
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, 2021-22
3 F16. Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

Response: The City of Sonoma is not located near any high quality transit corridor and therefore is unable to agree or disagree with this Finding as it is unaware of any data that supports a definitive determination for projects within the County or the cities within the County.

F17. Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.

Response: Disagree regarding the City of Sonoma. The City Council encourages affordable housing units as part of development projects within the City limits and has an inclusionary requirement of 25%. The City would encourage projects in its Sphere of Influence/UGB pursuant to LAFCo policy and that any annexation would provide orderly growth and prevent sprawl through the logical extension of infrastructure, consistent with state policy.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
2021-22
1 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY (2021-2022)
“Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future.”
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: This is already being done. The City of Sonoma processes housing development applications pursuant to its Development Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, as well as recent legislation such as SB 330 and SB 35. Affordable housing requirements are a part of its review and are not separated out for a separate review. The City requires 25% deed restricted affordable housing to be built onsite as part of any subdivision. The City has also recently adopted objective design review standards for multi-family housing that streamlines the process.

R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: Disagree. The City of Sonoma requires the highest percentage of deed restricted affordable housing (25%) than other agencies in Sonoma County. It is unlikely that other agencies would standardize their requirement to meet the City of Sonoma’s requirement and very unlikely that the City of Sonoma would lower its requirement.

R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Agree, with recommendation. It would be beneficial to see how fees could be reduced to increase housing production in the City.

R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17) Response: This work is currently being performed by the City as part of its 6th Cycle Housing Element update.

R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22)
Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
2021-22
2 Response: This work is currently being performed by the City as part of its 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The Housing Element will be approved by the City Council in late 2022, and submitted for certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in January 2023.

R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)
Response: Agree with recommendation. It would be beneficial to create “permit ready” plans for ADU’s and JADU’s. The City is currently participating in local efforts to do this.

R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F19, F20, F21, F22) Response: This work has already been directed by the City Council and is likely to be reviewed in the Fall of 2022. This will require amendments to the City’s Development (Zoning) Code.

R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22) Response: Agree with recommendation. The city encourages non-traditional design options to further the production of all housing types for all income levels.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
2021-22
1 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY (2021-2022)
“What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations?” The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends:

R1. By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that in any SDC Specific Plan, the water resources of the site are utilized for any future development with limited reliance on water from the Sonoma Aqueduct. (F5) Response: The City of Sonoma (City) has no jurisdiction or direct authority regarding the preparation of the Specific Plan for the SDC. This power rests with the County of Sonoma (County). The City understands that the Specific Plan (and associated EIR) will discuss and analyze the development of the SDC and will examine and discuss water resources for the site. Staff from the City will be attending a meeting tentatively scheduled for August 18th, 2022, with staff from the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD), Permit Sonoma and Sonoma Water to discuss water resources for the SDC and assist where practicable. The SDC’s water resources provide a mutual benefit to the City and VOMWD’s ratepayers and residents for both increased fire protection and the opportunity to share water resources during other emergencies involving the loss or interruption of the Sonoma Water Aqueduct.

R2. By September 30, 2022, Permit Sonoma, Sonoma Water, the Valley of the Moon Water District, and the City of Sonoma Water Department meet to ensure that a SDC Specific Plan includes an outline for the sharing of water resources of the site during emergencies. (F3)
Response: The City of Sonoma (City) has no jurisdiction or direct authority regarding the preparation of the Specific Plan (or EIR) for the SDC. This power rests with the County of Sonoma (County). The County will determine the content of the Specific Plan and the issues it addresses. Staff from the City will be attending a meeting tentatively scheduled for August 18th, 2022, with staff from the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD), Permit Sonoma and Sonoma Water to discuss water resources for the SDC and assist where practicable. The SDC’s water resources provide a mutual benefit to the City and VOMWD’s ratepayers and residents for both increased fire protection and the opportunity to share water resources during other emergencies involving the loss or interruption of the Sonoma Water Aqueduct.

Agenda Item #4.2:

Responses to the recommendations
of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
2021-22
2 Agenda Item #4.2:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Liz Garcia, Deputy Finance Director
Agenda Item Title
Receive and Accept the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Book
Summary
On May 4, and May 18, 2022, in two special budget study sessions, the Interim City Manager and staff presented the proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2022-23, including estimated revenues, recommended appropriations for operations and capital, recommended capital improvement program, and a list of authorized positions. The budget presentations provided an opportunity for the Council to hear reports from the Interim City Manager, department directors and managers on their proposed FY 22/23 budgets, as well as discuss key accomplishments, priorities, goals, and challenges for the upcoming fiscal year. The study sessions also provided an opportunity for City Council to ask questions and provide input on any changes they wanted included in the final budget. In addition, the general public was able to provide input on the proposed budgets.

On June 1, 2022, in a Special City Council meeting, the City Council adopted the final FY 2022/23 City of Sonoma Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. At the June 1, 2022 meeting all the necessary elements for adoption of the FY 2022/23 budget appropriations were presented. Staff has now completed a final budget book that contains the approved FY 2022/23 appropriations along with a more comprehensive overview of City services and projects for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022. The book also contains more detail on the budget including a revenue summary, expenditure summary, reserve summary, program budgets with FY 2021/22 accomplishments, FY 2022-23 goals, FY 2021/22 projected actuals and the FY 2022/23 adopted budget. The building of the budget book is an extensive, laborious, and timeconsuming project.

City staff is to be commended for the many outstanding and selfless accomplishments of these past few difficult and unprecedented years. Some but not all of these accomplishments are listed in this budget book. In particular, I want to acknowledge the entire Finance Team led by Liz Garcia, Deputy Finance Director, for their expertise and dedication in preparing this budget book and also the Public Works team headed by Mike Berger, Public Works Director, Chris Pegg, Operations Manager and Oriana Hart, Public Works Project Manager, who all continue to polish our 5-year Capital Improvement Program.

I am especially thankful for the leadership and hard work of the City Council. I am honored to manage and work beside the Management and rank-and-file employees who all support the Sonoma community, and am constantly impressed with their dedication, professionalism, and the teamwork that is authentically conveyed on a daily basis to our customers. Sonoma is a special place to live and work and it is an honor to work in partnership with the City Council, the community, and our employees to maintain Sonoma’s quality of life.

Recommended Council Action
Receive and accept the FY 22/23 Budget Book.

Agenda Item #4.3:

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
No financial impact to receive and accept the previously adopted FY 2022/23 Budget Book.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments:

The City Council’s FY 2022/23 Budget Binders will be presented at the August 17, 2022, City Council meeting. The entire FY 2022/23 budget will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting.

Agenda Item #4.3:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Cathy Lanning, Human Resource Manager
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Adopting Terms and Conditions of Employment for Non-Represented Executive/At-Will, Management/Administrative, and Confidential Personnel and a Resolution Approving the Compensation Adjustments for the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel and Implementing the Adjusted Salaries and Wages of the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel Summary
The City Council is being asked to approve the terms and conditions of employment and the compensation program for the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel. There are 12 budgeted full-time employees, and 2 part-time employees within in the Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel group. The budgeted full-time Administrative Services Director is currently vacant and is being held vacant while a new City Manager is recruited. An evaluation of the Executive/At-Will management structure is pending review.

The City has one recognized union (or bargaining unit), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1021, that represents the majority of the City’s employees. As required by State law, the City engages in the meet and confer process with SEIU to establish the terms and conditions of employment for their members. These terms and conditions are ultimately set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties. In addition, there is an employee group which is not unionized, the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive, Management and Administrative Personnel, for which the terms and conditions of employment are established by City Council resolution rather than a negotiated MOU.

The previous Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), for the period July 1, 2019, through and including June 30, 2022 (Resolution 55-2019), for the Non-represented Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel contained the following section:

U. CITY CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND COMPENSATION STUDY
During the term of the agreement, the City intends to begin the process to review and update the job descriptions for all positions (within the Non-Represented Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel unit), in City service including performing a total compensation study twelve (12) months prior to contract term.

During the FY 21/22 budget process, City Council specifically requested that this compensation study be completed as soon as possible so that positions within this unit were evaluated to ensure compensation was equitable and at comparable levels with local jurisdictions (local comparable jurisdictions were agreed upon with SEIU Local 1021 in other studies for positions within both units). This study, as requested by Council, was completed in September 2021, but Agenda Item #4.4:

the then City Manager did not want to discuss or bring it forward to City Council until the MOU expired in June 2022. The study revealed that several of the Management positions within the unit were roughly 8% - 15% below market. (Some of the City’s management classes did not have comparable positions in local jurisdictions, so could not be included in the study).

However, in order to avoid salary compaction and to ensure the City is able to retain and recruit management personnel, City Council voted to increase the base salaries of the entire unit by 10%. This base salary increase does not include any additional Cost-of-Living (COLA) adjustments that have been negotiated.

This agenda item is requesting the City Council approve the employment terms, conditions and compensation adjustments for the Non-represented Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel and adopt the attached resolutions.

Employment and Compensation Programs
The key elements of the proposed changes to the employment and compensation program for the Non-represented Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative Personnel are noted below:
• Three-year term commencing July 1, 2022
• Base salary adjustment of ten percent (10.0%) effective the first full pay period following adoption
• Cost of Living adjustment of eight percent (8.0%) effective the first full pay period following adoption
• Effective the first pay period following July 1, 2023, and the first pay period following July 1, 2024, the salary schedule shall be adjusted by the lesser of the following, not to be less than two percent (2%) or to exceed two-point five percent (2.5%):
a. The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the West Region (as found on the U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics web site) for March to March of the previous year; or
b. The City’s revenue change as measured by revenue receipts on June 30th • Updates to various aspects of the MOU to ensure meeting current legal requirements, providing additional clarity, and updates for procedures and processes. • An increase in the City’s contribution to health care benefits for qualifying members as effective the first full pay period following adoption, and an additional increase effective the first full pay period following July 1, 2023, and an additional increase effective the first full period following July 1, 2024
These terms, including health care contribution increases and language changes, are more fully described in the MOU for the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive/AtWill, Management and Administrative Personnel which will be available at the August 17, 2022, meeting.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the resolutions.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Agenda Item #4.4:

For FY 22/23 the financial impact is as follows:
•Approximately $264,000 increase in General Fund salary and benefit expense. •Approximately $29,000 increase in salary and benefit expense in all other funds.

The FY 22/23 budget has sufficient funds to cover the increase in salary and benefit expense contained in the terms, conditions and compensation adjustments for the Non-Represented Confidential Personnel and Executive, Management and Administrative Personnel.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution Management Terms & Conditions – Will be added at a later date.

Exhibit A – Terms & Conditions – Will be added at a later date.

Resolution Management Salary Schedule
Exhibit A - Salary Schedule - Management
Agenda Item #4.4:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION #____- 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA FIXING THE NONREPRESENTED EXECUTIVE/AT-WILL, MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE, AND

CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AND RESCINDING ALL PRIOR

RESOLUTIONS REGARDING FIXING OF SALARIES AND WAGES
WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma has an employee group which is not unionized, the NonRepresented Executive/At-Will, Management/Administrative and Confidential Personnel, for which the terms and conditions of employment are established by City Council resolution rather than a negotiated MOU; and
WHEREAS, a resolution establishing the terms and conditions of employment for NonRepresented Confidential, Executive/At-Will, Management and Administrative positions was adopted on August 17, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Sonoma as follows:

1. The salary schedules attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference made a part hereof is hereby adopted, incorporating the compensation rates effective as of the dates indicated for each position classification.

2. All prior resolutions regarding fixing of salaries and wages are rescinded in their entirety.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council on August 17, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________________
Jack Ding, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #4.4:

ABCDE A B C D E
Administrative/Management
Management Accountant 7,401 7,771 8,160 8,568 8,996 88,816 93,256 97,919 102,815 107,956 Management Accounting Manager 9,616 10,096 10,601 11,131 11,688 115,388 121,158 127,216 133,576 140,255 Management Administrative Services Director 13,915 14,611 15,342 16,109 16,914 166,983 175,332 184,099 193,303 202,969 Management Assistant to City Manager 9,316 9,782 10,271 10,784 11,323 111,789 117,378 123,247 129,409 135,880 Management City Clerk / Executive Assistant 9,316 9,782 10,271 10,784 11,323 111,789 117,378 123,247 129,409 135,880 Management Deputy City Manager 12,167 12,776 13,414 14,085 14,789 146,006 153,307 160,972 169,021 177,472 Management Deputy Finance Director 11,791 12,380 12,999 13,649 14,332 141,487 148,561 155,990 163,789 171,978 Management Development Services Director / Building Official 12,167 12,776 13,414 14,085 14,789 146,006 153,307 160,972 169,021 177,472 Management Finance Director 12,167 12,776 13,414 14,085 14,789 146,006 153,307 160,972 169,021 177,472 Management Human Resources Manager 9,316 9,782 10,271 10,784 11,323 111,789 117,378 123,247 129,409 135,880 Management Planning and Community Services Director 13,069 13,722 14,408 15,128 15,885 156,822 164,663 172,896 181,541 190,618 Management Public Works Administrative and Project Manager 8,872 9,316 9,781 10,271 10,784 106,465 111,788 117,378 123,247 129,409 Management Public Works Director / Engineer 13,915 14,611 15,342 16,109 16,914 166,983 175,332 184,099 193,303 202,969 Management Public Works Operations Manager 10,442 10,964 11,513 12,088 12,693 125,307 131,572 138,151 145,058 152,311 Management Senior Management Analyst‐Community Activities 8,872 9,316 9,781 10,271 10,784 106,465 111,788 117,378 123,247 129,409 Management Senior Management Analyst‐PIO 8,872 9,316 9,781 10,271 10,784 106,465 111,788 117,378 123,247 129,409 Management Senior Planner 9,316 9,782 10,271 10,784 11,323 111,789 117,378 123,247 129,409 135,880 Executive
Management City Manager/Executive Dir Community Development Agency 21,374 256,489 Effective the first full pay period following August 17, 2022 ‐ Additional 10% equity study increase to Base Pay for nonexempt executive and management positions Effective the first full pay period following August 17, 2022 ‐ Additional 8% COLA increase to Base Pay Per Management Resolutions dated July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025 These rates may be modified by publicly approved negotiated benefits under Meyers‐Milias Brown Act CITY OF SONOMA
Effective August 17, 2022
Assignments of Classifications to the Salary Schedule
Monthly Annual
Exhibit A Agenda Item #4.4:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Cathy Lanning, Human Resources Manager
Agenda Item Title
Adopt Resolutions Approving the Tentative Agreement with Sonoma Employees Association (SEIU) 1021; for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025 and Implementing the Adjusted Salaries and Wages of those Employees and Rescinding all Prior Resolutions Regarding Fixing of Salaries & Wages
Summary
This summary and attachments were not available at the time of publishing. This staff report will be updated at a later date.

Recommended Council Action
Alternative Actions
Financial Impact
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Agenda Item #4.5:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Adding a Regular Council Meeting on September 12, 2022 and Cancelling the Regular Council Meeting of September 7, 2022
Summary
At the last Council meeting on August 3, 2022, the Council directed that, due to a number of scheduling conflicts, the regular City Council meeting of Wednesday, September 7, 2022 would be cancelled and a regular City Council meeting scheduled on Monday, September 12, 2022 in its place.

By taking this action rather than scheduling a Special Meeting, the City Council will not be limited in the actions they can take (i.e. adopt an Ordinance).

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the Resolution.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
None
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Meeting Schedule Reso
Alignment with Council Goals:

Not Applicable
Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

N/A
Agenda Item #4.6:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #4.6:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ____ - 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA CANCELING THE REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 AND SCHEDULING A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
WHEREAS, Section 2.01.010 of the Sonoma Municipal Code requires the City Council to establish, by resolution, the date and time of regular Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted their 2022 Meeting Calendar on December 15, 2021; and WHEREAS, due to scheduling conflicts it is desired to cancel the previously scheduled Regular Meeting on September 7, 2022, and to schedule a Regular Meeting on September 12, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma that the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for September 7, 2022, has been canceled.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Regular Meeting on September 12, 2022, has been scheduled.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jack Ding, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #4.6:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Aug 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Kristina Tierney, Associate Planner
Agenda Item Title
Discussion, Consideration and Possible Direction to 1) Allocate the required funding and staffing to develop a revised Parklet Program 2.0. 2) Determine if developing a revised program should wait until Spring 2023 to evaluate Covid-19 impacts during the upcoming winter; 3) Require parklets remaining after October 31, 2022 to meet ADA requirements and established standards for parklets with a platform; and 4) Expand the scope of work to include the Sonoma Plaza Master Plan process.

Summary
On June 1, 2022 the City Council discussed the future of the City of Sonoma's Al Fresco Program and voted to:

1.Extend the existing program to April 1, 2023

2.Direct staff to develop a revised Sonoma Al Fresco Program Version 2.0

3.Terminate the 1st Street East road closure on October 31, 2022, allowing businesses until November 30, 2022 to remove all improvements.

Since June, City staff have been working with restaurants who are participating in the Sonoma Al Fresco program to address aesthetic clean up issues as well as to correct any issues with ADA, traffic safety, and zoning code requirements. At this time, staff seeks guidance on the required “interim improvements” needed for parklets to remain after October 31, 2022 and until April 1, 2023. Additionally, staff seeks direction on components for the revised Sonoma Al Fresco Program Version 2.0.

Interim Improvements
In coordination with the City Council Parklet Ad Hoc Committee, Public Works, Planning, and Building Departments, Code Enforcement and the Sonoma Valley Fire District, the following “interim improvements” are recommended:

Traffic Safety:
•Water walls shall be removed to improve public safety and shall be replaced with rubber curbs and channelizers, where appropriate. An alternative solution is needed at the corner of First Street East and East Spain Street due to the location of a fire hydrant. •The City shall procure rubber curbs and channelizers to replace water walls and standardize traffic safety protective measures.
•Stable sidewalls required on all three sides of a parklet. •Businesses to pay for rubber curbs (about $1,500 per parklet) and channelizers and the City would install at no cost.

Tents:
•Tents are regulated by California Fire Code, although concessions were made during Covid due to the health order which allowed modifications to tent standards by local fire officials.

Agenda Item #6.1:

•Per State Fire Code, tents are allowed to stay in place for a maximum of 180 days. There are currently 3 parklets with tents around the Plaza, all of which have exceeded the 180 day maximum.
•Staff recommends allowing existing tents to remain until April 1, 2023 consistent with direction on parklets.

Heaters:
•Heaters under tents are also regulated by State Fire Code. The Sonoma Fire District has provided an installation flow chart (Attachment A); however, propane heaters are not allowed under tents or near combustible materials or in the public right of way per State Fire Code. •All heaters must comply with Electrical and Fire codes.

ADA:
•Ramps must be in good working condition, as determined by the Chief Building Official. •Sidewalks must have 5 feet of clearance unless approved otherwise by the Chief Building Official.
•Umbrellas must have 6 feet 8 inches of clearance.
•No parklets without platforms shall be allowed beyond April 1, 2023.

Code Enforcement
•All improvements to meet Encroachment Permit standards (Attachment B) and interim improvements outlined above.
•Staff to engage Code Enforcement on November 1, 2022 to address outstanding issues regarding traffic safety, tents, heaters, and ADA. Parklets to remain between October 31, 2022 and April 1, 2023 shall meet interim standards.

Revised Al Fresco Program Version 2.0
As stated above, on June 1, 2022, City Council directed staff to pursue the development of comprehensive parklet design standards. Staff has received two scopes of work for consideration, one from M-Group to create the new program and the other from Page and Turnbull to evaluate the programs potential impacts on the historic Sonoma Plaza, which is a National Historic Landmark:
1)M-Group - Proposal for Parklet Program in the amount of $26,125 (Attachment C) 2)Page and Turnbull - Sonoma Parklet Program Historic Preservation Consultation in the amount of $10,000 (Attachment D)
In addition to the cost of the proposed contracts, substantial staff time will be required to develop the design standards and to address the interim improvements outlined above.

Staffing estimates for a 6-month period of time to address interim improvements and to establish the revised parklet program are as follows:
•City Manager: Approximately 5-10 hours per month
•Public Works: Approximately 5-10 hours a week
•Planning: Approximately 15-20 hours a week
•Building and Sonoma Valley Fire District: 5-10 hours per month In addition to the financial cost of establishing a new parklet program, staff recommends the City Council consider the potential impacts to other City Council priorities. Such ongoing initiatives include:
•Affordable housing and housing streamlining
•Zoning code improvements
Agenda Item #6.1:

•Downtown parking improvements
•Capital improvement program and numerous other responsibilities Potential Options:
1)Require parklets remaining after October 31, 2022 to meet ADA requirements and established standards for parklets with a platform. (Attachment B ). 2)Direct staff to proceed with Sonoma Al Fresco Version 2.0. and adopt a Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget in the amount of $36,125 and authorize the Interim City Manager to enter into separate contracts with M-Group and Page & Turnbull for Comprehensive Parklet Design Standards.
3)Postpone the development of the new program until Spring 2023 to evaluate Covid-19 impacts during winter.
4)Expand the Scope of Work for Comprehensive Parklet Design Standards to Include the Sonoma Plaza Master Plan process
Recommended Council Action
Discuss, consider, and provide direction to either:

1.Allocate the required funding and staffing to develop a revised Parklet Program 2.0. Direct staff to proceed with Sonoma Al Fresco 2.0.

2.Postpone the development of the revised program until Spring 2023 to evaluate Covid-19 impacts during upcoming winter season. Require parklets remaining after October 31, 2022 to meet ADA requirements and established standard for parklets with a platform.

3.Expand the scope of work to include the larger Sonoma Plaza Master Plan process.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
A large percentage of the City’s sales tax revenue is supplied by the City’s restaurants, with a significant percentage coming from the restaurants surrounding the Plaza. If the parklets are not allowed to continue, the City could potentially see a reduction in the amount of sales tax revenue that is provided by the extra seating capacity of the parklets. In addition, any potential future COVID-19 health restrictions or mandates prohibiting any indoor dining could also result in sales tax revenue loss.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Public Comment Process for ZOOM Attendance at Meetings
Resolution Parklet Design 2.0 and Budget Amendment
Agenda Item #6.1:

Attachment A - DRAFT Parklet Heating Flow Chart 2022
Attachment B - Sonoma - Encroachment Permit Standards 122220 Attachment C - M-Group Parklet Contract
Attachment D - Page and Turnbull Contract
Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #6.1:

PARTICIPATING IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS IN

A VIRTUAL FORMAT
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the City of Sonoma is providing multiple alternatives to viewing Council meetings and providing comments on items on the agenda. These include in person attendance, attendance via ZOOM, and submitting comments by email.

VIEWING MEETINGS ONLINE
You are able to view meetings online here:

Live streamed on the City’s CivicWeb Portal (sonomacity.civicweb.net) YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChZjUrg2rNLYxTgQHhFy-Tg).

SUBMITTING COMMENTS BY E-MAIL
If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item, please submit your comment via email at [email protected] at any time.
• Prior to the Meeting as Public Correspondence -- Per the City’s standard practice, any comments received prior to the commencement of the meeting will be uploaded to the public correspondence folder on the City’s CivicWeb Portal (https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/25498) and available for review by the public and the City Council. It will not be read during the meeting. • During the Meeting as Public Comment -- If you wish for your comments to be read into the record, please submit an email to [email protected] after the Mayor calls the meeting to order and prior to the close of Public Comment on that item on the agenda.

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION BY ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCING
The City of Sonoma is now offering the ability to view and participate in Council meetings via video meetings and telephonic conferencing via “Zoom” video conferencing computer technology. Instructions for participating via Zoom are provided below.

How do I join the City Council meeting via Zoom Video Conferencing? Please visit: https://zoom.us/j/94943925973 and either sign-up for a free Zoom account or continue as a guest. Once you have downloaded the app on your smart phone, joined from your web browser, or downloaded the Zoom software on your computer you will be ready for the Council meeting.

If you have previously signed up for Zoom, you can enter the following meeting ID to join the meeting: 949-4392-5973.

Agenda Item #6.1:

I don’t have a computer or smart phone; can I still use Zoom? If you don’t have a smart phone or computer to access the meeting via Zoom, no problem! You can participate on the phone, by calling one of the following numbers: (669) 900-9128 or (253) 215- 8782 or (346) 248- 7799 or (301) 715-8592 or (312) 626-6799 or (646) 558-8656 and entering meeting ID 949-4392-5973.

How can I provide Public Comment on Zoom?
The Mayor will request public comment during the Public Comment period on the agenda and during each Public Hearing and Regular Calendar Item. Once the Mayor has announced the public comment period, please do one of the following.

USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
• Click on the “Raise Hand” feature in the webinar controls. This will notify City staff that you have raised your hand and you would like to speak. • City staff will unmute your microphone when it is your turn to provide public comment.
• A prompt will appear to confirm you would like to be unmuted. Once you accept the prompt, you will have three minutes to provide public comment. • Once your public comment has ended, you will be muted again.

USING A REGULAR PHONE:
• Dial *9 (star 9), this will notify City staff that you have “raised your hand” for public comment.
• City staff will unmute your microphone when it is your turn to provide public comment.
• You will hear “you are unmuted” and then you will have three minutes to provide public comment.
• Once your public comment has ended, you will be muted again.

I don’t want to provide public comment live; can I provide my public comment for the record another way?
Of course! Please submit all public comments via email at [email protected].

I am having difficulties preparing for the meeting and learning Zoom, do you have any resources to help me?
Yes, please visit Zoom’s website support page on helpful tips to prepare for the meeting:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/201146643
Agenda Item #6.1:

RESOLUTION NO. ___- 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO SEPARATE

CONTRACTS WITH M-GROUP AND PAGE & TURNBULL AND
AUTHORIZING A FY 22/23 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, On June 1, 2022 the City Council discussed the future of the City of Sonoma's Al Fresco Program and voted to extend the existing program to April 1, 2023 and directed staff to pursue the development of comprehensive parklet design standards; and
WHEREAS, staff has received two scopes of work for consideration, one from MGroup to create the new Sonoma Al Fresco Program Version 2.0 and the other from Page and Turnbull to evaluate the programs potential impacts on the historic Sonoma Plaza, which is a National Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the M-Group proposal for the design of the Al-Fresco Parklet Program Version is in the amount of $26,125; and
WHEREAS, the Page and Turnbull proposal for the Sonoma Parklet Program Historic Preservation Consultation is in the amount of $10,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma directs staff to proceed with the development of Sonoma Al Fresco Program Version 2.0 and authorizes the Interim City Manager to execute a contract with M-Group for the design of the Al-Fresco Parklet Program Version 2.0 in the amount of $26,125 and a contract with Page and Turnbull for the Sonoma Parklet Program Historic Preservation Consultation in the amount of $10,000; and FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council is amending the Fiscal Year 22/23 General Fund Planning Contract Professional Services #100-43030- 347-50347 budget in the amount of $36,125 with the source of funding being General Fund Reserves.

ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Jack Ding, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, City Clerk
Agenda Item #6.1:

2022 PARKLET HEATING OPTIONS
Propane Patio Style Heaters
CFC 603.4.2
Heating unit and
propane are
outside the tent
and heat is ducted
into the tent
Portable Electric Heaters
CFC 604.10
5 feet from
building?
Yes No
5 feet from
area exit? or
exit path
Yes No
Inside / under a
structure with a roof /
canopy
Yes No
Listed and labeled for
outdoor use
Yes
In a space with no roof or
canopy and 5 ft from
combustible items and 5
feet from an exit or exit
path
Yes No No
Located beneath, or closer than 5
feet to combustible decorations
and combustible overhangs,
awnings, sunshades or similar
combustible attachments to
buildings.

Yes No
Installed / located within
3 feet of any
combustible materials.

Yes No
Inside a Tent
Yes No
Forced Air Heaters
CFC Chapter 31
Additional recommendations and/or requirements may
be made upon review of more detailed plans or site
inspections.

Yes No
Heater unit is 5
feet from tent,
building, and exits
Yes No
Propane tank is 5 feet away from heating unit, exits and tent Yes No
Propane tank is provided with vehicle
impact protection
Yes No
Attachment A
Agenda Item #6.1:

Building
20'-0"
Min. from Street Corner
50' +/- (6 diagonal parking spaces), or Width of Business Served (whichever is less) 48" min. width clear accessible route of travel on sidewalk.

City of Sonoma
Standard Plan for Temporary
Raised Parklet at
Diagonal Parking Spaces
Print on 17" x 11" sized paper
Notes:

Parklets shall not be located in front of red painted curbs, fire hydrants, fire department connections or within 20 feet of a street corner.At least 5% and not less than one dining seating space shall be made accessible to disabled individuals (e.g. 30" x 48" min. clear and level ground space, 28" – 34" table height with knee and toe clearance, etc.)Any modifications from the standards herein must be approved by the City Engineer and the City Planning & Community Development Director.Along the street side of the parklet or sidewalk extension, brittle materials such as lattice, pallets, or thin wood boards without cross-bracing support are not acceptable for guard fencing. 42" tall white flexible safety reflector delineator in line with wheel stop and parking space marking attached to street with butyl pad (provided by City as determined necessary by City Engineer).

Sidewalk
Street
6'-0" Not less than 5% of table seating must be accessible 2'-6" to 3'-6" high guard fencing with openings no greater than 6". Bolt guard fencing to planters, filled barrels or other approved lateral support bracing system. 7' min.; 14' max. 6'-0" min. Temporary Raised Parklet
Public Sidewalk
Diagonal parking space striping (typ)
6'-0" min.
6'-0" min.
6'-0" min. 6 ft. min. Water wall safety barriers at the on-coming traffic end of parklet (provided by City as determined necessary by City Engineer).

Building
5'-0" min. height solid screen to reduce physical distancing dimension between diners. Bolt screen to planters or other approved lateral support bracing system. 2'-0"
Min.
¼” thick steel plate transition walkway with slipresistant tape or liquid applied slip-resistant coating attached to decking - 5% max. slope
SP-05
REV 12/22/20
Maintain stormwater water drainage at gutter.
8'-0" max o.c.
24" square x 30" high planters or other approved element to provide out-of-plane guard fencing bracing. Bolt planters to rail system posts and screw to decking. 1 SP-06
1 SP-06
0 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft.
1'-0" min.
6'-0" min.

Raised platform for parklet must not exceed a maximum slope of 2% in any direction.

Attachment B
Agenda Item #6.1:

Existing
Sidewalk Existing Street
Building
Section
Parking Space Width or Depth
(varies)
8' @ Parallel Parking; 15' @ Diagonal Parking
City of Sonoma
Standard Plan for Temporary
Raised Parklets with String Lights
Wood leveling support for deck attached to street with spikes (5" min into street) at 24" o.c. or other approved fastener. Raised platform for parklet must not exceed a maximum slope of 2% in any direction. r
dth
50' +/- 6 diagonal parking spaces), or Width of Business Served (whichever is less) Existing
Street
Street Elevation – Raised Parklet with String Lights
2'-6" min.; 3'-6" max.
5'-0"
6' - 0" Physical
Distance
6' - 0" Physical
Distance
¼” steel plate transition ramp with slip-resistant tape or liquid applied slip-resistant coating, attached to decking - 5% max. slope and 48" min. clear width 5'-0" min. height solid screen to reduce physical distancing dimension between diners. Bolt screen to planters or other approved lateral support bracing system.

SP-06
Print on 17" x 11" sized paper REV 12/22/20
42" tall white flexible safety reflector delineator in line with wheel stop and parking space marking attached to street with butyl pad (provided by City as determined necessary by City Engineer).

Filled barrel or planter to provide guard railing support.

Existing
Sidewalk
1 SP-06
2 SP-06
Building
9'-0" min. above public sidewalk
8' - 0" min. at street side of parklet
9'-0" min. at building line
80" min. above walking
surface to bottom of lamp.

GFCI protected receptacle with water resistant cover.

Screw-eye bolt attached to building for securing steel guide cable.

String lights - UL listed for wet locations and outdoor use attached to steel guide cable (see Electrical Notes).

Guide cable and string light support post.

Steel guide cable (when required) to support string lights (see Electrical Notes).

String lights may be installed for a period not to exceed of 90 days. Remove and inspect wire and lamp sockets for degradation due to weather, UV light or other damage prior every 90 days and prior to any re-installation.Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter protection (GFCI) is required on the circuits or outlets serving the string lights. A receptacle cover must be in place to prevent the entry of water.String lights must comply with UL Standard 588 and be listed for use in outdoor and wet locations. String lights must be LED luminaires and controlled by an astronomical time clock or by a photo cell and a time clock. String lights must be capable of being turned off by a readily accessible switch or remote control.String lights must be installed in accordance with the owner installation manual, and the current California Electric Code.String lights must be supported by steel guide cables, with zip ties and eyebolts, or other suitable supporting hardware whenever span distances exceed 10 feet unless longer spans are specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.If an extension cord is used, it must be rated for outdoor use. Use only three wire outdoor extension cords that have three-prong grounding plugs and grounding receptacles that accept the three prong plug. Keep combustible material clear of bulbs. Do NOT allow lamps or sockets to come into contact with walls, fabrics, canopies, unbrellas or other combustible materials. String lights and extension cords shall not be secured with staples and shall not run through windows, door openings or other openings through walls.

Electrical Notes
2'-6" to 3'-6" high guard fencing with openings no greater than 6". Bolt guard fencing to planters, filled barrels or other approved lateral support bracing system. Along the street side of the parklet or sidewalk extension, brittle materials such as lattice, pallets, or thin wood boards without cross-bracing support are not acceptable for guard fencing.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Existing
Sidewalk
Existing Street
Building
Parking Space Width or Depth
(varies)
8' @ Parallel Parking; 15' @ Diagonal Parking
¼” steel plate transition walkway with slip-resistant tape or liquid applied slip-resistant coating supported on sidewalk and intermediate wood support at 18" maximum o.c. The transition walkway shall not exceed 5% max. running slope and 2% max. cross slope. 42" tall white flexible safety reflector delineator in line with wheel stop and parking space marking attached to street with butyl pad (provided by City as determined necessary by City Engineer). 1 SP-07
4'-0" min.
6" min. high warning curb at
edge of transition walkway.
6" min.

Tapered wood supports at 18" max. o.c. attached to street with butyl adhesive pads.Allow for storm drainage at curb and gutter.

NOTE: See sheet SP-04 for a typical
plan view of the transition walkway
Transition Walkway Section
2 SP-07
City of Sonoma
Standard Plan for Walkway
Transition from Public Sidewalk to
Street at Parklets SP-07 REV 12/8/20
6" min. high warning curb at
edge of walkway.

Tapered wood support at 18" max. o.c.

Top of (E) concrete curb (beyond)
¼” steel plate transition walkway with
slip-resistant tape or liquid applied slipresistant coating supported on sidewalk and intermediate wood support at 18"
maximum o.c. The transition walkway
shall not exceed 5% max. running slope
and 2% max. cross slope.

Top of (E) street
6" min. high warning curb at edge of transition walkway. ¼” steel plate transition walkway with slip-resistant tape or liquid applied slipresistant coating supported on sidewalk and intermediate wood support at 18" maximum o.c. The transition walkway shall not exceed 5% max. running slope and 2% max. cross slope.

Tapered wood support at 18" max. o.c.
attached to street with butyl adhesive pads.

Allow for storm drainage at curb & gutter.
2 SP-07
Transition Walkway Detail
4'-0" min.
3 SP-07
Transition Walkway Detail 3 SP-07
Top of (E)
concrete curb
Top of (E) street
At least 5% and not less than one dining seating space shall be made accessible to disabled individuals (e.g. 30" x 48" min. clear and level (2% max. slope) ground space, 28" – 34" table height with knee and toe clearance, etc.)Any modifications from the standards herein must be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director.

Print on 17" x 11" sized paper
2% max. slope in any direction at 30"x 48" clear ground space at accessible seating. ¼” max. vertical rise at
ends of transition
walkway.
48" wide accessible route with 5% max. running slope and 2% max. cross slope from transition walkway to accessible seating.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Sample Seating Layouts for
Temporary Raised Parklets
50'-0"
6'-0
mi "
n.
32 Seats
Building
Public Sidewalk
14'-0"
6'-0"
min.
6'-0"
min. 36" diameter tables shown
6'-0"
min.
0 ft. 3 ft.5 ft. 10 ft.
50'-0"
20 Seats
Building
Public Sidewalk
7'-0"
6'-0"
min.
6'-0"
min. 36" diameter tables shown
6'-0"
min.
8'-6"
Curb & Sidewalk
Parklet platform level with public sidewalk.

Curb & Sidewalk
Parklet platformlevel with public sidewalk.
8'-6"
Barrels, decorative planters or other guard fencing/canopy support systems. 2'-6" to 3'-6" high guard fencing with openings no greater than 6". Bolt guard fencing to planters, filled barrels or other approved lateral support bracing system. 2'-6" to 3'-6" high guard fencing with openings no greater than 6". Bolt guard fencing to planters, filled barrels or other approved lateral support bracing system.

SP-10
REV 12/8/20 Print on 17" x 11" sized paper
50'-0"
Building
Public Sidewalk
6'-0
mi "
n.
42 Seats
14'-0"
6'-0" min. 36" diameter tables shown
11'-6" min.

Parklet platform level with public sidewalk.2'-6" to 3'-6" high guard fencing. 6'-0"
min.
6'-0"
min.
5'-0" high solid barrier.

Curb & Sidewalk
Planters for guard fencing support bracing.
for sidewalk
tables
48" min. width clear route of travel with 2% max. cross slope. (typical) Barrels, decorative planters or other guard fencing/canopy support systems. 5% and not less than one parklet table seating must be accessible to disabled individuals (typical).

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 1

CITY OF SONOMA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 17th day of August 2022, by and between the CITY OF SONOMA herein called the “City,” and M-Group, herein called the “Consultant.” Recitals
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain services listed in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in Section 1 of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City desires to retain Consultant pursuant to this Agreement to provide the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement.

Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope of Services. Subject to such policy direction and approvals as the City through its staff may determine from time to time, Consultant shall perform the services set out in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Time of Performance. The services of Consultant are to commence upon receipt of a written notice to proceed from City, but in no event prior to receiving a fully executed agreement from City and obtaining and delivering the required insurance coverage, and satisfactory evidence thereof, to City. Consultant shall perform its services not later than August 17, 2022 and be completed not later than August 17, 2024. Any changes to these dates must be approved in writing by the City Manager or his or her representatives.

3. Standard of Quality. City relies upon the professional ability of Consultant as a material inducement to entering into this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be performed 1) with due diligence, using its best efforts to perform and coordinate all activities in a timely manner; 2) in accordance with all applicable legal requirements; and 3) with the standard of quality ordinarily expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise. Consultant shall correct, at its own expense, all errors made in the provision of services under this Agreement. In the event that Consultant fails to make such correction in a timely manner, City may make the correction and charge the cost thereof to Consultant.

4. Compensation and Method of Payment.

A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to Consultant, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules more particularly described in Exhibit A, in accordance with the terms and conditions included Attachment C Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 2
therein. However, in no event shall the amount City pays to consultant exceed twenty six thousand one hundred twenty five Dollars and zero cents ($26,125.00). City’s obligation to pay compensation to Consultant as provided herein is contingent upon Consultant’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

B. Timing of Payment. Billing and payment for said services shall be as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

C. Changes in Compensation. Consultant will not undertake any work that will incur costs in excess of the amount of set forth in Section 4(A) of this Agreement without prior written amendment to this Agreement. City shall have the right to amend the Scope of Work within the Agreement by written notification to the Consultant. In such event, the compensation and time of performance shall be subject to renegotiation upon written demand of either party to the Agreement. Consultant shall not commence any work exceeding the Scope of Work without prior written authorization from the City. Failure of the Consultant to secure City’s written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the contract price or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, etc. for work done without the appropriate City authorization.

D. Taxes. Consultant shall pay all taxes, assessments, and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by Consultant.

E. No Overtime or Premium Pay. Consultant shall receive no premium or enhanced payment for work normally understood as overtime, i.e., hours that exceed forty (40) hours per work week, or work performed during non-standard business hours, such as in the evenings or on weekends. Consultant shall not receive a premium or enhanced payment for work performed on a recognized holiday.

F. Litigation Support. Consultant agrees to testify at City’s request if litigation is brought against City in connection with Consultant’s work product. Unless the action is brought by Consultant or is based upon Consultant’s negligence, City will compensate Consultant for the preparation and the testimony at Consultant’s standard hourly rates, if requested by City and not part of the litigation brought by City against Consultant.

5. Inspection. Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this Agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the Project Manager’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill the requirement of this Agreement.

6. Ownership of Documents. Title, including the copyright and all intellectual property rights, all plans, specifications, maps, estimates, reports, manuscripts, drawings, descriptions, designs, data, photographs, reports and any other final work products compiled, Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 3
prepared, or obtained by the Consultant under the Agreement shall be vested in City, none of which shall be used in any manner whatsoever, by any person, firm, corporation, or agency without the expressed written consent of the City. Consultant shall assume no responsibility for the unintended use by others of such final work products which are not related to the scope of the services described under this Agreement. Basic survey notes and sketches, charts, computations, and other data prepared or obtained under the Agreement shall be made available, upon request, to City without restriction or limitations on their use. Consultant may retain copies of the abovedescribed information but agrees not to disclose or discuss any information gathered, discussed or generated in any way through this Agreement without the written permission of City during the term of this Agreement, unless required by law.

7. Employment of Other Consultants, Specialists, or Experts. Consultant will not employ or otherwise incur an obligation to pay other consultants, specialists, or experts for services in connection with this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City.

8. Conflict of Interest.

A. Consultant (including principals, associates, and professional employees) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this contract or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this contract. Consultant agrees at all times to avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of any conflicts of interest, with the interests of the City in the performance of the Agreement.

9. Interest of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no other officer, employee, or agent of the City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of any project to which this Agreement pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such person participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his/her personal interests or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he/she is directly or indirectly interested.

10. Liability of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no other officer, elected official, employee, or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Consultant or otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the City, or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly incurred under the terms of this Agreement. The City has no liability or responsibility for any accident, loss, or damage to any work performed under this Agreement whether prior to its completion or acceptance or otherwise.

11. Indemnity.

A. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liability (including liability for claims, Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 4
demands, damages, obligations, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged, or threatened), which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance pursuant to, or failure to comply, with this Agreement, regardless of any fault or alleged fault of the Indemnified Parties.

For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City), and hold harmless any Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged, or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time.

The only exception to Consultant’s responsibility to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from Liability is due to the active negligence or willful misconduct of City or its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees.

B. Scope of Obligation. Consultant’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable by or for Consultant under worker’s compensation, disability, or other employee benefit acts or the terms, applicability, or limitations of any insurance held or provided by Consultant and shall continue to bind the parties after termination/completion of this agreement. This indemnification shall be regardless of and not in any way limited by the insurance requirements of this contract. This indemnification is for the full period of time allowed by law and shall survive the termination of this agreement. Consultant waives any and all rights to express or implied indemnity against the Indemnified Parties concerning any Liability of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the Agreement or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement.

Consultant’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall not be excused because of the Consultant’s inability to evaluate Liability, or because the Consultant evaluates Liability and determines that the Consultant is not or may not be liable. The Consultant must respond within thirty (30) calendar days to any tender by the City, unless the time for responding has been extended by an authorized representative of the City in writing.

If the Consultant fails to timely accept such tender, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, as much of the money due or that may become due to the Consultant under this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the matter subject to tender, or until the Consultant accepts the tender, whichever occurs first. Consultant agrees to fully reimburse all costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation incurred by the City in responding to matters prior to Consultant’s acceptance of the tender.

12. Consultant Not an Agent of City. City retains all rights of approval and discretion with respect to the projects and undertakings contemplated by this Agreement. Consultant, its Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 5
officers, employees, and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision.

13. Independent Contractor. It is expressly agreed that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed by Consultant, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City and shall have responsibility for and control over the details and means of providing its services under this Agreement.

Consultant shall furnish, at its own expense, all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and services necessary for the successful completion of the services under this Agreement. As an independent contractor, Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim to may have to any such rights. Consultant, its officers, employees, and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision. Consultant shall not receive payment for time off for days not worked, whether it be in the form of sick leave, administration leave, or for any other form of absence.

14. Compliance with Laws.

A. General. Consultant shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations.

Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. City is not responsible or liable for Consultant’s failure to comply with any or all of the requirements contained in this paragraph or in this Agreement.

B. Workers’ Compensation. Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Consultant certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing performance of this Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.

C. Prevailing Wage. Consultant and Consultant’s subconsultants (if any) shall, to the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates to workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2.

D. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Consultant certifies that it is aware of and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6401.7, which requires every employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.

E. City’s Living Wage Ordinance. Unless otherwise exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, this contract is subject to the applicable provisions of the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) of the City as amended from time to time and can be found at Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 6
https://www.sonomacity.org/living-wage-law/ and is incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement.
(1) The Consultant assures payment of a minimum wage rate to employees as defined in the LWO and as may be adjusted each July 1 and provision of benefits as defined in the LWO.
(2) The Consultant, whether an employer, as defined in the LWO, or any other person employing individuals, shall not discharge, reduce in compensation, or otherwise discriminate against any employee for complaining to the City with regard to the employer’s compliance or anticipated compliance with the LWO. (3) Any Subcontract entered into by the Consultant relating to this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the LWO. (4) The Consultant shall, immediately upon execution of Contract, provide notification to all affected employees of the wage required to be paid pursuant to the LWO.
(5) The Consultant shall provide, upon demand by City, documents and information verifying compliance with the requirements of the LWO. (6) The City shall have the authority, under appropriate circumstances, to terminate this contract and otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available if the City determines that the subject Consultant has violated provisions of the LWO.

F. Business Licenses. Except as otherwise allowed by City in its sole discretion, Consultant and all subconsultants shall have acquired, at Consultant’s expense, a business license from the City in accordance with Chapter 5.04 of the Sonoma Municipal Code, prior to City’s issuance of an authorization to proceed with the Services. Such license(s) shall be kept valid throughout the term of this Agreement. City may withhold compensation from Consultant until such time as Consultant complies with this section.

G. City Not Responsible. The City is not responsible or liable for Consultant’s failure to comply with any and all of said requirements.

15. Confidential Information. All data, documents, discussions, or other information developed or received by or for Consultant in performance of this Agreement are confidential and not to be disclosed to any person except as authorized by City, or as required by law.

16. Assignment; Subcontractors; Employees
A. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign, delegate, transfer, or convey its duties, responsibilities, or interests in this Agreement or any right, title, obligation, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the City’s prior written consent, which shall be in the City’s sole and absolute discretion. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and, at the City’s option, shall immediately cause this Agreement to terminate.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 7
B. Subcontractors; Employees. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of Consultant hereunder. No subcontractor of Consultant shall be recognized by the City as such; rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be employees of the Consultant, and Consultant agrees to be responsible for their performance. Consultant shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or subcontractor of Consultant fails or refused to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, it shall be discharged immediately from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.

17. Insurance.

A. Minimum Scope of Insurance.
(1) Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, a General Liability insurance policy insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence and in the aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (2) Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract an Automobile Liability insurance policy insuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(3) A Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability policy written in accordance with the laws of the State of California and providing coverage for any and all employees of Consultant:
(4) (a) This policy shall provide coverage for Workers’ Compensation (Coverage A).
(b) This policy shall also provide coverage for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Employers’ Liability per accident for bodily injury or disease (Coverage B).
(c) Consultant and Consultant’s insurance company agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses paid under Consultant’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which arise from the work performed by Consultant for City.
(5) All of the following endorsements are required to be made a part of each of the required policies, except for the Professional Liability and Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability policies, as stipulated below:

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 8
(a) “The City of Sonoma, its employees, officers, officials, agents, volunteers and contractors are hereby added as additional insureds, as respects work done by, for or on behalf of the named insured.”
(b) “This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects any other valid and collectible insurance or coverage the City may possess, including any self-insured retention or insurance pooling arrangement the City may have, and any other insurance the City does possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.”
(c) “This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each. This, however, will not act to increase the limit of liability of the insuring company.” (6) Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract an Errors and Omissions Liability insurance policy insuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. (7) Consultant shall provide to the City all certificates of insurance with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this paragraph. Certificates of such insurance and endorsements in a form acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City on or before commencement of performance of this Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.

B. General Liability.
(1) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. (2) Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

C. All Coverages. Each insurance policy required in this item shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after 30 days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file with the City Secretary at all times during the term of this Agreement.

D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating of no less than A:VII.

E. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City’s option, Consultant shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions.

18. Assignment Prohibited. Neither the City nor Consultant may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation hereunder shall be void and of no effect.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 9

19. Termination of Agreement.

A. This Agreement and all obligations hereunder may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by the City to the Consultant upon 5 days’ written notice.

B. If Consultant fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement within the time and in the manner herein provided or otherwise violates any of the terms of this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred hereunder, an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in the Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered hereunder by the Consultant bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total fee; provided, however, that the City shall deduct from such amount the amount of damages, if any, sustained by City by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by the Consultant.

C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City without cause, Consultant shall be entitled to any compensation owing to it hereunder up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation of services rendered prior to the time of payment.

D. Upon termination of this Agreement with or without cause, Consultant shall turn over to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by the Consultant or its subcontractors, if any, or given to Consultant or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property of the City. Consultant, however, shall not be liable for the City’s use of incomplete materials nor for the City’s use of complete documents if used for other than the project contemplated by this Agreement.

20. Suspension. The City shall have the authority to suspend this Agreement and the services contemplated herein, wholly or in part, for such period as it deems necessary due to unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of the Consultant to perform any provision of this Agreement. Consultant will be paid for satisfactory services performed prior to the date of suspension. During the period of suspension, Consultant shall not receive any payment for services or expenses incurred by Consultant by reason of such suspension.

21. Merger; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between City and Consultant and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both the City and Consultant. All provisions of this Agreement are expressly made conditions.

22. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though it was a product of a joint drafting effort and no provisions shall be interpreted against a party on the ground that said party was solely or primarily responsible for drafting the language to be interpreted.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 10

23. Litigation Costs. If either party becomes involved in litigation arising out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, the court in such litigation shall award reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, to the prevailing party. In awarding attorneys’ fees, the court will not be bound by any court fee schedule, but shall, if it is in the interest of justice to do so, award the full amount of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in good faith.

24. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. However, the City recognizes that Consultant’s performance must be governed by sound professional practices.

25. Written Notification. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communications that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice, demand, etc. shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: City of Sonoma
Planning and Community Services Director
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
If to Consultant: M-Group
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1
Berkeley, CA 94703

27. Consultant’s Books and Records.

A. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.

B. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement.

C. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 11
D. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment, or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City and that the records and documents be maintained in City Hall. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.

28. Agreement Binding. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and subcontractors of both parties.

29. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant is an equal opportunity employer and agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated during such employment without regard to race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin. Such action shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-offs or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant further agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

30. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This is a non-exclusive agreement. City reserves the right to provide, and to retain other consultants to provide, services that are the same or similar to the services described in this Agreement.

31. City Not Obligated to Third Parties. The City shall not be obligated or liable for payment hereunder to any party other than Consultant.

32. Remedies/Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any term, covenant, condition, right, or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, right, or remedy that party may have hereunder. All remedies permitted or available under this Agreement, or at law or in equity, are cumulative and alternative. As a condition precedent to commencing legal action involving a claim or dispute against the City arising from this Agreement, the Consultant must present a written claim to City in accordance with the Sonoma Municipal Code.

33. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference:

A. Exhibit A: Scope of Services

34. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 12

35. News Releases/Interviews. All Consultant and subconsultant news releases, media interviews, testimony at hearings, and public comment shall be prohibited unless expressly authorized by the City.

36. Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to California law. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that a trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Sonoma, California.

37. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.

38. Statement of Economic Interest. If City determines Consultant comes within the definition of Consultant under the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 87100), Consultant shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with the Clerk of the City of Sonoma disclosing Consultant and/or such other person’s financial interests.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

CITY OF SONOMA
By:

Sue Casey, Interim City Manager

CONSULTANT
By:

Title
Federal Tax Identification Number or
Social Security Number

FOR CITY USE ONLY
Account No.

Project Manager
Agenda Item #6.1:

m-group.us 2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703 a new design on urban
August 2, 2022
Ms. Kristina Tierney
Associate Planner
City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Subject: Proposal for Parklet Program
Dear Kristina,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit an M-Group proposal for services to develop a Parklet Program for outdoor dining in Sonoma. After speaking with you and reviewing the background materials you have provided, we understand the City’s needs for the Parklet Program. We also understand the City’s desire to have a draft document to share with the Ad Hoc Committee and the City Council in a timely manner. We have prepared a scope of work and budget, below.

SCOPE OF WORK
Any reference to Page & Turnbull is for work completed as part of a separate contract with the City of Sonoma and not a part of this M-Group Scope of Work.

TASK 1 | BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In Task 1, M-Group will develop an understanding and approach to developing the necessary information to be included in Parklet Program documentation.

Task 1.1 – Project Initiation Meeting
M-Group will initiate the project with City staff, including a discussion of development and design issues related to implementation of outdoor dining spaces that may not be part of the planning department’s purview, such as building or public safety. City staff will provide input from the Parklet Program Ad Hoc Committee on these issues.

Task 1.2 – Case Study Background
M-Group will review materials relevant to design, development, and permitting of the outdoor parklets. This will include program details of the City’s current “Sonoma Al Fresco” program that has been operating during the Covid-19 pandemic. M-Group will also review the 2017 Downtown Sonoma Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other City regulatory documents identified during the project initiation meeting in Task 1.1.

Agenda Item #6.1:

m-group.us
a new design on urban
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703 2
Additionally, case study information regarding relevant outdoor dining features in other jurisdictions will be consulted.

Lastly, M-Group will review a memorandum prepared by Page & Turnbull specifically for the purpose of understanding background issue relevant to the Parklet Program in the context of the Downtown Planning District setting. The primary goal of this subtask will be to develop a menu of development features to be considered for inclusion in the Parklet Program.

Task 1.3 – Design and Development Issues
M-Group will develop a range of topics that should be discussed in the Parklet Program, including how specific issues might be communicated, such as plan view, axonometric view, or construction/fabrication detail. Additionally, other potential issues to be addressed could include but not be limited to enclosure height and transparency, accessibility (ADA compliance), materials, and types and colors of barriers that would be allowed at the perimeter of parklets. Other issues, such as parklets that desire the provision of electrical service, will be included for discussion with appropriate City staff/departments.

TASK 2 | DRAFT PARKLET PROGRAM CONTENT
In Task 2, M-Group will develop a preliminary draft text document for review by City staff and the Ad Hoc Committee.

Task 2.1 – Preliminary Documentation
M-Group will develop a preliminary draft document that covers the anticipated range of issues and subject matter that will be required to convey the intent of the Parklet Program.

Graphics will be provided, as necessary.

Task 2.2 – Review with City Staff
M-Group will meet with City staff to review the draft document prepared in Task 2.1. The purpose will be to ensure the document addresses all necessary information, as determined in Task 1.3 and subsequent discussions. All City departments with relevant interest in the Parklet Program should be represented at this meeting. This meeting should also address any issues identified by Page & Turnbull in the Task 2.1 preliminary documentation.

Task 2.3 – Revisions to Program Content
Based on the discussion with City staff members in Task 2.2 regarding the draft documentation, M-Group will make appropriate revisions before sharing the revised draft document with the Ad Hoc Committee.

Agenda Item #6.1:

m-group.us
a new design on urban
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703 3
Task 2.4 – Ad Hoc Committee Meeting #1
M-Group will receive comments from the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Preliminary Draft document.

TASK 3 | DRAFT PARKLET PROGRAM DOCUMENT
In Task 3, M-Group will develop a Draft Parklet Program document in Adobe InDesign to provide text layout and integrated graphic content. The draft (PDF) document will incorporate input from City staff and the Ad Hoc Committee, based on discussions in Task 2.

Task 3.1 – Draft Document
M-Group will develop a document template for the necessary information to implement the Parklet Program. Initially, we believe a two-page format can be employed to provide the information. This would provide the information on a back-to-back 8½ by 11 format or a 11 by 17 spread. The goal will be to arrange the necessary information in a concise format.

Upon approval of the document template, M-Group will input the text and necessary graphics into the template for development of the draft document.

Task 3.2 – Review with City Staff
M-Group will meet with City staff to review the draft document. The purpose will be to ensure the document conveys all necessary text and graphic information necessary to implement the Parklet Program, while also being organized in a manner that is user-friendly. All City departments with relevant interest in the implementation of the Parklet Program should be represented at this meeting. This meeting should also address any issues identified by Page & Turnbull in the Task 3.1 draft document.

Task 3.3 – Revisions to Draft Document
Based on the discussion regarding Preliminary Designs with City staff members in Task 3.2, M-Group will make appropriate revisions, which could include updates to construction/fabrication requirements as well as graphic layout of the program document.

Task 3.4 – Ad Hoc Committee Meeting #2
M-Group will receive comments from the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Draft Parklet Program document.

TASK 4 | PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION
In Task 4, M-Group will revise the Parklet Program documentation, as necessary, during the public review and adoption process.

Agenda Item #6.1:

m-group.us
a new design on urban
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703 4
Task 4.1 – Revised Document
In coordination with City staff, M-Group will make any necessary revisions to the Parklet Program document based on input from Ad Hoc Committee Meeting #2 and in advance of a City Council hearing to discuss the draft document. This revision should also encompass any issues identified by Page & Turnbull regarding Ad Hoc Committee comments.

Task 4.2 – City Council Review
M-Group will provide the City Council with the Draft Parklet Program for review and discussion.

Task 4.3 – Revisions to City Council Draft
In coordination with City staff, M-Group will make any necessary revisions to the Draft Parklet Program based on City Council direction and in advance of a second City Council hearing to consider adoption. As necessary, Page & Turnbull may provide additional input.

Task 4.4 – City Council Adoption
M-Group will provide the City Council with a revised Draft Parklet Program for consideration of adoption of the Parklet Program.

Task 4.5 – Final Parklet Program Document
Following adoption of the Parklet Program, M-Group will make any final revisions to the document in accordance with Council direction and provide an electronic copy to City staff.

BUDGET SUMMARY – ALL TASKS

TASK COST
Task 1: Background and Analysis $4,300
Task 2: Draft Parklet Program Content $6,600
Task 3: Draft Parklet Program Document $6,950
Task 4: Public Review and Adoption $5,900
Subtotal $23,750
Contingency (10%) $2,375
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $26,125
A rate sheet for M-Group staff is attached to this letter.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal for M-Group services. Please contact me should you have any questions or need to clarify any issues.

Agenda Item #6.1:

m-group.us
a new design on urban
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703 5
Sincerely,
Tom Ford, AICP
Principal
Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 1

CITY OF SONOMA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 17th day of August 2022, by and between the CITY OF SONOMA herein called the “City,” and Page and Turnbull, herein called the “Consultant.”
Recitals
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain services listed in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in Section 1 of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City desires to retain Consultant pursuant to this Agreement to provide the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement.

Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope of Services. Subject to such policy direction and approvals as the City through its staff may determine from time to time, Consultant shall perform the services set out in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Time of Performance. The services of Consultant are to commence upon receipt of a written notice to proceed from City, but in no event prior to receiving a fully executed agreement from City and obtaining and delivering the required insurance coverage, and satisfactory evidence thereof, to City. Consultant shall perform its services not later than August 17, 2022 and be completed not later than August 17, 2024. Any changes to these dates must be approved in writing by the City Manager or his or her representatives.

3. Standard of Quality. City relies upon the professional ability of Consultant as a material inducement to entering into this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be performed 1) with due diligence, using its best efforts to perform and coordinate all activities in a timely manner; 2) in accordance with all applicable legal requirements; and 3) with the standard of quality ordinarily expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise. Consultant shall correct, at its own expense, all errors made in the provision of services under this Agreement. In the event that Consultant fails to make such correction in a timely manner, City may make the correction and charge the cost thereof to Consultant.

4. Compensation and Method of Payment.

A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to Consultant, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules Attachment D Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 2
more particularly described in Exhibit A, in accordance with the terms and conditions included therein. However, in no event shall the amount City pays to consultant exceed ten thousand Dollars and zero cents ($10,000.00). City’s obligation to pay compensation to Consultant as provided herein is contingent upon Consultant’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

B. Timing of Payment. Billing and payment for said services shall be as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

C. Changes in Compensation. Consultant will not undertake any work that will incur costs in excess of the amount of set forth in Section 4(A) of this Agreement without prior written amendment to this Agreement. City shall have the right to amend the Scope of Work within the Agreement by written notification to the Consultant. In such event, the compensation and time of performance shall be subject to renegotiation upon written demand of either party to the Agreement. Consultant shall not commence any work exceeding the Scope of Work without prior written authorization from the City. Failure of the Consultant to secure City’s written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the contract price or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, etc. for work done without the appropriate City authorization.

D. Taxes. Consultant shall pay all taxes, assessments, and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by Consultant.

E. No Overtime or Premium Pay. Consultant shall receive no premium or enhanced payment for work normally understood as overtime, i.e., hours that exceed forty (40) hours per work week, or work performed during non-standard business hours, such as in the evenings or on weekends. Consultant shall not receive a premium or enhanced payment for work performed on a recognized holiday.

F. Litigation Support. Consultant agrees to testify at City’s request if litigation is brought against City in connection with Consultant’s work product. Unless the action is brought by Consultant or is based upon Consultant’s negligence, City will compensate Consultant for the preparation and the testimony at Consultant’s standard hourly rates, if requested by City and not part of the litigation brought by City against Consultant.

5. Inspection. Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this Agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the Project Manager’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill the requirement of this Agreement.

6. Ownership of Documents. Title, including the copyright and all intellectual property rights, all plans, specifications, maps, estimates, reports, manuscripts, drawings, descriptions, designs, data, photographs, reports and any other final work products compiled, Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 3
prepared, or obtained by the Consultant under the Agreement shall be vested in City, none of which shall be used in any manner whatsoever, by any person, firm, corporation, or agency without the expressed written consent of the City. Consultant shall assume no responsibility for the unintended use by others of such final work products which are not related to the scope of the services described under this Agreement. Basic survey notes and sketches, charts, computations, and other data prepared or obtained under the Agreement shall be made available, upon request, to City without restriction or limitations on their use. Consultant may retain copies of the abovedescribed information but agrees not to disclose or discuss any information gathered, discussed or generated in any way through this Agreement without the written permission of City during the term of this Agreement, unless required by law.

7. Employment of Other Consultants, Specialists, or Experts. Consultant will not employ or otherwise incur an obligation to pay other consultants, specialists, or experts for services in connection with this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City.

8. Conflict of Interest.

A. Consultant (including principals, associates, and professional employees) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this contract or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this contract. Consultant agrees at all times to avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of any conflicts of interest, with the interests of the City in the performance of the Agreement.

9. Interest of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no other officer, employee, or agent of the City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of any project to which this Agreement pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such person participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his/her personal interests or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he/she is directly or indirectly interested.

10. Liability of Members and Employees of City. No member of the City and no other officer, elected official, employee, or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Consultant or otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the City, or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly incurred under the terms of this Agreement. The City has no liability or responsibility for any accident, loss, or damage to any work performed under this Agreement whether prior to its completion or acceptance or otherwise.

11. Indemnity.

A. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liability (including liability for claims, Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 4
demands, damages, obligations, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged, or threatened), which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance pursuant to, or failure to comply, with this Agreement, regardless of any fault or alleged fault of the Indemnified Parties.

For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City), and hold harmless any Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged, or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time.

The only exception to Consultant’s responsibility to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from Liability is due to the active negligence or willful misconduct of City or its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees.

B. Scope of Obligation. Consultant’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable by or for Consultant under worker’s compensation, disability, or other employee benefit acts or the terms, applicability, or limitations of any insurance held or provided by Consultant and shall continue to bind the parties after termination/completion of this agreement. This indemnification shall be regardless of and not in any way limited by the insurance requirements of this contract. This indemnification is for the full period of time allowed by law and shall survive the termination of this agreement. Consultant waives any and all rights to express or implied indemnity against the Indemnified Parties concerning any Liability of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the Agreement or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement.

Consultant’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless as set forth in this Section 12 shall not be excused because of the Consultant’s inability to evaluate Liability, or because the Consultant evaluates Liability and determines that the Consultant is not or may not be liable. The Consultant must respond within thirty (30) calendar days to any tender by the City, unless the time for responding has been extended by an authorized representative of the City in writing.

If the Consultant fails to timely accept such tender, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, as much of the money due or that may become due to the Consultant under this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the matter subject to tender, or until the Consultant accepts the tender, whichever occurs first. Consultant agrees to fully reimburse all costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation incurred by the City in responding to matters prior to Consultant’s acceptance of the tender.

12. Consultant Not an Agent of City. City retains all rights of approval and discretion with respect to the projects and undertakings contemplated by this Agreement. Consultant, its Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 5
officers, employees, and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision.

13. Independent Contractor. It is expressly agreed that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed by Consultant, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City and shall have responsibility for and control over the details and means of providing its services under this Agreement.

Consultant shall furnish, at its own expense, all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and services necessary for the successful completion of the services under this Agreement. As an independent contractor, Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim to may have to any such rights. Consultant, its officers, employees, and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision. Consultant shall not receive payment for time off for days not worked, whether it be in the form of sick leave, administration leave, or for any other form of absence.

14. Compliance with Laws.

A. General. Consultant shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations.

Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. City is not responsible or liable for Consultant’s failure to comply with any or all of the requirements contained in this paragraph or in this Agreement.

B. Workers’ Compensation. Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Consultant certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing performance of this Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.

C. Prevailing Wage. Consultant and Consultant’s subconsultants (if any) shall, to the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates to workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2.

D. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Consultant certifies that it is aware of and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6401.7, which requires every employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.

E. City’s Living Wage Ordinance. Unless otherwise exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, this contract is subject to the applicable provisions of the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) of the City as amended from time to time and can be found at Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 6
https://www.sonomacity.org/living-wage-law/ and is incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement.
(1) The Consultant assures payment of a minimum wage rate to employees as defined in the LWO and as may be adjusted each July 1 and provision of benefits as defined in the LWO.
(2) The Consultant, whether an employer, as defined in the LWO, or any other person employing individuals, shall not discharge, reduce in compensation, or otherwise discriminate against any employee for complaining to the City with regard to the employer’s compliance or anticipated compliance with the LWO. (3) Any Subcontract entered into by the Consultant relating to this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the LWO. (4) The Consultant shall, immediately upon execution of Contract, provide notification to all affected employees of the wage required to be paid pursuant to the LWO.
(5) The Consultant shall provide, upon demand by City, documents and information verifying compliance with the requirements of the LWO. (6) The City shall have the authority, under appropriate circumstances, to terminate this contract and otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available if the City determines that the subject Consultant has violated provisions of the LWO.

F. Business Licenses. Except as otherwise allowed by City in its sole discretion, Consultant and all subconsultants shall have acquired, at Consultant’s expense, a business license from the City in accordance with Chapter 5.04 of the Sonoma Municipal Code, prior to City’s issuance of an authorization to proceed with the Services. Such license(s) shall be kept valid throughout the term of this Agreement. City may withhold compensation from Consultant until such time as Consultant complies with this section.

G. City Not Responsible. The City is not responsible or liable for Consultant’s failure to comply with any and all of said requirements.

15. Confidential Information. All data, documents, discussions, or other information developed or received by or for Consultant in performance of this Agreement are confidential and not to be disclosed to any person except as authorized by City, or as required by law.

16. Assignment; Subcontractors; Employees
A. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign, delegate, transfer, or convey its duties, responsibilities, or interests in this Agreement or any right, title, obligation, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the City’s prior written consent, which shall be in the City’s sole and absolute discretion. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and, at the City’s option, shall immediately cause this Agreement to terminate.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Professional Services Agreement 7
B. Subcontractors; Employees. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of Consultant hereunder. No subcontractor of Consultant shall be recognized by the City as such; rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be employees of the Consultant, and Consultant agrees to be responsible for their performance. Consultant shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or subcontractor of Consultant fails or refused to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, it shall be discharged immediately from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.

17. Insurance.

A. Minimum Scope of Insurance.
(1) Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, a General Liability insurance policy insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence and in the aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (2) Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract an Automobile Liability insurance policy insuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(3) A Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability policy written in accordance with the laws of the State of California and providing coverage for any and all employees of Consultant:
(4) (a) This policy shall provide coverage for Workers’ Compensation (Coverage A).
(b) This policy shall also provide coverage for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Employers’ Liability per accident for bodily injury or disease (Coverage B).
(c) Consultant and Consultant’s insurance company agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses paid under Consultant’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which arise from the work performed by Consultant for City.
(5) All of the following endorsements are required to be made a part of each of the required policies, except for the Professional Liability and Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability policies, as stipulated below:

Agenda Item #6.1: