Agenda — Sonoma City Council, November 2, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for Local Amendments

78. Add subsection 503.2.7 for buildings located on slopes of greater than five percent (5%).

Adds needed requirement for additional fire protection measures, as the fire chief deems necessary to mitigate access constraints by building on slopes greater than five percent (5%).

79. Add a new Subsection 503.6.1– Width Adds subsection requiring gate entrances to be wider than the roadway to allow for emergency vehicle access – this is in alignment with Sonoma County Requirements.

80. Add a new Subsection 503.6.2– Setbacks Adds subsection requiring gates along public and private roads be set back to allow vehicles to clear the roadway and not obstruct traffic on the public roadway or emergency vehicle access.

81. Amend subsection 505.1 – Premises identification (including subsection modifications)
Amends the code to clarify that the City of Sonoma assigns address numbers and clarifies the criteria for address identification.

82. Add a new subsection 507.1.1 - Emergency water during construction.

Adds subsection to require emergency water system on-site prior to installing combustible construction.

83. Amend subsection 507.2.2 Water Tanks Amends the code to require instillation of water tanks to comply with National Standards and allows for a more cost-effective solution for 1 and 2 family dwellings.

84. Amend subsection 507.5.1 – Where fire hydrants are
required
Amends the code to continue the previous requirement for on-site hydrants (508.5.1)

85. Amend subsection 507.5.1.1 Hydrant for Fire Department Connections
Amends the code to match existing amendments requiring a fire hydrant within 50 feet of a buildings fire sprinkler connection.

86. Add a new subsection 507.5.7- Fire hydrant size and outlets Requires Fire hydrant size and outlets to comply with City of Sonoma standard plans

87. Add a new subsection 507.5.8- Fire hydrant street marker Requires Fire hydrant street markers to comply with City of Sonoma standard plans

88. Add subsection 901.11 - Notice of Nuisance Alarm Amends the code to establish a procedure for written notification of a nuisance alarm. Needed to enforce penalties for false fire/smoke/sprinkler alarms.

89. Add section 901.12- Unreliable Fire Alarm Systems Amends the code to establish procedures and penalties for false fire/smoke/sprinkler alarms.

90. Add Subsection 901.12.1 – Hearing on Notice Provides a procedure and opportunity to a building owner to dispute a notice of nuisance alarm.

91. [NEW] Amend subsection 903.2 - Fire Sprinklers - Where Required
Amends the code to be consistent with previous City ordinances and policies pertaining to fire sprinkler system requirements and triggers. Ensures CA State laws designed to stimulate affordable housing are protected and addressed with exceptions.

Additionally protects property owners remodeling to comply with ADA requirements.

92. [NEW] Add Subsection 903.2.10.3 – Group S-2 public
parking garages
Requires a more robust and effective fire sprinkler system in public parking garages where vehicles powered by lithium, lithium-ion and other batteries are parked.

93. Amend subsection 903.3.7 - Fire department connections The purpose of this proposed code language is to take advantage of new technology designed to assure that fire department connections are useable when necessary. Fire department connections are typically necessary during times when the municipal water supply is incapable of delivering normal flows and pressures. Such circumstances have been experienced by other communities during large fires and subsequent to seismic activity.

94. Amend subsection 903.4.2 - Alarms The proposed amendment provides clearer guidance to building owners, fire protection system designers and system installers.

95. Add a new Subsection 903.4.2.1 Relocates within the code an existing amendment that requires an interior bell when a fire sprinkler system activates.

96. [NEW] Amend Section 903.6 Clarifies fire sprinkler requirements for existing buildings and structures.

97. [NEW] 905.3 – Required Installations Clarifies when standpipe systems shall be installed in alignment with other amendments within this code.

98. Amend subsection 905.3.1- Height (Standpipes) Amends the code to consider the roof as an additional story for buildings three or more stories in height thereby expanding the class III standpipe system requirement

99. [NEW] Add Subsection 905.3.12 – Group S-2 public parking garages
Identifies the type and location of standpipes in newly constructed S-2 parking garages to provide the fire protection necessary to extinguish vehicle fires powered by lithium, lithium-ion and other batteries. 100. [NEW] Add a new Subsection 907.1.6 – Certification (fire alarm systems)
Requires new fire alarm systems to be UL-Certified. Provides for a more reliable fire alarm system. 101. [NEW] Add a new Subsection 907.1.6.1 – Posting of
Certification (fire alarm systems)
Requires new fire alarm systems have their required UL – certification posted on or near fire alarm panel.

Agenda Item #5.1:

Page 254 of 301 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for Local Amendments
102. Amend Subsection 907.6.6 – Monitoring Amends the code to require Central Station Monitoring on new and upgraded fire alarm systems. Central Station monitoring (also required in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County) provides for a more reliable fire alarm system. 103. [NEW] Add Subsection 910.2.3 lithium, lithium-ion and other batteries containing combustible electrolyte in
vehicles.

Require a mechanical smoke removal system in parking garages to ensure smoke and toxic gasses are removed to the exterior during a fire event. This will add additional protection to the occupants and first responders. 104. Amend Subsection 912.2 – Location Amends the code to ensure placement of required fire protection systems do not obstruct emergency vehicle access. 105. Add a new Subsection 914.12 through 914.12.2 Adds subsection defining fire protection requirements for new and existing type 3 wine caves. 106. Add section 3314.3 - Buildings under construction. Amends the code to provide an added measure of fire safety for buildings high buildings undergoing construction. 107. Add section 3314.4 - Buildings being demolished Amends the code to provide an added measure of fire safety during the demolition of multi-story buildings. 108. [NEW] Add Section 3901.4 – Technical Assistance Report Requires a technical assistance report for all new plant extraction and processing facilities. 109. [NEW] Amend Section 3903.2 – Prohibited Occupancies Does not allow extraction processing that utilizes flammable gasses ot liquids to be located in Assembly, Education, Institutional, and Residential Occupancies.
110. [NEW] Amend Subsection 3903.3 – Location Provides for safety and separation when hazardous processes are used in the extraction process. 111. [NEW] Amend Subsection 3903.5 – Use of flammable and combustible liquids
Regulates the location and type of equipment used when flammable and combustible liquids are used for extraction. 112. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.5.1 – Electrical Components Regulates components and wiring and safety shut off within chemical flume hoods used for plant extraction. 113. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.5.2 - Refrigerators, Freezers, and Cooling Equipment
Regulates the listing and location of Refrigerators, freezers, and other cooling equipment used to store or cool flammable liquids and points to the California Electric Code.
114. [NEW] Amend Subsection 3903.6 – Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Regulates the release of LPG in compliance with additional referenced standards and other sections of this code. 115. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.1 – Exhaust Requires an approved exhaust system when LPG extractions occur. 116. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.1.1 – Installation The above exhaust systems (item 106) will be installed per the requirements of the California Mechanical Code. 117. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.1.2 – Processes Requires LPG extraction processes be conducted under a hood, enclosure or room that is compliant with the CA Mechanical Code.
118. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2 – Electrical Systems Clarifies and points to new code amendments the electrical system requirements for plant extraction. 119. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2.1 – Electrical Bonding & Grounding
Ensures all equipment and conductive objects are bonded and grounded in accordance with the California Electrical Code 120. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2.2 – Classified Areas Ensures special areas within a plant extraction hood or enclosure meet conditions required in the California Electrical Code. 121. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2.3 – Interlock Requires electrical lights and equipment will not operate unless the exhaust hood is running. 122. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2.4 – Emergency Power Requires emergency power in portions of the plant extraction process to enhance safety, 123. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.6.2.5 – Gas Detection Systems Gas detection systems when required will not turn off when other equipment is off. 124. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.7 – Carbon Dioxide Extraction Ensures amendments in this code are references in relation to CO2 plant extraction. 125. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.7.1 – Storage and Handling CO2 Tanks must be secured to prevent falling. 126. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.7.2 – CO2 Gas Detection Requires specific CO2 detection in compliance with other sections of this code. 127. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.7.3 – CO2 Discharge Protects CO2 from being exhausted into the building or area. 128. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.8 – Means of Egress Calls out specific requirements for exit access doors. 129. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.9 - Signage Sets minimum size requirements for safety signage. 130. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.9.1 – Safety Data Sheets Requires all materials safety data sheets are posted in an approved location. 131. [NEW] Add Subsection 3903.9.2 – Warning Signage Requires applicable hazard warning signage shall be posted throughout the facility as applicable for emergency equipment. 132. [NEW] Amend Subsection 3904.2.2.3 – Site Inspection Allows for an inspection by specialized personnel prior to operation of plant extraction facilities. 133. [NEW] Add Subsection 3904.3 – Change of Extraction Medium
Requires revision of any technical reports when the medium of extraction is changed.

Agenda Item #5.1:

Page 255 of 301 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for Local Amendments
134. Add Subsection 5608.1.2 Permit Required Adds code language pointing to the City Municipal Code requiring a permit for fireworks displays. 135. Add Section 5608.2 – Limitations Adds code language pointing to the City Municipal Code regarding the prohibition of possession, storage, use or sale of fireworks.
136. Add section 5704.1.1 - Tanks Storage prohibited Amends the code to remove the threat of fire and explosive danger from tank storage of class I and II liquids in mercantile, commercial and residential parcels.
137. Add Section 5704.1.2 - Tank Storage - Other locations Amends the code to assure that new tank installations meet current safety requirements for class I and II liquids. Additionally existing tanks in approved locations must meet the same safety requirements within one year. 138. Add Section 5704.1.3 - Existing Tank Storage Amends the code to upgrade existing tank installations to meet current safety requirements for class I and II liquids. 139. [NEW] Amend Subsection 5806.2 – Limitations Aligns the limitations of flammable and cryogenic fluids with city land use and zoning standards. 140. [NEW] Add Subsection 6104.2 Maximum Capacity Within Established Limits
Aligns the limitations of liquefied petroleum gas with city land use and zoning standards. 141. Add Section 6107.5 - Seismic Anchoring Amends the code to require approved seismic anchoring for installed propane/LPG gas containers 142. Amend the definition of FIRE-FLOW in Appendix B,
subsection B102.

This revision clarifies where the pressure for fire-flow is measured. 143. Amend the definition of FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION
AREA in Appendix B, subsection B102.1
Floor area was clarified to provide consistency in calculating fire flow. 144. Amend Appendix B, subsection B105.1 – Fire flow for oneand two-family dwellingsThis is amended to increase the minimum required fire-flow from 1000 to 1500 gallons per minute. The language to reduce fire-flow requirements based on sprinkler system installation is not automatic. 145. Amend Appendix B, subsection B105.2 – Fire flow for buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings
The language to reduce fire-flow requirements based on sprinkler system installation is not automatic. 146. Amend Appendix B, Table B105.1 by deleting footnote a). This prevents a reduction in needed fire-flow for residential structures. 147. Amend Appendix C, subsection C102 - Fire Hydrant
Locations
Amends the code to continue to standardize the location of fire department connections for more efficient fire scene operations.
148. Amend Appendix D, Section D101 - Fire apparatus access roads
Amends the code to allow the fire code official some flexibility when done in accordance with section 104.9 Alternative Materials and Methods. Flexibility in enforcement provided that the material, method or work offered is at least equivalent in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance durability and safety. 149. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.1 - Access road width with a hydrant
Amendment allows local authorities to determine fire department access specifications instead of the International Fire Code. 150. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.2 - Grade of fire apparatus access roads
The grade of fire apparatus access roads is specific to the type of equipment available and should be determined locally. 151. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.3 - minimum turning radius
Turning radius is specific to the fire apparatus used.
152. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.4 - Dead-end fire apparatus access roads
This change allows a local jurisdiction to determine dead-end requirements for width and turnaround provisions. 153. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.4 by deleting Table D103.4
Allows local standards
154. Amend Appendix D, subsection D103.6 - NO PARKINGFIRE LANE signsChange allows local jurisdiction to apply the sign requirements of the California Vehicle Code in design and placement rather than basing it on solely on road width.
155. Amend Appendix D, subsection D104.2 by deleting
exception to D104.2
The exception provided for a reduction in fire department access in structures with a gross building area up to 124,000 square feet.
156. Amend Appendix D, subsection D106.1 – Fire apparatus access roads for multi-family projects having more than 50 dwelling units
Modifies when two fire apparatus access roads are required – Changes the requirement from 100 dwelling units to 50 dwelling units.

Agenda Item #5.1:

Page 256 of 301 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for Local Amendments
157. Amend Appendix D, subsection D106 by deleting subsection D106.2
This section referred to projects of 200 or more dwelling units and repeats the two access requirement regardless of sprinklers 158. Add Appendix D, subsection D106.4 – Fire apparatus access roads for multi-residential projects having more than 50 dwelling units
Amends the code to allow fire department access for emergency operations and/or evacuations. 159. Amend Appendix D, subsection D107 -– Fire apparatus access roads for projects having more than 50 dwelling units Amends the code to allow fire department access for emergency operations and/or evacuations. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code
160. Adopt by reference and add Appendix Chapter A4
(Residential Voluntary Measures) and Appendix Chapter A5 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code appendices.

These appendices provide the prerequisite and applicable elective measures to achieve the Tier 1 level of compliance. The tier 1 requirements (excluding Tier 1 - Energy measures) are recommended to promote a higher level of sustainability in construction while maintaining the cost effectiveness of energy code requirements set forth by the California Energy Commission.
161. Amend Section 301 – Requires mandatory compliance with Tier 1 status of the code except for energy efficiency
provisions and additions and alterations.

Amends the code to require that the prerequisite and applicable elective measures to achieve Tier 1 status, as specified in the code become mandatory for all new buildings except that the Energy Efficiency Measures in Appendix A4 Division A4.2 and Appendix A5 and Division A5.2 need not be met. Tier 1 Energy measures would be very costly to implement given the recent increase in the mandatory energy requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code. This amendment is recommended to promote a higher level of sustainability in construction while maintaining the cost effectiveness of energy code requirements set forth by the California Energy Commission.

This amendment also stipulates that the additional CALGreen Tier1 requirements do not apply to additions and alterations.

The application of additional Tier 1 requirements would be very difficult to comply with for existing buildings.

This amendment establishes green building requirements that are more restrictive than what is otherwise required by state law and are in substantial conformance with what is being recommended for adoption by the majority of other building officials throughout Sonoma County. This code amendment will help provide regional consistency of green building regulations. 162. Amend the title and explanatory note of Appendix A4. Clarifies the title to reflect that the appendix provides supplementary residential mandatory and elective measures rather than voluntary measures.
163. Amend Appendix Section A4.201.1 This change is needed to clarify that the provisions contained in Appendix A4 Division A4.2 (Energy Efficiency Measures) are entirely voluntary and are intended only as a means to encourage buildings to achieve exemplary performance in the area of energy efficiency.
164. Amend Item 2 in Appendix Section A4.601.4.2 This amendment clarifies that the Tier 1 Energy Efficiency measures do not apply. 165. Amend the note in the last paragraph of Appendix Section A4.601.4.2
This amendment clarifies that the building department may develop and require completed forms to show CALGreen compliance.
166. Delete Appendix Section A4.602 (Residential Occupancies Application Checklist)
Checklists for CALGreen +Tier 1 will be customized for the City of Sonoma, therefore, the code provided checklist is not needed.
167. Delete Appendix Division A4.7 This deletes a division which contains a model ordinance which is not necessary in the code. 168. Amend the title and explanatory note of Appendix A5 Clarifies the title to reflect that the appendix provides supplementary nonresidential mandatory and elective measures, rather than voluntary measures.
169. Amend Appendix Section A5.201.1 This change is needed to clarify that the provisions contained in Appendix A5 Division A5.2 (Energy Efficiency Measures) are entirely voluntary and are intended only as a means to encourage buildings to achieve exemplary performance in the area of energy efficiency.
170. Amend Appendix Section A5.601.2.3 This change is needed to clarify that the provisions contained in Appendix A5 Division A5.2 (Energy Efficiency Measures) are entirely voluntary and are intended only as a means to encourage buildings to achieve exemplary performance in the area of energy efficiency.
171. Amend the first paragraph in Appendix Section A5.601.2.4 The amendment is needed to clarify that the Tier 1 requirements are not voluntary. 172. Delete Appendix Section A5.602 (Nonresidential
Occupancies Application Checklist)
Checklists for CALGreen +Tier 1 will be customized for the City of Sonoma, therefore, the code provided checklist is not needed.

Agenda Item #5.1:

Page 257 of 301 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Reasons for Local Amendments
2022 California Existing Building Code
173. Amend subsection 506.1. and delete subsection 506.1.1 related to a change of occupancy in existing buildings.

This amendment is necessary to clarify that the requirements of the California Existing Building Code apply to buildings undergoing a change in use or occupancy. It also clarifies that the structural requirements of Chapter 16 of the California Building Code do not apply to existing buildings undergoing a change of use unless otherwise required by section 506.4 of the California Existing Building Code. The change is needed to clarify the scope and application of the California Existing Building Code as it applies to a change of use or occupancy. 174. Adopt Appendix Chapter A1 – Seismic Strengthening
Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall
Buildings
This appendix chapter is needed to provide appropriate alternative design criteria and requirements for Seismic Strengthening of for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings and provide conformance with the City’s Unreinforced Masonry Building ordinance (SMC Chapter 14.24).
175. Adopt Appendix Chapter A2 – Earthquake Hazard
Reduction in Existing Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms
This appendix chapter is needed to provide appropriate alternative design criteria and requirements for the reduction of earthquake hazards in certain existing reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry wall buildings. This appendix chapter can be used as alternative structural provisions for buildings subject to Chapter 14.24 of the Sonoma Municipal Code - Review, Rehabilitation and Abatement of Existing Seismically Unsafe Buildings. 176. Adopt Appendix Chapter A3 – Prescriptive Provisions for Seismic Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate
Anchorage of Light Wood-Frame Residential Buildings
This appendix chapter is needed to provide appropriate alternative design criteria and voluntary requirements for Seismic Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate Anchorage of Light Wood-Frame Residential Buildings. 177. Adopt Appendix Chapter A4 – Earthquake Risk Reduction in Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or
Open Front Walls.

This appendix chapter is needed to provide appropriate alternative design criteria and voluntary requirements for Earthquake Risk Reduction in Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open Front Walls. 178. Amend the first sentence in Appendix Chapter A3 Section A301.2 regarding Prescriptive Provisions for Seismic
Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate Anchorage of Light Wood-Frame Residential Buildings
This amendment is needed to establish that the provisions of Appendix Chapter A3 (Prescriptive Provisions for Seismic Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate Anchorage of Light Wood-Frame Residential Buildings) are voluntary. 179. Amend the first sentence in Appendix Chapter A4 Section A401.2 regarding Earthquake Risk Reduction in WoodFrame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open Front Walls.

This amendment is needed to establish that the provisions of Appendix Chapter A4 (Prescriptive Provisions for Seismic Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate Anchorage of Light Wood-Frame Residential Buildings) are voluntary.

Agenda Item #5.1:

Page 258 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 02 Nov 2022
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
David A. Storer, AICP, Director
Agenda Item Title
Consider, Discuss and Possibly Adopt a Resolution Denying an Appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning Commission’s Action to Approve Resolution No. 12 - 2022, on February 10, 2022, Relating to the Legal Nonconforming Status of a Pergola/Trellis/Arbor Located at 121 France Street (on the South Side of France Street Between Austin Avenue and Broadway) on Property Owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District (APN: 018-352-049)
Summary
On January 13th, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on an appeal filed by Heather Martindale. Her appeal request was to overturn a determination made by the Planning and Community Services Director that an existing detached pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France Street (on the south side of France Street between Austin Avenue and Broadway) is a “legal nonconforming use. At the afore-mentioned meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously took action to deny the appeal, thereby affirming that the existing/detached pergola/arbor/trellis is a “legal non-conforming use”. As a resolution was not prepared for that meeting, one was prepared by staff for adoption by the Planning Commission at its next meeting on February 10, 2022. It was also adopted unanimously and is attached to this report.

A link to the Planning Commission staff report for January 13, 2022, is provided below for reference.
https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/document/51305/Discussion%20and%20possible%20action%20to %20deny%20an%20Appea.pdf?handle=C53A4768493B463A93F3F003CD27128E A letter from Mr. Richard J. Hicks, who represents Beth Harper is also attached, dated October 17, 2022.

Recommended Council Action
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal of Heather Martindale, thereby supporting the action of the Planning Commission and staff that the existing detached pergola/arbor/trellis located at 121 France Street is a “legal non-conforming use”.

Alternative Actions

1. Provide alternative direction and/or comments to City Staff.

Financial Impact
There are no financial impacts to the city
Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 259 of 301 ends

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
1_Resolution No XX -- Denying an appeal of Heater Martindale of the action of the Planning Commission on February 10 2022
2_Letter from Mr. Richard J Hicks_dated October 7 2022
3_Planning Commission Resolution 12-2022 dated February 10 2022 Alignment with Council Goals:

Not Applicable
Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

Not Applicable
CC:

N/A
Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 260 of 301 ends

1 City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ______ - 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

DENYING AN APPEAL BY HEATHER MARTINDALE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 2022, ON FEBRUARY 10, 2022, RELATING TO THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS OF A PERGOLA/TRELLIS/ARBOR LOCATED AT 121 FRANCE STREET (ON THE

SOUTH SIDE OF FRANCE STREET BETWEEN AUSTIN AVENUE AND

BROADWAY) ON PROPERTY OWNED BY BETH HARPER IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ZONING DISTRICT (APN: 018-352-049)
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2021, in response to a formal complaint from Heather Martindale (the Appellant) who lives at 115 France Street, the City of Sonoma’s Code Enforcement Department issued a “Preliminary Notice” letter to Beth Harper regarding several issues relating to an existing detached pergola/trellis/arbor (hereinafter “the trellis”) located on Ms. Harper’s adjoining property at 121 France Street; WHEREAS, in the aforementioned letter, Code Enforcement staff stated that the existing detached trellis had been erected without a building permit and that it extends beyond the property line at 121 France Street (in violation of Section 19.040.110(A)(2) of the Sonoma Municipal Code which prohibits structures extending over property lines) on to property owned by Heather Martindale. The letter also directed the removal of the existing structure;
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2021, the Planning & Community Services Director, determined (“interpreted”) that the existing trellis structure at 121 France Street is a legal nonconforming structure pursuant to City of Sonoma Municipal Code, Chapter

19.82. A determination or “interpretation” as to the correct or incorrect placement of the existing trellis on either property was not made by the Director; WHEREAS, the City’s current Development Code allows for an appeal of determinations made by staff pursuant to Section 19.02.030 “Procedures for interpretations” of the Sonoma Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, On May 17, 2021, within the appeal period, the City received an Appeal of the Planning and Community Services Director’s “interpretation” which was filed by Heather Martindale who contests the Director’s interpretation, and is also of the belief that the structure/use is illegally placed based on a survey she commissioned by Pridmore & Company and is an illegal nonconforming structure; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2022, to consider Heather’s Martindale’s Appeal, including the documents and materials in the Record, and to hear and consider testimony and comments in favor of, in opposition to, or otherwise relating to, the Appeal; Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 261 of 301 ends

2 WHEREAS, on January 13, 2022, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution denying an appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s interpretation made on May 7, 2021, relating to the legal nonconforming status of a pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France street (on the south side of France Street between Austin Avenue and Broadway) on property owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district (APN: 018-352- 049);
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 12 – 2022, a resolution denying an appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s interpretation made on May 7, 2021, relating to the legal nonconforming status of a pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France street (on the south side of France Street between Austin Avenue and Broadway) on property owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district (APN: 018- 352-049);
WHEREAS, the City received a timely appeal filed by Heather Martindale appealing the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. XX-2022; and WHEREAS, on November 2
nd
, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider Heather’s Martindale’s Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action taken on March 10, 2022, , including the documents and materials in the Record, and to hear and consider testimony and comments in favor of, in opposition to, or otherwise relating to, the Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Sonoma, State of California, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby adopted by the City Council and the City Council finds as follows:

I. Record

1. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Appeal are based includes, but is not limited to:
a. Staff Reports by the Planning & Community Services Department and the City Attorney, and referenced Attachments;
b. March 10, 2021 Preliminary Notice from Code Enforcement Officer Braden Eggert to Elizabeth Harper;
c. May 7, 2021, letter from Planning & Community Services Director David A. Storer to Heather Martindale;
d. Appeal Application of Heather Martindale and supporting documents, including May 17, 2021 letter by Heather Martindale and referenced Exhibits;
e. October 19, 2021 letter from Richard J. Hicks, attorney for Elizabeth Harper, and referenced Exhibits;
f. Statement of Elizabeth Harper dated October 19, 2021; Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 262 of 301 ends

3 g. January 5, 2022 email from Richard J. Hicks to Director David Storer and City Attorney Jeffrey Walter;
h. January 10, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 1/13/2022 Original Appeal Documents, and referenced Exhibit Documents;
i. January 13, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Request for Matt Wirick's Recusal for 1/13/2022 Planning Commission Agenda Item 8.1 & Other;
j. The proceedings at the January 13, 2022 hearing, including all oral comments and testimony presented at the hearing, including comments and testimony by David Storer, Wayne Wirick, Heather Martindale and Richard J. Hicks, and the oral comments and deliberations of the Planning Commissioners at the hearing; k. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this Resolution; and
l. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

2. The findings and determinations contained in this Resolution are based upon the evidence in the entire Record relating to the Appeal. All the evidence supporting these findings and determinations was presented in a timely fashion, and early enough to allow adequate consideration by the City. References to specific documents and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings and determinations.

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the Record of proceedings on which the City’s decision is based is the City Clerk, or designee. Such documents and other materials are located at Sonoma City Hall, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476.

II. Findings and Determinations

1. There exists, and since before the City first adopted a Zoning Ordinance in 1948 and a Building Code in 1949 there has existed, a lawful prescriptive easement for the benefit of the property at 121 France Street over the adjoining property at 115 France Street for the use of a trellis to the extent the trellis extends beyond the property line onto 115 France Street.

Some of the vertical posts for the trellis extend almost 4 1/2 inches over Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 263 of 301 ends

4 the surveyed property line, and some of the upper horizontal beams extend over the line by almost 22 inches. (Draft copy of Record of Survey, attached as Exhibit R to Heather Martindale May 17, 2021 Appeal letter.) The evidence in the Record establishes that all of the requirements for a prescriptive easement had been satisfied and that a prescriptive easement for the trellis existed in favor of 121 France Street to the extent it extended over the property line on to 115 France Street, by the time the City first enacted a Zoning Ordinance in 1948, Ordinance No. 206 (Exhibit 11 to Richard Hicks October 19, 2021 letter), and the City first enacted a Building Code in 1949, Ordinance No. 207 (Exhibit 12 to the Hicks letter). “In order to establish an easement by prescription it must be shown that the easement was (1) used continuously for a period of five years, and (2) possessed in a manner that was open, notorious, and clearly visible to the owner of the burdened land and hostile and adverse to the owner.” (6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, 4th Ed., §15:29 (updated November 2020, citations omitted).)
“The claimant need not inform the servient tenement owner expressly of his or her hostile and adverse intent or declare that the use is under a claim of right. Use of property in a way that clearly displays the user's claim of right establishes a prima facie case that the use is under a claim of right, that it is adverse and hostile to the rights of the owner of the property, and that the owner has constructive notice of the adverse claim.

The mere open, notorious, and visible use of the property can establish a prima facie case and create an inference or a presumption that the use is hostile and adverse. . . . A prescriptive easement may be acquired by the required use even though the user is acting under a mistaken belief that he or she owns the property or had a legal right to use the easement.” (Id., §15:35.)
Nothing has occurred since the prescriptive easement was first created to result in the loss of the easement, and the easement has continued to exist to the present time. For example, there has been no discontinuance or abandonment of the use of the easement or the trellis in question at any time during its history.

The 2001 repairs to the trellis and the slight raising of the trellis while decreasing its footprint and overall size, cited by Appellant, did not constitute a discontinuance or abandonment of the use of the easement, and were allowed by section 12 of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance governing nonconforming uses which was then in effect (Exhibit 14 to the Hicks letter). Subsection 4 of that section expressly allowed “normal maintenance and repair of any non-conforming use or structure,” and the work that was performed with respect to the trellis in 2001 constituted such permissible repair and/or maintenance. In addition, because the overall footprint and size of the trellis were decreased, not increased, there was no requirement for Beth Harper to obtain a conditional use Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 264 of 301 ends

5 permit under subsection 1 providing that “[a] non-conforming use may only be expanded, enlarged in size or capacity, or extended to occupy a greater area, or increased in intensity by a conditional use permit.”

2. The trellis in question constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structure.

The vast majority of the trellis is located on the property at 121 France Street and, to the extent it extends over the property line on to 115 France Street, there has existed and still exists today a prescriptive easement for that use and structure. (See Finding and Determination 1 above.) When the 1948 Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and when a Building Code was adopted in 1949, the trellis constituted a lawful and legal use and structure.

19.040.110(A)(2), became a nonconforming use with respect to the extension beyond the property line. In other words, with respect to the property line issue, the trellis became a legal nonconforming use and structure with the adoption of the Development Code in 2003. The trellis retains its legal nonconforming status with respect to that issue at this time.

Regarding the setback requirements for accessory structures contained in current section 19.50.080, which Appellant alleges the trellis to violate, before the adoption of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 14 to the Hicks letter) those setback requirements only applied to accessory “buildings.” A “building” was defined as “a structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and designed for the shelter or housing of any person, animal, or property.) (Sections 19.04.105 and 19.46.030(B) of the 1975 Zoning Ordinance as amended in 1991, Exhibit 13 to the Hicks letter.) A trellis does not constitute a “building” as so defined. If the trellis does not conform to current section 19.50.080, that nonconformity arose at the time of the adoption of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance. The trellis constituted a legal use and structure at that time and, with respect to the setback requirements, may have become a nonconforming use and structure with the adoption of that 1997 Zoning Ordinance. If so, the trellis was a legal nonconforming use and structure at that time, and it retains its legal nonconforming status with respect to the referenced setback requirements at this time.

Appellant’s remaining claims and arguments in support of her position that the trellis is not a legal nonconforming use or structure have been considered, and are rejected.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 265 of 301 ends

6 III. Indemnity

1. The property owner of 121 France Street and any successor in interest shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s decision at issue herein, including any approval of the environmental review document(s) or environmental findings made in support of said decision. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by said property owner, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

2. The property owner of 121 France Street and any successor in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the property owner desires to pursue having the Planning Commission make the same or similar decision, after initiation of such litigation, which decision is conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.

3. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding described in paragraph III(1) above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the property owner of 121 France Street of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the City, (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the property owner in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the property owner has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the property owner.

4. The property owner of 121 France Street and any successor in interest, shall indemnify the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions.

IV. Denial of Appeal.

Based on the Record and the Findings and Determinations set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Appeal of Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s Interpretation Made on May 7, 2021, Relating to the Legal Nonconforming Status of a Pergola/Trellis/Arbor Located at 121 France Street (On the South Side of France Street Between Austin Avenue and Broadway) On Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 266 of 301 ends

7 Property Owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District (APN: 018-352-049).

V. CEQA Findings.

The action taken by the Planning Commission to deny the appeal is not a project under CEQA, and even if were a project, it would be exempt from further environmental review under the General Rule in
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. At issue in this appeal is whether or not an existing structure is a legal non-conforming use. The Planning and Community Services Director determined that the structure was such a legal non-conforming use. This determination did not result in or involve any change in the structure or any change in or to the environment. As an appeal of a determination by the Planning and Community Services Director regarding an existing structure, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission will have any, let alone a significant, effect on the environment.”
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Sonoma, Sonoma County, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote.

ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

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

Page 267 of 301 ends

Karin P. Beam
Kari J. Brown
Warren L. Dranit
Douglas J. (DJ) Drennan
Barbara D. Gallagher
Albert G. Handelman
Ashlee M. Hellman
Richard J. Hicks
Lisa Ann Hilario
Annette L. Holland
Keenan J. McCullough
Kevin J. McCullough
Mark A. Miller
Candice L. Raposo
Stephanie J. Rothberg
Carmen D. Sinigiani
Andrew J. Spaulding
Gregory G. Spaulding
Terry S. Sterling
Pamela E. Stevens
Jan Gabrielson Tansil
Donald L. Winkle
90 South E Street Suite 200  Santa Rosa CA 95404  Tel 707 524 1900  Fax 707 524 1906  smlaw.com October 17, 2022
Sonoma City Council
Sonoma City Hall
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma CA 95476
Re: Appeal of Heather Martindale to the City Council of the Planning Commission’s Unanimous Denial of Her Appeal of a Determination of Legal Nonconforming Status of a Trellis at 121 France Street made by the City Director of the Planning and Community Services Department
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:

We represent Elizabeth Harper who owns the property at 121 France Street in Sonoma.

We are submitting this response to an Appeal by her neighbor, Heather Martindale, of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of her Appeal of a determination made by David A.

Storer, the City Planning and Community Services Director, that a trellis on Ms. Harper’s property constitutes a legal nonconforming structure as provided for in section 19.82 of the Sonoma Municipal Code.

We contend that Ms. Harper’s trellis, the history of which dates back to at least the 1940s and more likely than not the 1930s, conforms to the current requirements of the present day Sonoma Municipal Code and, therefore, is both legal and conforming. For the sake of discussion, if it does not conform to present day requirements, we agree with Mr. Storer’s determination, concurred in by the City Attorney and upheld by a unanimous Planning Commission, that the trellis is entitled to legal nonconforming status. Accordingly, we request that the Appeal to the City Council be denied.

Planning Commissioner Steve Barbose, a former Mayor of the City of Sonoma and former member of the City Council, and until his retirement a highly respected real estate attorney well-versed in the legal principles relevant to this Appeal, succinctly stated at the conclusion of the Planning Commission’s public hearing held on January 13, 2022:

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 268 of 301 ends

Sonoma City Council
October 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

90 South E Street Suite 200  Santa Rosa CA 95404  Tel 707 524 1900  Fax 707 524 1906  smlaw.com “I think the evidence supports the determination by the Planning Director, is in the record, and is consistent with what Mr. Hicks [Ms. Harper’s attorney] said tonight, so I am of the opinion that this is a legal nonconforming use.” Our position is set forth in detail in my comprehensive letter to the Planning Commission dated October 19, 2021. That letter includes a detailed review of the overwhelming evidence supporting our position, including 15 exhibits we submitted, all of which are in the record.

In summary, the history of the trellis on Ms. Harper’s property dates back to at least the 1940s and more likely than not the 1930s, before the City’s adoption of a zoning ordinance or a building code in the late 1940s. It represents a piece of our town’s heritage. The historical records we have located confirm that Ms. Harper’s property was once the site of a nursery called Hayward Gardens that gained wide acclaim for the development and growing of camellias by James J. Hayward and his wife. The trellis in question is what remains of the trellising installed by the Haywards to protect and shade the camellia plants from the sun. We have provided those historical records, principally copies of old articles Ms. Harper obtained from the Sonoma Valley Historical Society and the archives for the Sonoma Index-Tribune, and an old article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

We contend that the trellis conforms to the current requirements of the present day Sonoma Municipal Code and, therefore, is both legal and conforming. For sake of discussion, however, if it does not conform to present day requirements, given its history we concur with Director Storer’s determination that the trellis is entitled to legal nonconforming status.

Early last year, Ms. Harper was anticipating that she and her neighbor Heather Martindale would be able to amicably discuss and address various matters regarding the trellis.

The trellis was, and is, in need of repair. A recent survey commissioned by Ms. Martindale suggested, to everyone’s surprise, that the trellis might slightly encroach over property line on to Ms. Martindale’s property. If one accepts the Pridmore Survey as a correct depiction of the property line as described in the formal legal descriptions in the parties’ deeds, some of the vertical posts for the trellis extend almost 4 1/2 inches over the Pridmore line, and some of the upper horizontal beams extend over the line by almost 22 inches. Thinking this was a matter for discussion and resolution between neighbors, Ms. Harper was disappointed when Ms. Martindale decided to elevate their discussions to a different level by registering a formal complaint against Ms. Harper with the City of Sonoma. That complaint resulted in the issuance of a “Preliminary Notice” letter on March 10, 2021 to Ms. Harper by Braden Eggert, a Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Sonoma.

I am confident that, if we pursued Quiet Title litigation in the Sonoma County Superior Court against Ms. Martindale, we would prevail in confirming Ms. Harper’s right to fee title ownership or, alternatively, to an easement to the extent the trellis extends over the property line as surveyed by Ms. Martindale’s surveyor. However, in our view, that slight encroachment was Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 269 of 301 ends

Sonoma City Council
October 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

90 South E Street Suite 200  Santa Rosa CA 95404  Tel 707 524 1900  Fax 707 524 1906  smlaw.com not worth straining neighborly relations or expending tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees and costs to successfully litigate such a case. Furthermore, although we believe the City’s building permit requirements do not apply to a trellis, as a practical matter and in order to compromise and amicably resolve this matter, Ms. Harper had no objection to applying for a Building Permit encompassing her intended repairs to the trellis.

Therefore, that is essentially what we proposed to the City’s Prosecutor and Chief Building Official, Robert Smith, to resolve the Code Enforcement Complaint. Namely, that Ms.

Harper would submit an Application for a Building Permit to repair the trellis, and that those repairs would include removing those portions of the trellis that extend over the Pridmore line.

Mr. Smith concurred that this represented a reasonable resolution of this matter. Accordingly, Ms. Harper’s Building Permit Application was submitted to the City on June 21, 2021.

However, the City’s formal response to that Application has been effectively blocked by Ms.

Martindale’s Appeal, first to the Planning Commission and, now, to the City Council, of Director Storer’s determination that Ms. Harper’s trellis is entitled to legal nonconforming status.

Notwithstanding what some might characterize as rather aggressive action by Ms.

Martindale, Ms. Harper’s desire and my goal as her attorney have been to attempt to achieve an amicable resolution of these matters with both Ms. Martindale and the City. We concur with the sentiment expressed by Commissioner Barbose at the conclusion of the January 13 public hearing that “I am disappointed the situation between two neighbors in our town got to the point where this proceeding was necessary.” However, Ms. Martindale has continued to pursue the appellate process, making yet another hearing necessary.

The basis for our contention that the trellis constitutes both a legal and conforming use and structure that complies with the current requirements of the present day Sonoma Municipal Code is set forth on pages 2 through 5 of our October 19, 2021 letter to the Planning Commission. To the extent the trellis extends across the property line as suggested by the Pridmore Survey, the facts and circumstances support a claim that Ms. Harper has a vested property right under California law for the trellis to remain based on, among other things, that she has an enforceable prescriptive easement over the Martindale property for the trellis to remain. The trellis has been there for very many years, far in excess of the five-year period required for obtaining a prescriptive easement.

The basis for our contention that, assuming for sake of discussion that the trellis does not conform with the current Code, the trellis would nonetheless qualify as a legal nonconforming use and structure, is set forth on pages 6 through 11 of our October 19, 2021 letter.

Ms. Martindale’s Appeal to the City Council filed on January 26, 2022 offers only a few cryptic comments, and no new or additional evidence not previously considered by Director Storer, the City Attorney and the Planning Commission.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 270 of 301 ends

Sonoma City Council
October 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

90 South E Street Suite 200  Santa Rosa CA 95404  Tel 707 524 1900  Fax 707 524 1906  smlaw.com On February 10, 2022, on the eve of the hearing at which the Planning Commission approved and adopted the Resolution denying her Appeal, Ms. Martindale submitted a letter to the City Clerk alleging a violation of the Brown Act, and her Appeal to the City Council makes a vague reference to an alleged Brown Act violation. In her letter, she complains that, in addressing her Appeal and whether Ms. Harper’s trellis constituted a legal nonconforming use, the Planning Commission made findings that Ms. Harper had a prescriptive easement to the extent the trellis encroached upon Ms. Martindale’s property, and that certain repairs by Ms.

Harper in 2001 did not require a permit. Those findings were necessitated by Ms. Martindale’s Appeal and her arguments in which she directly challenged the legality of the trellis’s encroachment on to her property and challenged the legality of the 2001 repairs. Ms.

Martindale’s suggestion that every issue raised by her in support of her Appeal was required by the Brown Act to be separately listed and set forth in detail in the Agenda for the meeting is without merit.

Contrary to Ms. Martindale’s argument, section 54954.2(a)(1) of the Brown Act contained in the California Government Code merely requires that the Agenda contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting,” not as she argues a separate and detailed recitation of all of the issues upon which the item is to be decided. Section 54954.2(a)(1) goes on to state: “A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.” The Agenda Item in this case included approximately 59 words, the most important of which consisted of about 33 words which stated: “Discussion and possible action to deny an Appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s interpretation made on May 7th, 2021, relating to the legal non-conforming status of a pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France Street . . . .” That Agenda Item notified all concerned that the Planning Commission would be considering whether or not the trellis had legal nonconforming status. That was more than adequate to place Ms. Martindale on notice that the Planning Commission would be considering all of the issues and arguments she had raised in support of her Appeal, including whether or not the trellis was a legal use and structure.

It should be noted that Ms. Martindale was fully aware, soon after she filed her Code Enforcement complaint and long before she began pursuing her various appeals before the City, that Ms. Harper was claiming (among other things) that she had a lawful prescriptive easement to the extent the trellis encroached on to the Martindale property, and that such an easement would be raised in response to any challenge to the trellis brought by Ms. Martindale. (Please reference March 22, 2021 letter from Richard J. Hicks to Heather S. Martindale, which was included by Ms. Martindale as Exhibit L in the materials she submitted to the Planning Commission in support of her Appeal.) The fact that Ms. Harper did, indeed, raise the prescriptive easement in response to Ms. Martindale’s Appeal, and that the Planning Commission found it necessary to decide that issue, could not have come as any surprise to Ms. Martindale. Indeed, she referred to that issue in her Appeal letter to the Planning Commission. (See page 7 of Ms. Martindale’s May 17, 2021 Appeal letter.) With respect to whether or not Ms. Harper’s 2001 repairs required Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 271 of 301 ends

Sonoma City Council
October 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

90 South E Street Suite 200  Santa Rosa CA 95404  Tel 707 524 1900  Fax 707 524 1906  smlaw.com a permit, it was Ms. Martindale, no one else, who raised that as an issue so as to require the Planning Commission to address that matter in order to properly decide her Appeal. (See pages 5 through 9 of Ms. Martindale’s Appeal letter.)
Ms. Martindale’s Appeal notice to the City Council also cryptically claims that the Planning Commission’s action denied her constitutional rights to due process and constituted an “[u]nconstitutional removal of my property rights.” From her February 10, 2022 letter, this appears to be a reference to the Planning Commission’s finding that there existed a prescriptive easement in favor of Ms. Harper to the extent the trellis encroached on to Ms. Martindale’s property. As noted above, the Planning Commission was required to consider that issue in responding to the allegations made by Ms. Martindale in support of her Appeal. The Planning Commission’s action in denying the Appeal merely confirmed the Director’s determination that the trellis was entitled to legal nonconforming status under the Sonoma Municipal Code. That action did not deprive Ms. Martindale of her property rights – only a Court could do that, and nothing would prevent Ms. Martindale from filing a Quiet Title action in the Sonoma County Superior Court seeking a determination that, as between her and Ms. Harper, there does not exist a prescriptive easement. We hasten to add, however, that is the type of litigation we are seeking to avoid through the settlement of the Code Enforcement Notice. If Ms. Martindale’s Appeal before the City Council is denied as we are requesting, that will free Ms. Harper and the City to proceed with Ms. Harper’s pending Building Permit Application which, among other things, will result in the removal of that portion of the trellis extending over the Pridmore-surveyed property line, thereby rendering the prescriptive easement claim moot.

On Elizabeth Harper’s behalf, therefore, we respectfully request that Ms. Martindale’s Appeal be denied. That will enable the City to respond to Ms. Harper’s pending Application for a Building Permit to effectuate the needed repairs to the trellis which will include removing that portion of the trellis which extends beyond the Pridmore-surveyed property line, all pursuant to the resolution we have reached with the City with respect to the City’s Code Enforcement Notice, thereby bringing this sad saga to a close.

Respectfully yours,
Richard J. Hicks
Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 272 of 301 ends

Page 1 of 7 ends

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # 12-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

DENYING AN APPEAL BY HEATHER MARTINDALE OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION MADE ON MAY 7, 2021,

RELATING TO THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS OF A
PERGOLA/TRELLIS/ARBOR LOCATED AT 121 FRANCE STREET (ON THE SOUTH

SIDE OF FRANCE STREET BETWEEN AUSTIN AVENUE AND BROADWAY) ON

PROPERTY OWNED BY BETH HARPER IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ZONING DISTRICT (APN: 018-352-049)
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2021, in response to a formal complaint from Heather Martindale (the Appellant) who lives at 115 France Street, the City of Sonoma’s Code Enforcement Department issued a “Preliminary Notice” letter to Beth Harper regarding several issues relating to an existing detached pergola/trellis/arbor (hereinafter “the trellis”) located on Ms. Harper’s adjoining property at 121 France Street;
WHEREAS, in the aforementioned letter, Code Enforcement staff stated that the existing detached trellis had been erected without a building permit and that it extends beyond the property line at 121 France Street (in violation of Section 19.040.110(A)(2) of the Sonoma Municipal Code which prohibits structures extending over property lines) on to property owned by Heather Martindale. The letter also directed the removal of the existing structure; WHEREAS, on May 7, 2021, the Planning & Community Services Director, determined (“interpreted”) that the existing trellis structure at 121 France Street is a legal nonconforming structure pursuant to City of Sonoma Municipal Code, Chapter 19.82. A determination or “interpretation” as to the correct or incorrect placement of the existing trellis on either property was not made by the Director;
WHEREAS, the City’s current Development Code allows for an appeal of determinations made by staff pursuant to Section 19.02.030 “Procedures for interpretations” of the Sonoma Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, On May 17, 2021, within the appeal period, the City received an Appeal of the Planning and Community Services Director’s “interpretation” which was filed by Heather Martindale who contests the Director’s interpretation, and is also of the belief that the structure/use is illegally placed based on a survey she commissioned by Pridmore & Company and is an illegal nonconforming structure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2022, to consider Heather’s Martindale’s Appeal, including the documents and materials in the Record, and to hear and consider testimony and comments in favor of, in opposition to, or otherwise relating to, the Appeal.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 273 of 301 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and declares as follows:

I. Record

1. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Appeal are based includes, but is not limited to:
a. Staff Report by the Planning & Community Services Department and the City Attorney, and referenced Attachments;
b. March 10, 2021 Preliminary Notice from Code Enforcement Officer Braden Eggert to Elizabeth Harper;
c. May 7, 2021, letter from Planning & Community Services Director David A. Storer to Heather Martindale;
d. Appeal Application of Heather Martindale and supporting documents, including May 17, 2021 letter by Heather Martindale and referenced Exhibits;
e. October 19, 2021 letter from Richard J. Hicks, attorney for Elizabeth Harper, and referenced Exhibits;
f. Statement of Elizabeth Harper dated October 19, 2021; g. January 5, 2022 email from Richard J. Hicks to Director David Storer and City Attorney Jeffrey Walter;
h. January 10, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 1/13/2022 Original Appeal Documents, and referenced Exhibit Documents;
i. January 13, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Request for Matt Wirick's Recusal for 1/13/2022 Planning Commission Agenda Item

8.1 & Other;
j. The proceedings at the January 13 2022 hearing, including all oral comments and testimony presented at the hearing, including comments and testimony by David Storer, Wayne Wirick, Heather Martindale and Richard J. Hicks, and the oral comments and deliberations of the Planning Commissioners at the hearing;
k. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this Resolution; and
l. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 274 of 301 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the Record of proceedings on which the City’s decision is based is the City Clerk, or designee.

Such documents and other materials are located at Sonoma City Hall, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476.

II. Findings and Determinations

The history of the trellis more likely than not extends back to the 1930s, when an extensive trellising system was installed by the then owner of 121 France Street, James J. Hayward, for the purpose of providing shade for camellia plants developed and grown by him and his wife as a part of a nursery they operated on the property. The trellis that exists today, which is the subject of this Appeal, is what remains of that trellising system. In early 2021, it was discovered through a survey commissioned by Appellant Heather Martindale that the trellis slightly extends over the property line on to the property she currently owns at 115 France Street. Some of the vertical posts for the trellis extend almost 4 1/2 inches over the surveyed property line, and some of the upper horizontal beams extend over the line by almost 22 inches. (Draft copy of Record of Survey, attached as Exhibit R to Heather Martindale May 17, 2021 Appeal letter.) The evidence in the Record establishes that all of the requirements for a prescriptive easement had been satisfied and that a prescriptive easement for the trellis existed in favor of 121 France Street to the extent it extended over the property line on to 115 France Street, by the time the City first enacted a Zoning Ordinance in 1948, Ordinance No. 206 (Exhibit 11 to Richard Hicks October 19, 2021 letter), and the City first enacted a Building Code in 1949, Ordinance No. 207 (Exhibit 12 to the Hicks letter).
“In order to establish an easement by prescription it must be shown that the easement was (1) used continuously for a period of five years, and (2) possessed in a manner that was open, notorious, and clearly visible to the owner of the burdened land and hostile and adverse to the owner.” (6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, 4th Ed., §15:29 (updated November 2020, citations omitted).)
“The claimant need not inform the servient tenement owner expressly of his or her hostile and adverse intent or declare that the use is under a claim of right. Use of property in a way that clearly displays the user's claim of right establishes a prima facie case that the use is under a claim of right, that it is adverse and hostile to the rights of the owner of the property, and that the owner has constructive Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 275 of 301 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

notice of the adverse claim. The mere open, notorious, and visible use of the property can establish a prima facie case and create an inference or a presumption that the use is hostile and adverse. . . . A prescriptive easement may be acquired by the required use even though the user is acting under a mistaken belief that he or she owns the property or had a legal right to use the easement.” (Id., §15:35.) Nothing has occurred since the prescriptive easement was first created to result in the loss of the easement, and the easement has continued to exist to the present time. For example, there has been no discontinuance or abandonment of the use of the easement or the trellis in question at any time during its history.

The 2001 repairs to the trellis and the slight raising of the trellis while decreasing its footprint and overall size, cited by Appellant, did not constitute a discontinuance or abandonment of the use of the easement, and were allowed by section 12 of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance governing nonconforming uses which was then in effect (Exhibit 14 to the Hicks letter). Subsection 4 of that section expressly allowed “normal maintenance and repair of any non-conforming use or structure,”and the work that was performed with respect to the trellis in 2001 constituted such permissible repair and/or maintenance. In addition, because the overall footprint and size of the trellis were decreased, not increased, there was no requirement for Beth Harper to obtain a conditional use permit under subsection 1 providing that “[a] non-conforming use may only be expanded, enlarged in size or capacity, or extended to occupy a greater area, or increased in intensity by a conditional use permit.”

2. The trellis in question constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structure.

Section 19.040.110(A)(2) of the current Sonoma Municipal Code prohibiting portions of a structure from extending beyond a property line was first enacted as a part of the City’s Municipal Code with the adoption of the current Development Code in 2003. At the time of that adoption, the trellis constituted a legal use and, by reason of section 19.040.110(A)(2), became a nonconforming use with respect to the extension beyond the property line. In other words, with respect to the property line issue, the trellis became a legal nonconforming use and structure with the adoption of the Development Code in 2003. The trellis retains its legal nonconforming status with respect to that issue at this time.

Regarding the setback requirements for accessory structures contained in current section 19.50.080, which Appellant alleges the trellis to violate, before the Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 276 of 301 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

adoption of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 14 to the Hicks letter) those setback requirements only applied to accessory “buildings.” A “building” was defined as “a structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and designed for the shelter or housing of any person, animal, or property.) (Sections

19.04.105 and 19.46.030(B) of the 1975 Zoning Ordinance as amended in 1991, Exhibit 13 to the Hicks letter.) A trellis does not constitute a “building” as so defined. If the trellis does not conform to current section 19.50.080, that nonconformity arose at the time of the adoption of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance.

The trellis constituted a legal use and structure at that time and, with respect to the setback requirements, may have become a nonconforming use and structure with the adoption of that 1997 Zoning Ordinance. If so, the trellis was a legal nonconforming use and structure at that time, and it retains its legal nonconforming status with respect to the referenced setback requirements at this time.

Appellant’s remaining claims and arguments in support of her position that the trellis is not a legal nonconforming use or structure have been considered, and are rejected.

III. Indemnity

Page 277 of 301 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the property owner in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the property owner has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the property owner.

IV. Denial of Appeal.

V. CEQA Findings.

The action taken by the Planning Commission to deny the appeal is not a project under CEQA, and even if were a project, it would be exempt from further environmental review under the General Rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. At issue in this appeal is whether or not an existing structure is a legal non-conforming use. The Planning and Community Services Director determined that the structure was such a legal non-conforming use. This determination did not result in or involve any change in the structure or any change in or to the environment. As an appeal of a determination by the Planning and Community Services Director regarding an existing structure, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission will have any, let alone a significant, effect on the environment.” PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 10th day of February, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Comm. Barbose, Comm. Bohar, Comm. McDonald, Comm. O’Neill, Vice-Chair Barnett, Chair Wellander
Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 278 of 301 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

NOES:

ABSENT:

Chair Ron Wellander
Attest
Matthew Courpet
Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 279 of 301 ends

1 City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ______ - 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

SOUTH SIDE OF FRANCE STREET BETWEEN AUSTIN AVENUE AND

Page 280 of 301 ends

2 WHEREAS, on January 13, 2022, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution denying an appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s interpretation made on May 7, 2021, relating to the legal nonconforming status of a pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France street (on the south side of France Street between Austin Avenue and Broadway) on property owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district (APN: 018-352- 049);
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 12 – 2022, a resolution denying an appeal by Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s interpretation made on May 7, 2021, relating to the legal nonconforming status of a pergola/trellis/arbor located at 121 France street (on the south side of France Street between Austin Avenue and Broadway) on property owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district (APN: 018- 352-049);
WHEREAS, the City received a timely appeal filed by Heather Martindale appealing the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. XX12 - 2022; and WHEREAS, on November 2
nd
, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider Heather’s Martindale’s Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action taken on March 10, 2022, , including the documents and materials in the Record, and to hear and consider testimony and comments in favor of, in opposition to, or otherwise relating to, the Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Sonoma, State of California, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby adopted by the City Council and the City Council finds as follows:

I. Record

Page 281 of 301 ends

3 g. January 5, 2022 email from Richard J. Hicks to Director David Storer and City Attorney Jeffrey Walter;
h. January 10, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 1/13/2022 Original Appeal Documents, and referenced Exhibit Documents;
i. January 13, 2022 email from Heather Martindale, Subject: Request for Matt Wirick's Recusal for 1/13/2022 Planning Commission Agenda Item 8.1 & Other;
j. The proceedings at the Planning Commission’s January 13, 2022, hearing, including all oral comments and testimony presented at the hearing, including comments and testimony by David Storer, Wayne Wirick, Heather Martindale and Richard J. Hicks, and the oral comments and deliberations of the Planning Commissioners at the hearing;
k. The proceedings at the City Council’s November 2, 2022, hearing, including all oral comments and testimony presented at the hearing and the oral comments and deliberations of the City Councilmembers at the hearing.
k.l. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this Resolution; and
l.m. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

II. Findings and Determinations

Page 282 of 301 ends

4 is the subject of this Appeal, is what remains of that trellising system. In early 2021, it was discovered through a survey commissioned by Appellant Heather Martindale that the trellis slightly extends over the property line on to the property she currently owns at 115 France Street.

Some of the vertical posts for the trellis extend almost 4 1/2 inches over the surveyed property line, and some of the upper horizontal beams extend over the line by almost 22 inches. (Draft copy of Record of Survey, attached as Exhibit R to Heather Martindale May 17, 2021 Appeal letter.) The evidence in the Record establishes that all of the requirements for a prescriptive easement had been satisfied and that a prescriptive easement for the trellis existed in favor of 121 France Street to the extent it extended over the property line on to 115 France Street, by the time the City first enacted a Zoning Ordinance in 1948, Ordinance No. 206 (Exhibit 11 to Richard Hicks October 19, 2021 letter), and the City first enacted a Building Code in 1949, Ordinance No. 207 (Exhibit 12 to the Hicks letter). “In order to establish an easement by prescription it must be shown that the easement was (1) used continuously for a period of five years, and (2) possessed in a manner that was open, notorious, and clearly visible to the owner of the burdened land and hostile and adverse to the owner.” (6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, 4th Ed., §15:29 (updated November 2020, citations omitted).)
“The claimant need not inform the servient tenement owner expressly of his or her hostile and adverse intent or declare that the use is under a claim of right. Use of property in a way that clearly displays the user's claim of right establishes a prima facie case that the use is under a claim of right, that it is adverse and hostile to the rights of the owner of the property, and that the owner has constructive notice of the adverse claim.

Page 283 of 301 ends

5 maintenance and repair of any non-conforming use or structure,” and the work that was performed with respect to the trellis in 2001 constituted such permissible repair and/or maintenance. In addition, because the overall footprint and size of the trellis were decreased, not increased, there was no requirement for Beth Harper to obtain a conditional use permit under subsection 1 providing that “[a] non-conforming use may only be expanded, enlarged in size or capacity, or extended to occupy a greater area, or increased in intensity by a conditional use permit.”

2. The trellis in question constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structure.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 284 of 301 ends

6 Appellant’s remaining claims and arguments in support of her position that the trellis is not a legal nonconforming use or structure have been considered, and are rejected.

III. Indemnity

1. The property owner of 121 France Street and any successor in interest shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s City Council’s decision at issue herein, including any approval of the environmental review document(s) or environmental findings made in support of said decision. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by said property owner, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

2. The property owner of 121 France Street and any successor in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the property owner desires to pursue having the Planning Commission City Council make the same or similar decision, after initiation of such litigation, which decision is conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.

Agenda Item #6.1:

Page 285 of 301 ends

7 IV. Denial of Appeal.

Based on the Record and the Findings and Determinations set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission City Council hereby denies the Appeal of Heather Martindale of the Planning & Community Services Director’s Interpretation Made on May 7, 2021, Relating to the Legal Nonconforming Status of a Pergola/Trellis/Arbor Located at 121 France Street (On the South Side of France Street Between Austin Avenue and Broadway) On Property Owned by Beth Harper in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District (APN: 018-352-049).

V. CEQA Findings.

The action taken by the Planning Commission City Council to deny the appeal is not a project under CEQA, and even if were a project, it would be exempt from further environmental review under the General Rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. At issue in this appeal is whether or not an existing structure is a legal non-conforming use. The Planning and Community Services Director and Planning Commission determined that the structure was such a legal non-conforming use. This determination did not result in or involve any change in the structure or any change in or to the environment. As an appeal of a determination by the Planning and Community Services Director Commission regarding an existing structure, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission City Council will have any, let alone a significant, effect on the environment.” I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Sonoma, Sonoma County, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote.

ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

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

Page 286 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 02 Nov 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Consideration, Discussion, and Possible Action to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Jeffrey Walter as City Attorney and appointing David Ruderman as City Attorney, and Amending Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s Retainer Agreement with the City Accordingly
Summary
Jeffrey Walter first served as Sonoma’s Interim City Attorney in December 2009, and later was retained as the permanent City Attorney of the City of Sonoma in July 2010, almost 13 years ago.

Jeffrey Walter has tendered his resignation as City Attorney with the commitment to continue as an Assistant City Attorney for the City.

Jefferey A. Walter, a professional law corporation, dba Walter & Pistole (“Jeffrey Walter”), performed said legal services pursuant to that certain City and Agency Attorney Agreement with the City of Sonoma dated July 7, 2010, which was ultimately amended and superseded by the Amended and Restated City of Sonoma and City of Sonoma as Successor Agency Attorney Agreement dated August 17, 2015 (“The Retainer Agreement”).

In January 2021, Jeffrey Walter assigned The Retainer Agreement with the City and the City of Sonoma as Successor Agency to the Former Community Development Agency (collectively, “the City”) to the law firm of Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC (“CHW”), CHW accepted the assignment and the City Council consented to the assignment.

Since February 1, 2021, Jeffrey Walter has been a shareholder of CHW and has been performing the City Attorney duties as the attorney designated by CHW to perform said duties.

David Ruderman has been providing legal services for the City as an Assistant City Attorney since 2021. He is the City Attorney of Lakeport and Weed, General Counsel of Yuba LAFCO, and Assistant General Counsel of the Tahoe Forest Hospital District and Calaveras LAFCO.

He is also Senior Counsel in Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s litigation practice group. His litigation and advisory practice cover a range of public law issues, including municipal finance and public revenues, public utilities, LAFCO matters, land use, cannabis regulation, election law, employment law, and general contract and commercial disputes and is highly qualified and experienced to perform the duties of Sonoma City Attorney in the stead of Jeffrey Walter.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a resolution accepting the resignation of Jeffrey Walter as City Attorney and appointing David Ruderman as City Attorney, and amending Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s retainer agreement with the City accordingly.

Agenda Item #6.2:

Page 287 of 301 ends

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Sonoma Resolution
Agenda Item #6.2:

Page 288 of 301 ends

1 Error! Unknown document property name.

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ____ -2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ACCEPTING THE

RESIGNATION OF JEFFREY WALTER AS CITY ATTORNEY AND APPOINTING DAVID RUDERMAN AS CITY ATTORNEY; AND AMENDING COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY’S RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ACCORDINGLY
WHEREAS, Jeffrey Walter first served as Sonoma’s Interim City Attorney in December 2009, and later retained as the permanent City Attorney of the City of Sonoma in July 2010, almost 13 years; and
WHEREAS, Jeffrey Walter has tendered his resignation as City Attorney with the commitment to continue as an Assistant City Attorney for the City; and WHEREAS, Jefferey A. Walter, a professional law corporation, dba Walter & Pistole (“Jeffrey Walter”), performed said legal services pursuant to that certain City and Agency Attorney Agreement with the City of Sonoma dated July 7, 2010, and ultimately amended and superseded by the Amended and Restated City of Sonoma and City of Sonoma as Successor Agency Attorney Agreement dated August 17, 2015 (“The Retainer Agreement”); and WHEREAS, in January 2021, Jeffrey Walter assigned The Retainer Agreement with the City and the City of Sonoma as Successor Agency to the Former Community Development Agency (collectively, “the City”) to the law firm of Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC (“CHW”), CHW accepted the assignment and the City Council consented to the assignment; and WHEREAS, since February 1, 2021, Jeffrey Walter has been a shareholder of CHW and has been performing the City Attorney duties as the attorney designated by CHW to perform said duties; and
WHEREAS, David Ruderman, has been providing legal services for the City as an Assistant City Attorney since 2021. He is the City Attorney of Lakeport and Weed, General Counsel of Yuba LAFCO, and Assistant General Counsel of the Tahoe Forest Hospital District and Calaveras LAFCO. He is also Senior Counsel in Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s litigation practice group. His litigation and advisory practice cover a range of public law issues, including municipal finance and public revenues, public utilities, LAFCO matters, land use, cannabis regulation, election law, employment law, and general contract and commercial disputes and is highly qualified and experienced to perform the duties of Sonoma City Attorney in the stead of Jeffrey Walter.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Sonoma resolves as follows:

1. Jeffrey Walter’s resignation as City Attorney is accepted and David Ruderman is appointed as the new City Attorney for the City of Sonoma and the City of Sonoma as Successor Agency to the Former Community Development Agency.

2. The Retainer Agreement is hereby amended to reflect that David Ruderman shall discharge the duties of City Attorney under said Retainer Agreement.

3. Section 8 of The Retainer Agreement is further amended to reflect that David Ruderman’s address to which notices are to be sent under The Retainer Agreement is:

Agenda Item #6.2:

Page 289 of 301 ends

2 Error! Unknown document property name.

David Ruderman
Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC
420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140
Grass Valley, CA 95945
[email protected]
530 798-2417 (direct line)
530 575 7328 (mobile)

4. As amended herein, The Retainer Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma at its regular meeting held on November 2, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jack Ding, Mayor
ATTEST:

___________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk

Agenda Item #6.2:

Page 290 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 02 Nov 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Consideration, Discussion, and Possible Action Regarding a City Historian Appointment Policy
Summary
On April 20, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution #24-2022 re-establishing the position of City Historian. During the discussion at that meeting, there was a consensus of the City Council to have staff provide a policy that would more clearly identify the qualifications for the Historian, including possibly some formal training and education.

Using language submitted by past City Historians Robert Demler and George McHale, along with the adopted resolution, Staff has prepared a draft policy for the City Council's consideration.

Two areas in which Staff is asking Council to discuss and provide further direction on is any formal training and education that is desired for the position and a specific process for appointment.

Training & Education -
Though this was included during the discussion of qualifications, there was no direction on what this would be. If the City Council wishes to include a training and education qualification, what should this be? When staff conducted a search of historian educational requirements, the results varied from a graduate degree in history to a high school diploma.

Process for Appointment -
The City Council has identified a process for appointments in its Commission & Committee Appointment Policy. The process for Group A Commissions, through the mayoral appointment process, could be utilized for this appointment as well. This would help to make appointments consistent.

Recommended Council Action
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the policy and provide direction.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 291 of 301 ends

There is no financial impact resulting from this action.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Draft City Historian Appointment Policy
Resolution 24-2022
Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 292 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma

POLICY PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CITY HISTORIAN Policy
It shall be the policy of the City Council of the City of Sonoma to appoint a City Historian to promote knowledge and appreciation of Sonoma’s rich and colorful history for the enjoyment and edification of residents, education of children and the economic value of promoting the city’s heritage to attract visitors.

Appointment and Term
The solicitation of applicants for the position of Sonoma City Historian is to be advertised in at least three forums – a local newspaper and on the City of Sonoma’s Website and on the City’s Facebook Page - for an application period of one month only.

The Mayor and Vice-Mayor shall review all applications and conduct in-person interviews prior to making a recommendation to the City Council for which candidate should fill the position.

The City Historian shall be appointed by the City Council based on demonstrated knowledge of, and interest in, the history of the City of Sonoma.

The term of office shall be two (2) years, with eligibility for reappointment, serving at the pleasure of the City Council.

The Vice Mayor will serve as the City Historian’s liaison to the City. The City Historian shall serve without compensation.

Qualifications
The City Historian shall be a resident of the City or live within the boundary of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District during their entire term and must be willing to abide by the City of Sonoma Code of Ethics and Values (Resolution No. 25-2001).

The City Historian shall be well-informed of the history of the City of Sonoma and shall be dedicated to its preservation. They shall seek to involve Sonoma residents in developing their knowledge of the City’s rich history.

The City Historian shall also have some knowledge of the skills and techniques necessary to perform historical research and possess good written and oral communication skills. Some formal education in the study of history is desired.

Duties and Responsibilities
The basic duties and responsibilities of the Sonoma City Historian shall include:

1. Providing periodic updates to the City Council on the status, care, and maintenance of historical artifacts in the City’s possession.

2. Assisting with research by the public, City staff, and organizations engaged in historic preservation activities.

3. Assisting, when requested, with coordination of City activities which are of historical interest.

Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 293 of 301 ends

4. May make recommendations to the City Manager and City Council regarding the preservation of historical resources.

5. Serving as a resource for schools, visitors, and others with an interest in the history of the City of Sonoma; however, this does not include providing personal research services on request.

6. Coordinating and hosting public workshops and lectures regarding the history of the City of Sonoma.

7. Speaking about the history of Sonoma at civic and institutional events as requested.

Other
Expenses - When expenses are expected to be incurred in the pursuit of the duties outlined above, the City Historian shall request prior approval from the City Manager for payment of such expenses.

Conflict of Interest - The City Historian as an individual, provides a personal focus and public face on the history of Sonoma and any possible publicly perceived conflict of interest, personal, commercial, or otherwise, is not permitted.

Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 294 of 301 ends

Qliitynf%n11nnIa
RESOLUTION # £ 2 -2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF SONOMA
RE-ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF CITY HISTORIAN AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION #04—2008 WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma has a rich and colorful history and occupies a place of prominence in the heritage of California; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Sonoma represent a tremendous resource for preserving the City's history and keeping it alive for the present and future generations of Sonomans; and WHEREAS, the City would benefit from the designation of a City Historian to assist the City of Sonoma with coordinating the preservation of historical records and resources and maintaining a link between the City's past, present and future.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The honorary, volunteer position of City Historian is hereby created.

2. The City Historian shall be appointed by the City Council based on demonstrated knowledge of, and interest in, the history of the City of Sonoma. The Mayor and Vice—Mayorshall review applications and conduct interviews prior to making a recommendation to the City Council to fillthe position.

3. The term of office shall be two years, with eligibilityfor reappointment, serving at the pleasure of the City Council.

4. The City Historian shall be a resident of the City or live within the boundary of the Sonoma Valley Unified School Districtduring his or her tenure and must be willingto abide by the City of Sonoma Code of Ethics and Values (Resolution No. 25-2001)

5. The duties and responsibilities of the City Historian shall include:
a. Providing periodic updates to the City Council on the status, care and maintenance of historical artifacts in the City's possession.
b. Assisting with research by the public, City staff, and organizations engaged in historic preservation activities.

0. When requested, assisting with coordination of City activities which are of historical interest. d. May make recommendations to the City Manager and City Council regarding the preservation of historical resources.
e. Serving as a resource for schools, visitors and others with an interest in the history of the City of Sonoma.
f. May coordinate and host public workshops and lectures regarding the history of the City of Sonoma.

6. When expenses willbe incurred in the pursuit of assembling, chronicling and preserving historical material of the City of Sonoma, the City Historian shall request prior approval from the City Manager for payment of such expenses.

7. Resolution #04—2008is rescinded.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April2022, by the following vote:

AYES: AGRIMONTI,BARNETT,FELDER,LOWE,DING
NOES:

ABSENT:
, /E
ABSTAIN: ,2’?I E V ~. izfrtli//2% /‘
Jack Mayor V
.r 3
.1 ATTEST:

Re ah Barr, MMC,City Clerk
Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 295 of 301 ends

Agenda Item #6.3:

Page 296 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 02 Nov 2022
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Sue Casey, Interim City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Consideration, Discussion and Possible Action to Establish a Position of Protocol Chief for the City of Sonoma
Summary
At the October 19, 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Ding reported he had received letters from two (2) former Mayors in support of establishing a position of Protocol Chief for the City of Sonoma. The proposed purpose of the position would be to provide the Mayor, members of the City Council and other City and community representatives with advice on procedures and guidelines of diplomatic conduct relating to national and international protocol so that the City can "put its best foot forward" in stewarding these relationships.

The Cities and Counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles provide this type of support to elected officials. These agencies utilize partnerships with their region's tourism and convention bureaus for this type of position to raise awareness of trade and other economic development opportunities with local industry and delivering positive guest experiences to steward the region as an international destination.

The City of Sonoma has received several International leaders and important guests over the years, including the Consul General of Ukraine earlier this year, and is viewed as a global tourism destination. The City's proximity to San Francisco, its rich history in California's statehood and its world-renowned reputation for excellence in the food, wine & hospitality industries serve to continue to promote visits from diplomatic, government and private industry leaders from across the United States and around the world.

The Mayor requested that this item be placed on the agenda for full Council consideration, discussion and possible action to determine the priority of establishing a Chief of Protocol position, and to provide staff direction for next steps.

Recommended Council Action
Staff recommends that Council consider, discuss and take possible action on establishing a Chief of Protocol position.

Alternative Actions
Council Discretion
Financial Impact
N/A
Agenda Item #6.4:

Page 297 of 301 ends

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Gallian Letter of support
Sanders Letter of Support
Agenda Item #6.4:

Page 298 of 301 ends

Laurie Gallian
434 Rosalie Drive
Sonoma CA 95476
October 12, 2022
Dear Mayor Jack Ding:

This letter is in support of establishing an Office of Protocol for the City of Sonoma.

This was an item that when I was Vice Mayor and Mayor I brought before Council during my 2012-2016 term on City Council. I found during my two terms on the City Council that staff although experienced in other operational forms of our city government were not always fully informed in the area of protocol or had the time to learn to do so.

During my terms on Council I traveled and accompanied delegations visiting for local events of both historic and economic nature. I was instructed and confident due to Ms. Ferris. She was very knowledgeable and spent time instructing myself, other councilmembers and staff in the areas of forms of address honorifics, titles, written communications, receiving lines, menus-dietary restrictions, seating, religious sensitivities. Also included was information pertinent to the event type:
working event, social event, and occasional press conference. Diplomatic protocol is a very historic profession dating back to the Babylonians who imitated the first recorded exchange of envoys.

The City of Sonoma is indeed fortunate to have a local 30-year professional in this field, Sherri Ferris to serve in the position of Chief of Protocol. I give this item and concept, and Sherri Ferris my full support. Sherri was such an asset and help to me in her professional capacity. Sonoma has been and continues to be a destination both economically and historical. Protocol matters. Rarely are you given a chance to repair a bad first impression.

Sincerely,
Laurie Gallian Former Mayor 2011 and 2016
Agenda Item #6.4:

Page 299 of 301 ends

Joanne Sanders
955 Broadway
Sonoma, CA 95476
707-939-2800
October 11, 2022
Mayor Jack Ding
City of Sonoma
1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Dear Mayor Ding:

I am writing to support creating an Office of Protocol for the City of Sonoma. This is a concept I pursued when I was mayor because I often found myself without the necessary resources to meet certain demands at City Hall that came up throughout the year.

Appointing Sherri Ferris to serve as Chief of Protocol is a tremendous opportunity for the City to get the program off the ground without putting more demands on staff. During the course of my two terms on the City Council, I relied on Sherri many times when we hosted official delegations and needed expertise on gift giving, general protocol, etc. Frankly, given the historical significance of Sonoma in California statehood, I don’t see how we can do without this role.

It is time to make it official and having a local resident who knows Sonoma to serve as our Chief of Protocol will enhance Sonoma’s image nationally and internationally.

Thank you for bringing this issue before the Council. I wholeheartedly support the concept and Sherri to serve as City of Sonoma Chief of Protocol .

Sincerely,
Joanne Sanders, Former Mayor of Sonoma, 2008 and 2012
Agenda Item #6.4:

Page 300 of 301 ends

City of Sonoma
Commission Committee Roster ‐ September 30 2022
Commission / Committee First Name Last Name Notes ‐ Other Term End CFAC Deb Emerson Appointed by CM Harrington 1/31/2025
CFAC Steve Hagstrom Appointed by Previous
CM Harvey 1/31/2023
CFAC Lauren Kershner Appointed by Previous
CM Hundley 1/31/2023
CFAC Veronica Napoles Appointed by CM Agrimonti 1/31/2023 CFAC Constance Schlelein At‐Large Member 1/31/2023
CFAC Ryan Smull Alternate Member 1/31/2023
CFAC George Thompson Appointed by CM Ding 1/31/2025
CFAC Francie Ward At‐Large Member 1/31/2023
DRHPC Kelly Amar Appointed by CM Ding 1/31/2025
DRHPC Vickie Haraszthy Appointed by CM Lowe 1/31/2025
DRHPC Charles Cormany Appointed by CM Agrimonti 1/31/2023 DRHPC Christopher Johnson Appointed by Previous
CM Harvey 1/31/2023
DRHPC Micaelia Randolph Appointed by Previous
CM Hundley 1/31/2023
DRHPC Ahmad Jaharomi Alternate 1/31/2023
Planning Commission Matthew Wirick Appointed by CM Agrimonti 1/31/2023 Planning Commission Steve Barbose Appointed by Previous CM Harvey 1/31/2023
Planning Commission Robert (Bob) McDonald Appointed by Previous CM Harrington 1/31/2025
Planning Commission Larry Barnett Appointed by CM Ding 1/31/2025 Planning Commission William (Bill) Willers Appointed by Previous CM Barnett
1/31/2023
Planning Commission Ron Wellander At‐Large Member 1/31/2023 Planning Commission Sheila O'Neill At‐Large Member 1/31/2023 Planning Commission Alternate Member 1/31/2023
Traffic Safety Committee Yvonne Bowers Appointed by CM Agrimonti 1/31/2023 Traffic Safety Committee Nancy Parmelee Appointed by Previous CM Harrington 1/31/2025
Traffic Safety Committee Mark Demenno Appointment by CM Ding 1/31/2025 Traffic Safety Committee Appointment by previous
CM Hundley 1/31/2023
Traffic Safety Committee Armando Zimmerman Appointed by Previous CM Harvey 1/31/2023
Traffic Safety Committee Alternate 1/31/2023
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Agenda Item #10.1:

Page 301 of 301 ends

Sonoma City CouncilNovember 2, 2022

Sonoma City Council
November 2, 2022