Sonoma City Council
May 17, 2023

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
14 project, information relevant to the site conditions, applicable regulations, such as ordinances and zoning provisions, City of Sonoma General Plan, City of Sonoma Housing Element, and City of Sonoma Circulation Element. We will also review technical studies to identify any missing data and potential deficiencies, if needed. We will prepare a memorandum listing any additional data that we may need for the CEQA analysis.

As noted under our proposed CEQA approach, based on the preliminary review of the project conditions, the proposed project may have a significant impact on historical resources which would require preparing a focused EIR. Subtask 2b below outlines our scope to provide a peer review of the HRE prepared for the project by the applicant’s consultant. Our preliminary review did not identify any other resource topics that may have a significant impact that would affect the level of CEQA review.

However, as an optional task (Subtask 2c), we are providing the scope for a peer review of the Traffic Impact Study to confirm the methodology and assumptions supporting the findings and relevant information for use in the CEQA analysis.

Also as an optional task, we are proposing the systematic surveys for special status plants as recommended in the Biological Technical Memorandum. As described in the optional task below, we recommend conducting these surveys in early and late spring, when most plants are in flower to allow for positive identification.

Subtastk 2b: Peer Review of the HRE. Painter Preservation will conduct a site visit to verify the building components and setting. They will review the HRE and prepare their findings in a memorandum documenting their notes on the methods, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the HRE. As applicable, Painter Preservation will include their concurence or non-concurrence with the HRE conclusions and recommendations. If the HRE is to be the primary source document for an EIR and assuming the consultant’s recommendation that the single-family house is a historic resource for purposes of CEQA is correct, Painter Preservation will note any shortcomings or missing information that would be needed to substantiate the conclusions and recommendations. This scope does not include the time to prepare updates to the analysis. However, updates could be made by Painter Preservation subject to a scope and budget amendment.

Optional Subtask 2c: Peer Review of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Fehr & Peers will review the methodology, analysis and mitigation approach used in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the CEQA and Level of Service (LOS) analyses. As an initial step, Fehr & Peers will prepare a list of clarifying questions for submittal to the author of the current traffic study for review and response. Based on the answers to these questions, Fehr & Peers will prepare a brief technical memorandum outlining their review and recommendations for improving the adequacy and appropriateness of the modeling for future conditions, assumptions used in the modeling, accuracy of the calculations, and reasonableness of the thresholds, impact conclusions, and mitigation measures. This memorandum will be submitted to the City for review. This scope task does not include staff time to update technical analyses in response to the peer review. However, updates could be made by Fehr & Peers staff subject to a scope and budget amendment. Updates to the analysis, if completed by others in response to the recommendations developed by Fehr & Peers, will not constitute Fehr & Peers’s approval or endorsement of others’ technical work.

Optional Subtask 2d: Systematic Surveys for Special-Status Plants. Our subconsultant Environmental Collaborative will conduct systematic surveys to confirm absence of any special-status plant species on Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
15 the site. Up to two surveys will be conducted, preferably in early and late spring when most plants are in flower to allow for positive identification. All plant species will be identified to the degree necessary to determine possible rarity. A list of all plant species encountered on the site will be prepared, indicating whether they are native or non-native. If any occurrences of special-status species are encountered, our scope does not include preparation of a comprehensive mitigation plan. Our scope assumes that any occurrences with State or federal listing under the Endangered Species Acts, with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank of 1B, or higher would be avoided.

Task 2 Deliverables
 Memorandum summarizing data gaps
 Memorandum for the peer review of the HRE
 Optional Memorandum for the peer review of the Traffic Impact Analysis  Optional Memorandum for the Systematic Surveys of Special-Status Plants Task 3: Alternatives Analysis
Based on the preliminary findings of the peer review of the HRE and if our historian concurs with the findings of the report, we will work with the City to develop feasible alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or reduce the potential environmental impact to historical resources.

The purpose of analyzing project alternatives at this level of the environmental review is to identify alternatives that could achieve the project objectives, assess potential environmental impact of each alternative, and compare the environmental impacts of each alternative to the proposed project. This analysis will inform decision-making by providing a comparison of the level of CEQA review required for the proposed project and the alternatives. This scope assumes analysis of two alternatives to the proposed project. In the event that an EIR is determined to be the appropriate CEQA path, we will use the analysis prepared under this task to prepare the alternatives analysis of the EIR.

Based on the findings of the alternatives analysis and in the event one of the alternatives that would not result in significant impacts is selected to be the proposed project, we will revise our scope of services presented below to assist the city with preparing the appropriate CEQA document for the selected alternative.

Task 3 Deliverables
 Alternatives Analysis Memorandum
STEP 2 – Initial Study
Task 4: Initial Study
Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, we will prepare an Initial Study (IS) Checklist to document the analysis that will assist the City staff in determining whether an ND/MND or EIR must be prepared and, as applicable, to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15365). This task also includes the consultation with Native American tribes.

Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
16 Subtask 4a: Native American Tribe Consultation. Our subconsultant ARS will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by email and request a check of the sacred site file. The agency will inform us of the presence or absence of Native American sacred places in the project vicinity. They will also provide a list of appropriate Native American tribes and organizations to be contacted. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, we will prepare a draft letter for the Notification Regarding Tribal Cultural Resources and CEQA that the City will finalize and send to the identified tribes. As needed, if further consultation is requested, we will provide a scope amendment under this subtask.

Subtask 4b: Project Description. Based on the information provided, including the current project designs and background studies, we will prepare the draft project description for use as a basis for the analysis in the Initial Study. The project description will include the preparation of figures to delineate the project area, including staging areas, and to provide a visual presentation of the proposed project.

As needed, we will include other visual products, such as renderings, or diagrams to facilitate a thorough understanding of the project. We will provide an electronic copy (Microsoft Word and PDF format) of the draft project description for review by the City staff and the applicant.

Upon receipt of one set of consolidated comments from the City of Sonoma on the draft project description, we will finalize the project description.

Subtask 4c: Administrative Draft Initial Study: We will prepare an Administrative Draft IS that will present our analysis and findings of all resource topics under the CEQA Checklist. Where applicable, we will provide a quantified impact analysis and compare to quantitative significance thresholds. We will submit electronic copies of the Administrative Draft IS in both PDF and Word format.

This task also includes the preparation of an archaeoligical resources analysis, which will include a litterature search and a field evaluation.

Subtask 4d: CEQA Memorandum: After completing the Draft IS Checklist, we will meet with the City staff to discuss the findings of each resource topic and examine the appropriate CEQA path. We will prepare a memorandum summarizing the findings of the analysis described above and providing recommendations for the required CEQA documentation for the project. Our memorandum will also include recommendations about additional technical studies, if needed.

Task 4 Deliverables
 NAHC letter
 Draft letter to the Native American Tribes
 Draft and final project description
 Administrative Draft IS
 CEQA Memorandum
Step 3 – Prepare CEQA Document
Upon completion of Step 2 and after providing our memorandum under Subtask 4d above, we will await the City direction on the CEQA document required. The scope below provides the two possible options.

Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
17 The first option is the preparation of an Initial Study ND/MND. The second option is the preparation of an EIR focused on the historical resources.

Task 5: Initial Study Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration Subtask 5a: Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND. We will address the City comments on the Administrative Draft IS submitted under Task 4 above and submit a Screencheck Initial Study ND/MND formatted for public review period. City’s comments on the screencheck version will be addressed to prepare the Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND. We will provide one electronic copy of the Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND and up to 10 bound paper copies. We will prepare a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration as well as the required forms and copies of the Initial Study ND/MND to the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk. We will mail copies of the CEQA document with the Notice of Availability to responsible agencies. Before the circulation of the Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND, we will provide the City with the administrative record generated during the preparation of the CEQA document.

As indicated in the RFP, the City will be responsible for posting at the site, sending to neighboring or nearby property owners or residents, newspaper noticing, and/or sending to interested parties.

Sertior will prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), if required, in a table-listing format that will present all mitigation measures, corresponding monitoring actions, responsible entities, and date of implementation of each measure.

Subtask 5b: Final ND/MND. This task involves reviewing public and agency comments on the Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND and addressing those comments in the Final ND/MND. We will prepare a Draft Final IS ND/MND that will include the amended Public Draft IS ND/MND as well as a new section entitled Comments Received in Response to the Public Draft IS ND/MND, which will describe the comments received and how they are addressed in the Final IS ND/MND. The Final ND/MND will show changes to the Public Draft IS ND/MND in strike-through/double underline. It is assumed that up to 20 individual comments are received and that all comments would not require new analysis or substantive revisions. This proposal also assumes comments received on the Public Draft IS ND/MND will not trigger recirculation of the ND/MND.

We will prepare a revised Final IS ND/MND based upon comments from the City on the Draft Final IS ND/MND. We will distribute the Final IS ND/MND to responsible agencies who commented on the Public Draft IS ND/MND. The Administrative Record will be updated as necessary for the Final IS ND/MND.

We will prepare the Notice of Determination for filing with the County Clerk. Our scope assumes that the project applicant will pay the filing fees.

Subtask 5c: Public Hearings. Our project manager and project historian will attend a public hearing by the City’s Planning Commission and a public hearing by the City Council. We will revise our scope if more specialists are needed to attend the hearings or if more hearings are required.

Task 5 Deliverables
CEQA PATH 1
Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
18  Screencheck Initial Study ND/MND (electronic version)  Public Draft Initial Study ND/MND (electronic version and 10 hard copies)  Administrative Record
 Notice of Completion
 MMRP (electronic version)
 Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration  Draft Final ND/MND (electronic version)
 Final ND/MND (one electronic version and 10 hard copies)  Notice of Determination
 Attendance of public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council Task 6: Environmental Impact Report
Subtask 6a: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. We will address the City comments on the Administrative Draft IS submitted under Task 4 above and submit a draft Notice of Preparation/Screencheck Draft IS for review by the City. The Screencheck Draft IS will identify the issues that will not be addressed in the EIR because they would not result in significant impact. This scope assumes focusing out all of the CEQA topics with the exception of the historical resources. Once the City provides comments on the Notice of Preparation/Screencheck Draft IS, we will revise and prepare the document for publication. Sertior will be responsible for mailing copies to the responsible agencies and the State Clearinghouse. This scope assumes that the City will be responsible for posting at the site, sending to neighboring or nearby property owners or residents, newspaper noticing, and/or sending to interested parties.

Subtask 6b: Scoping Meeting. It is anticipated that the City will hold a scoping meeting for the EIR during the 30-day scoping period. Sertior project manager will support the City during the scoping meeting by preparing informational materials and attending the meeting. This scope does not include the services of a court reporter.

At the end of the scoping period, the City will provide Sertior with copies of all comment letters received during the scoping period. We will prepare a memorandum summarizing the comments and providing a proposed approach to address these comments in the EIR. We will meet with the City to discuss the comments received.

Subtask 6c: EIR Project Description. We will review the Project Description prepared under subtask 4b and expand it as needed for the EIR document. We will prepare a Draft EIR Project Description based upon the project information and applicable regulatory requirements and will provide an electronic copy (Microsoft Word and PDF format) for review by the City. Upon receipt of one set of consolidated comments from the City of Sonoma on the Draft EIR Project Description, we will prepare the Final EIR Project Description, which will be used as a basis for the analysis in the EIR.

Subtask 6d: Administrative Draft EIR.We will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR. The Administrative Draft EIR will include the following sections:

CEQA PATH 2
Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
19  Executive Summary
 Introduction
 Project Description
 Project Background and Environmental Setting
 Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures
 Historical Resources
 Alternatives Analysis
 Other Topics Required by CEQA
 List of Preparers
 Appendices
Sertior will prepare a draft MMRP in a table-listing format that presents all mitigation measures, corresponding monitoring actions, responsible entities, and date of implementation of each measure.

Subtask 6e: Public Draft EIR. We will address the City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR and prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR. Comments received on the Screencheck Draft EIR will be addressed in the Public Draft EIR to be distributed for the required CEQA public review. We will provide one electronic copy of the Public Draft EIR and up to 10 bound paper copies. We will also provide the MMRP.

We will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) for the Draft EIR filing with the State Clearinghouse and the Notice of Availability (NOA). We will distribute the NOA and Draft EIR to responsible agencies. As noted in the RFP, this scope assumes that the City will be reponsible for posting at the site, sending to neighboring or nearby property owners or residents, newspaper noticing, and/or sending to interested parties.

Subtask 6f: Public Hearing. We anticipate that two public hearings will occur during the 45-day EIR public-review period. Our project manager will support the City to prepare for the hearings and will attend both hearings with the project historian. We will revise our scope if more specialists are needed to attend the hearings or if more hearings are required.

Subtask 6g: Final EIR/Response to Comments. Upon receipt of public comments on the Public Review Draft EIR, we will annotate the comments and draft responses to comments and changes to the EIR to prepare a Draft Final EIR. We will incorporate the City’s comments on the Draft Final EIR and prepare a Screencheck Final EIR. It is assumed that up to 25 individual comments are received and that all comments would not require new analysis or substantive revisions. This proposal also assumes comments received will not trigger recirculation of the Public Draft EIR. As needed, we will revise the MMRP. We will provide the City with one electronic copy and up to 10 bound paper copies of the Final EIR.

If the project is approved, we will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City to file with the County Clerk. As noted in the RFP, this scope assumes that The City or applicant will be responsible for payment of County Clerk and California Department of Fish & Wildlife CEQA fees.

Subtask 6h: Certification of Final EIR. As needed, Sertior will draft the Statement of Overriding Considerations and attend the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings for the certification of the Final EIR. Also if needed, we will prepare errata or other documentation to address comments on the Final EIR that may arise prior to the certification meeting. This scope does not include the services of a court reporter.

Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
20 Task 6 Deliverables
 Draft and Final Notice of Preparation/Screencheck Draft IS (electronic only)  Draft and final EIR Project Description (electronic only)  Administrative Draft EIR (electronic only)
 Screencheck Draft EIR (Electrnic only)
 Public Draft EIR (electronic only and up to 10 hard copies)  Administrative record
 Administrative draft Final EIR (electronic only)
 Screencheck Final EIR (electronic only)
 Final EIR (electronic copy and up to 10 hard copies)
 MMRP (electronic only)
 Notice of Determination (NOD) (electronic only)
 Draft and Final Statement of Overriding Considerations (electronic only)  Attendance of the scoping meeting, two hearings during public review period, and two hearings to certify the Final EIR

COST CONTROL
In addition to our expertise in environmental planning, our designated project manager has a long-term experience providing effective management of environmental reviews and multi-disciplinary projects.

Proper budgeting and cost control are critical aspects of project management that help ensure we complete our scope within the allocated budget and on time. Our cost estimate presented in this proposal is the first step of our cost management plan. During this initial cost planning process, we thoroughly assess and examine the needed level of effort to allocate adequate budget. We identify all of the resources that will be required to complete the project. We base our estimate on past performances and lessons learned; we also consult with our subconsultants to develop a baseline project budget that would complete the project successfully and efficiently.

Throughout the project life cycle, we review our baseline budget regularly to ensure that it is still accurate and that there are no unexpected costs that have arisen. We routinely track our expenses and compare them to the baseline budget. This helps in identifying any areas where costs are exceeding the budget, thus allowing our project manager to take corrective actions.

Our project manager tracks closely any changes to the project scope and timeline to ensure that any changes are properly evaluated and any cost implications are considered before changes are approved.

Our budgeting and cost control method allows us to create accurate budgets, allocate resources effectively, and control costs throughout the project's life cycle. This will help ensure that projects are completed on time, within budget, and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
21 PROJECT TIMELINE
As shown below, with the modification to the timeline of submitting the proposal, this schedules assumes receiving the notice to proceed on May 18, 2023. We anticipate completion of Step 1 (background review, optional peer review, alternatives analysis, and the memorandum outlining the CEQA path) within approximately 6 weeks, and submittal of the Administrative draft IS within 8 weeks of the notice to proceed. The overall schedule for the preparation of an Initial Study ND/MND is approximately 6.5 months. Estimated schedule for the preparation of an EIR is approximately 11 months. We will discuss our schedule during the kickoff meeting to refine it and adjust estimated team preparation or the City’s review periods.

5 Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
22 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Sertior and our subconsultants team are not and shall not be in any situation which could give rise to a conflict of interest in what concerns the performance of the environmental review for the Montaldo Apartments project. In the event of the contract being awarded to us, we undertake to act with complete impartiality and in good faith in what concerns its performance and outcome and to immediately declare to the City of Sonoma in writing any situation that might raise concerns with respect to conflict of interest, impartiality or otherwise affect our position/ability to duly and appropriately perform the contract.

Litigation
Sertior has not been involved in any litigation, arbitration, or negotiated settlements with previous clients.

CONTRACT AGREEMENT
We hereby confirm that the terms of the proposal shall remain valid for a period of 90 days following the submission deadline.

Question: Would the City consider modifications to the limits specified under Article 11, Insurance of the Professional Services Agreement?

6 7
8 Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
23 PROJECT BUDGET/PRICING
Our cost estimate is a time-and-materials not to exceed cost estimate and is based on the scope and schedule described above. Although scoped under Step 1, estimated project management fee is calculated under Step 3 as this cost varies between CEQA Path 1 (ND/MND) and CEQA Path 2 (EIR).

Estimated total cost for the preparation of an Initial Study ND/MND (Step 1, Step 2, and CEQA Path 1) is $87,756.60 including $11,446.51 contingency budget. Estimated total cost for the preparation of an EIR (Step 1, Step 2, and CEQA Path 2) is $125,884.36 including $16,419.70 contingency budget.

Task Price
Step 1: Preliminary CEQA Analysis $21,487.03
Data Review $5,856.00
HRE Peer Review $5,111.03
Alternatives Analysis $10,520.00
Step 2: Initial Study $33,984.57
Native American Consultation $1,173.40
Project Description $2,660.00
Administrative Draft Initial Study $27,871.17
CEQA Memorandum $2,280.00
Step 3: Prepare CEQA Document
CEQA Path 1: ND/MMD $20,838.50
Project Management and Public Hearings $3,800.00
Public Draft IS ND/MND $10,192.50
Final IS ND/MND $6,846.00
ND/MND Contingency Budget $11,446.51
CEQA Path 2: EIR $53,993.08
Project Management and Public Hearings $8,550.00
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study $4,560.00
EIR Project Description $3,040.00
9 Agenda Item #7.4:

19320 Sonoma Highway Montaldo Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance
24 Administrative Draft EIR $23,693.08
Public Draft EIR $3,040.00
Final EIR/NOD/Statement of Overriding Considerations $11,110.00 EIR Contingency Budget $16,419.70
Optional Tasks
Optional Peer Review: Transportation $10,547.00
Optional: Systematic Surveys for Special-Status Plants $2,470.00

Agenda Item #7.4:

Appendix
A
Resumes
Agenda Item #7.4:

SERTIOR
338 Spear Street, 15E  San Francisco, CA 94105  www.sertior.com  415.937.8702 LBE No. CMD06221000222  SB(Micro) No. 2021451
RESUME  Rima Ghannam 1

RIMA GHANNAM
Rima has more than 22 years
of experience in CEQA/NEPA
environmental planning,
socioeconomic analyses, and
project management. Her
experience covers the urban
infill, and institutional sectors, as well as the aviation, energy, and infrastructure sectors. She has led large
teams of technical experts and acted as liaison
between environmental and engineering teams to
ensure clear communication and foresee and resolve
potential project issues. Ms. Ghannam has
demonstrated the ability to work effectively and drive
projects to successful completion within the assigned
budget and schedule constraints.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
CEQA Lead, 570 Market Street, San Francisco, CA. Serving as the CEQA lead for the CEQA review of the proposed demolition of the existing two-story building and development of a 29- story, approximately 300-foot-tall hotel building.

CEQA Lead. Scott Ranch Revised EIR, City of Petaluma, CA.

Serving as the CEQA lead for the preparation of the Revised EIR for the Scott Ranch project that includes the Davidon (28-lot) Residential Project component and the Putnam Park Extension Project component.

CEQA Lead, Peer Review and Preparation of the Addendum
to the Terraces of Lafayette EIR, City of Lafayette, CA.

Assessed the project conditions and identified the needed technical studies. This included analysis of potential wildfire impacts and the development of a worse-case wildfire evacuation scenario. Ms.

Ghannam attended the four public meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council, to present the CEQA findings and answer questions from the public and the decision makers.

Principal-in-Charge, 1546-1564 Market Street, San Francisco, CA. Served as a principal-in-charge for the preparation of a Community Plan Exemption Checklist under the approved Area Plan and a Focused EIR for Historic Architectural Resources.

CEQA Lead, multiple mixed-use development in Oakland, CA. Served as the main author and CEQA lead in the preparation of streamlined CEQA review for several projects within downtown Oakland.

These projects included the 2015 Telegraph Avenue, the 2016 Telegraph Avenue, the 2415 Valdez, and AREAS OF EXPERTISE  CEQA/NEPA environmental
planning and project
management in aviation,
infrastructure, institutions,
and mixed-use sectors  Socioeconomic and
Environmental Justice
analysis  Management of
multidisciplinary airport and
environmental review
projects

EDUCATION AND
CERTIFICATIONS  MS/Environmental
Planning/1997/Swiss
Federal Institute of
Technology, Switzerland  BS/Agriculture
Engineering/1990/Americ
an University of Beirut,
Lebanon  150 hours in Professional
Development Units in Project
Management
Courses/2011/University of
California, Berkeley, CA
Agenda Item #7.4:

SERTIOR
338 Spear Street, 15E  San Francisco, CA 94105  www.sertior.com  415.937.8702 LBE No. CMD06221000222  SB(Micro) No. 2021451
RESUME  Rima Ghannam 2
the 24th and Waverly project. Projects were analyzed individually for consistency with areas’ specific plans and for eligibility to an Infill Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3.

CEQA Lead. Updated Facilities Master Plan – EIR, City College of San Francisco, CA. Served as the CEQA lead in the preparation of the EIR for the Updated Facilities Master Plan for the City College of San Francisco that was certified in June 2021. Identified mitigation measure to reduce transportation impact included the identification of a performance standard to limit the increase in project-generated vehicles.

Project Manager/NEPA Planner, Third Party Reviewer of the NEPA Documentation for the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System, Land Mobile Radio Project (LMR), Los Angeles Mayor’s Office, Los Angeles County, CA. Provided thirdparty review of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the LMR project that was prepared by another consultant. The scope of the work was to provide guidance and to oversee the NEPA review process that will satisfy the requirements of FEMA.

Project Manager, Various Flood Protection and Emergency Responsiveness Projects, FEMA, CA, NV and HI. Managed the environmental review and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for numerous flood mitigation projects in California, Nevada, and Hawaii.

Project Manager, CEQA Services for the Emergency Response and Earthquake Safety Bond Program, San Francisco Public Works, CA.

Assisted the San Francisco Department of Public Works and the San Francisco Planning Department in completing the CEQA review for the Auxiliary Water Supply System to meet the bond program schedule.

Project Manager, CEQA Review, Permitting Services, and
Construction Monitoring for the Town of Sunol Fire Suppression Project, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, CA. Managed the preparation of the CEQA documentation, coordinated the construction monitoring phase, and prepared environmental awareness material that was provided to the construction workers.

Project Manager. CEQA Review for the Oakland International Airport Perimeter Dike Improvement Project, Port of Oakland, CA. Served as the project manager for the preparation of an IS/MND for the seismic retrofitting and flood protection improvement of the perimeter dike at the Oakland International Airport. The project also included permitting and consultation support for the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Section 106 consultation of the National Historic Preservation Act.  Managed more than
100 multidisciplinary projects
totaling
approximately 250
millions of dollars.  Led large teams of
in-house technical
experts and sub
consultants.  Bridged key
stakeholders from
public and private
sectors and local
communities to
ensure smooth
communication,
create successful
project plans,
identify key
deliverables, set
achievable
milestones, monitor
project progress,
and put in place
corrective actions if
required.

Agenda Item #7.4:

RESUME: Diana J Painter, PhD Principal Architectural Historian Owner, Painter Preservation

EDUCATION
Ph.D, Architecture, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, 1990 MUP, Certificate in Urban Design, University of Washington, 1984 BA, Interdisciplinary Design, Fairhaven College, Western Washington University, 1979

RECENT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
2002-present, Owner, Principal Architectural Historian, Painter Preservation, Sonoma, California 2012-2017, National Register Coordinator, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon 2000-2001, Urban Designer, Carlile-Macy, Santa Rosa, California 1997-2000, Public Outreach Coordinator, Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington 1993-1997, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila, Tukwila, Washington

SELECTED PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society of Architectural Historians Marion Dean Ross (PNW) chapter, member since 2004, president 2013-2019 Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, member since 2006 Vernacular Architecture Forum, member since 2004

QUALIFICATIONS
Diana Painter meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the area of architectural history. She has 40 years of professional experience in historic preservation and urban design, including eighteen years as her firm’s Principal Architectural Historian. Ms. Painter founded her firm, Painter Preservation, a certified woman-owned, small business, in 2002. Painter Preservation provides a full range of historic preservation services for public and private clients throughout the western United States. Her firm has been recognized with awards from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and the Sonoma County Historical Records Commission.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Project Name: Cordoza Ranch Dairy Barn, Tolay Lake Regional Park, Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation
Location: Sonoma County, California
Client: Sonoma County Regional Parks, Santa Rosa, California Dates of Project: 2017
Role: Project architectural historian. Developed HABS documentation, including a historical narrative and extensive photo documentation (drawings were prepared by others) for this historic dairy barn, which was to be demolished due to extensive storm damage. HABS documentation is often prepared when a building is to be demolished, to complete the historic record and make this information available to future researchers.

Project Report: Historic American Building Survey, Cardoza Ranch Dairy Barn, Sonoma County, California (with Alta Archaeological Consulting). Sonoma, California
Project Name: Jonesboro Ranch Historic Resources Report and Determination of Eligibility Location: Juntura vicinity, Malheur County, Oregon
Client: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon on behalf of Burns Paiute Tribe, Burns, Oregon Dates of Project: 2018
Role: Project manager and principal architectural historian. Painter Preservation contracted with the Bonneville Power Administration to undertake a survey and evaluation of a 3,000-acre site in southeast Oregon presently owned by the Burns Paiute tribe. The property, which consists of 16 buildings, structures, and objects (features) within a distinct cultural landscape, was to be evaluated for the presence of historic resources, under Section 106 of the Agenda Item #7.4:

NHPA. Diana Painter served as the architectural historian for the project, conducting a records search, surveying and recording the site, conducting interviews with family members who grew up on the ranch, and compiling the information in a Historic Resources Report. An accompanying Determination of Eligibility found the 115-year-old ranch eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a very complete record of cattle ranching in southeast Oregon, embodying the key features of occupation with a ruin, buildings, structures, and objects with construction dates ranging from 1882 to 1960. The project was paid for with mitigation funds on behalf of the Burns Paiute tribe, which is restoring habitat in this parcel and a supplemental Bureau of Land Management allotment.

Project Report: : Jonesboro Ranch Historic Resources Report and Determination of Eligibility, Juntura Vicinity, Malheur County, Oregon
Project Name: Sonoma Valley Historic Context Statement
Location: Sonoma County, California
Client: Sonoma Valley Historical Society, Sonoma, California Dates of Project: 2017-18
Role: Project director and principal architectural historian. This project follows on a multi-year effort to record the major historic resources in the Sonoma Valley and research their significance. The project started in 2012 with a volunteer survey of approximately 250 historic resources in the valley. This was followed by a comprehensive survey of the commercial core of the town of Glen Ellen, requested by Sonoma County, which funded this project and the larger survey. A re-survey of the resources lost to the October 2017 Nunns fire, funded by an emergency grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, followed in 2017-18. The current effort is to prepare a historic context statement which, with support, may lead to a Multiple Property Document for the entire valley. This context is being prepared with the assistance of an archaeologist and historic landscape architect who will both address the cultural landscape.

Project Report: Sonoma Valley Historic Context Statement (with Nicholas Weeks and Kathleen Kubal). Sonoma, California.

Project Name: St. Francis Mission Church National Register Nomination Location: Hopland Vicinity, Mendocino County, California Client: Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, Hopland, California Dates of Project: 2018-19
Role: Principal architectural historian. Ms. Painter surveyed and documented the St. Francis Mission Church and cemetery, which is within the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians reservation outside the town of Hopland. She also wrote the National Register nomination for the church. The church is significant as the last remaining church of four mission churches that were developed to serve the tribes in Mendocino County by the U.S. Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions. The tribes were ministered to by St. Mary of the Angels Catholic Church of Ukiah and was in active use from 1910 to circa 2000. Among other topics, the nomination explored the tribe’s parallel practice of Catholicism and their native religion, which in part accounts for the success of the Mission. The building, which was designed by prominent Santa Rosa architect Frank A. Sullivan, was deeded back to the tribe by the Santa Rosa Diocese in 2012. It will continue to be maintained by the tribe as a historical landmark, commemorating this period in tribal history. In conjunction with developing this nomination, Ms. Painter interviewed tribal members and local scholars on the history of the tribe and the church.

Project Report: St. Francis Mission Church National Register Nomination Project Name: Co-op Gas & Supply Company National Register Nomination Location: Sandpoint, Bonner County, Idaho
Client: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon Dates of Project: 2018
Role: Project director and principal architectural historian. Ms. Painter surveyed and documented this small historic district in the heart of Sandpoint, Idaho, which represents the last standing Grain Elevator and Granary, as well as support structures, in Sandpoint. Developed by the Co-up Gas & Supply Company, the business supplied the everyday consumer needs of farmers and dairymen in the surrounding area, as well as providing a creamery, feed mill, fertilizer plant, and automobile service facility. The co-op movement followed on the Grange movement in the U.S. and grew increasingly important during the Great Depression, where its services helped hold rural communities together and encourage self-reliance. The goal of the National Register nomination for this facility is, in part, to gain support for converting the elevator and warehouse to a museum facility for the Bonner County Historical Society.

Project Report: Co-op Gas & Supply Company Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (with Mella Rothwell Harmon).

Agenda Item #7.4:

Ian Barnes, PE
Senior Associate
Redwood Empire Market Leader
100 Pringle Avenue.

Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.7100
Walnut Creek | Denver | Honolulu | Inland Empire | Oakland | Orange County | Reno Roseville | Salt Lake City | San Diego | San Francisco | San Jose | Seattle | Santa Monica about
Ian Barnes is an award-winning Senior Associate in Fehr & Peers’s Petaluma office, where he serves as Office Leader.

Mr. Barnes has over a decade of experience in
transportation planning/engineering covering a broad
spectrum of project types – including industrial,
infrastructure and residential projects. He is a leader in the field of CEQA transportation analysis, with expertise in the Synchro, SimTraffic, VISSIM and Traffix/Vistro operations analysis programs. He serves as a firm-wide leader on VMT analysis and mitigation for CEQA purposes. He is a
member of the San Francisco Bay Area Section of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers and a founding
officer of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Young Professionals in Transportation professional society.
education
Master of Science in Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, 2011
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Magna Cum
Laude, California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo, 2010
registrations
Professional Engineer, State of California (#C81389)
Expires September 30, 2023
publications
Getting There On Time: Why Travel Time Reliability Isn’t Just for Drivers (lead author), ITE Western District Annual Meeting, 2017 – Award: Best Annual Meeting Paper by a
Young Professional.
project experience
 Sonoma Hotel VMT Analysis and Mitigation Measure
(Sonoma, California)
 Sonoma County Housing Rezone and Housing
Element Update EIR (Sonoma County, California)
 SCTA Model Update and SB 743 Implementation
Tools (Sonoma County, California)
 Sonoma Mountain Village Mixed-Use Transportation
Analysis Update (Rohnert Park, California)
 Rohnert Park General Plan Update (Rohnert Park,
California)
 Petaluma General Plan and Bicycle-Pedestrian Master
Plan Updates (Petaluma, California)
 500 Hopper Avenue CEQA Transportation Analysis
(Petaluma, California)
 2000 Piner Road Subdivision CEQA Transportation
Analysis (Santa Rosa, California)
 Petaluma Station Mixed-Use CEQA Transportation
Analysis (Petaluma, California)
 Davidon Homes VMT-based CEQA transportation
analysis (Petaluma, California)
 Saint Helena General Plan Update and EIR (Saint
Helena, California)
 Yellow Rose Ranch Residential Project (Calistoga,
California)
 Green Valley II Mixed-Use Residential Project
(Fairfield, California)
 City of Fairfield SB 2 Housing Rezone Project (Fairfield, California)
 MTC Regional SB 743 VMT Implementation Support –
Sonoma and Napa Counties
 City of Petaluma SB 743 VMT Implementation
(Petaluma, California)
Agenda Item #7.4:

ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE
Consultation  Documentation  Restoration
41 Jeanette Court  Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone 510-393-0770  [email protected]
JAMES A. MARTIN

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Education
B.S. in Biology, 1981, University of California at Berkeley B.A. in Art Practice, 1981, University of California at Berkeley Experience
1983 - Date ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE, Walnut Creek, California. Principal.

Principal of environmental consulting and natural resource management firm with office located in Walnut Creek. Providing environmental consulting, planning, research, and documentation for public and private sectors, specializing in biological and wetland resource assessment and management services.

Biological and wetland services include assessments for proposed development applications, preparation of habitat conservation and mitigation plans, parks and open space planning, consultation with jurisdictional agencies, resource agency permit assistance, special-status species surveys, wetland delineations, and construction and post-construction monitoring.

Mr. Martin has been involved in the preparation of over 400 environmental assessments, biological resource sections for CEQA, CEQA-Plus, and NEPA documents, mitigation and natural resource management plans, and related documentation. These include county and city general plans, specific plans, new community plans, development applications for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, public facility assessments, and open space and natural resource management plans. Specific experience has varied from conducting and reviewing special-status taxa surveys for large tracts of undeveloped land, preparation of biotic resource assessments for new communities and county general plans, to securing agency approval for wetlands mitigation plans, habitat management, and conservation plans for special-status taxa. Mr. Martin has served as the vegetation specialist and consulting biologist to special districts, committees, and non-profits, and has served in a variety of capacities for governmental agencies.

He has been involved in open space planning, habitat restoration, and resource monitoring programs throughout northern California. Mr. Martin has also been involved in developing habitat restoration plans for aquatic and terrestrial natural communities, including riparian scrub and woodland, marshlands, oak woodland, and native grasslands. He has served as the vegetation specialist for two geologic hazard abatement districts in Contra Costa County, collectively overseeing vegetation management of over 3,000 acres of open space.

Agenda Item #7.4:

JAMES A. MARTIN
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Mr. Martin also has extensive experience in construction inspection for mitigation compliance, resource agency consultation and permit authorization, and longterm monitoring of habitat restoration and mitigation projects. This includes securing authorizations under and ensuring project compliance with the California Endangered Species Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the McAteer-Petris Act, California Fish and Game Code, federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, among others.

Mr. Martin partners with specialists on an as-needed basis where scientific collection permits are required for handling certain special-status species as part of construction monitoring and habitat restoration activities. This includes Dr.

Richard Arnold for invertebrates, Mark Jennings for amphibians and fish, and Karen Swaim and Samuel McGinnis for reptiles, among others. 1983 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, Berkeley, California. Environmental Scientist.

Responsible for data gathering and analysis, preparation of environmental assessments and documents. Authored major proposals prepared out of Berkeley office. Involved in assessments of proposed mixed use projects in Monterey, Napa, Placer, and Solano counties, including Placer Services and Homestake Mining Company large scale mining projects in Sierra Nevada and northern coastal mountains, respectively.
1981 - 1983 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, Berkeley, California. Environmental Analyst.

Responsible for preparation of environmental documents and supervision of environmental studies for sites located throughout northern California. Experience included research and data collection, field surveys and reconnaissance, report preparation and review, project management and personnel coordination.

Involved in a wide variety of projects which included: vegetation and wildlife assessments for proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects; special-status taxa surveys for sites in Contra Costa, Marin, Nevada, Placer, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo counties; timber harvest plans in Sierra Nevada and Cascade forests; and restoration projects in Monterey Bay Area, Redwood City, and San Bruno Mountain.
1981 U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Pacific Southwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California. Research Technician. Involved in data collection and analysis, related primarily to use of ornamental vegetation in urban settings.

Compiled and evaluated data from urban locations throughout United States.

Prepared an inventory and information retrieval system of data collected over a 15 year period.
1979 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles. Field Assistant. Conducted vegetation analysis of California north coast sage scrub vegetation type from San Francisco to Monterey. Involved in field surveys, material identification, laboratory and herbarium research.

Agenda Item #7.4:

WILLIAM G. ROOP
Archaeological Resource Service
613 Martin Avenue, Suite 101
Rohnert Park, Ca 94928
(707) 586-2577  fax (707) 586-2580
April, 2019
Summary:

Mr. Roop has more than 40 years of experience in
project management and archaeological methods.

Since 1972 he has been engaged in the practice
of cultural resource management and has been
instrumental in the development of field and
laboratory procedures to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). His experience has included
completion of over 2,000 reports evaluating the
potential for, or impacts to, cultural resources. His
tenure at Archaeological Resource Service has
included participation in, and responsibility for, all
aspects of cultural resource management.

Mr. Roop is computer literate, with experience in word processing, spreadsheet, and database management software. He has produced interpretive software packages for general distribution, and compiled dBase programs for internal use at Archaeological Resource Service. All the database programs currently used at ARS are in a Microsoft Access format.

Accomplishments:
 Coordination of excavation and laboratory crews of up to 45 people.  Development of new methodologies for data recordation and recovery.  Major author of the Novato Cultural Resources Ordinance.  Author of the Cultural Resources Element of the 1995-2005 Downtown San Jose General Plan.  Identified and evaluated (with Katherine Flynn) a previously unrecognized pattern of prehistoric exploitation of vernal wetlands.
 Development of computerized systems for data manipulation and retrieval.

Experience:
1974-present: Partner, Archaeological Resource Service, 613 Martin Avenue, Suite 101, Rohnert Park, Ca 94928
Responsibilities and specific duties include: supervision of all aspects of company business; acquisition of new projects; oversight of the computer systems; and preparation of various kinds of reports for both public and private clients alike. The general service area of the firm extends from San Luis Obispo County north to the Oregon state line, and east to the Nevada State line. Occasionally projects have been undertaken beyond the State of California area, including a project in Washington State in 1982 as well as a special interest in the Black Rock and Smoke Creek Deserts of Nevada.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Concurrent Positions
1991-1997: Partner (with Katherine S. Flynn) in the Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) known as ABACUS Archaeological Associates, in Petaluma.
1991-1997: Chief Executive Officer and Software Designer of Nexial Software Systems, another business entity located in Petaluma, CA. The company was established to design, produce, and sell local histories on computer disks. Products included histories of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and San Jose's Chinese communities; database applications for data retrieval and artifact cataloging; and a morphological key for use in the identification of prehistoric tools. 1972-1974: Field Team Leader, Archaeological Resource Service (then in Santa Rosa).

Under the direction of Dr. Thomas F. King, the original founder of ARS (then operating from Santa Rosa), Mr. Roop had responsibilities that included supervision and execution of archaeological surveys, test excavations, and data recovery projects that were performed under Dr. King as the principal investigator for ARS. Mr. Roop also was responsible for the coordination of the laboratory and assistance in report preparation. Upon Dr. King’s move to the State of New York in late 1974 Mr.

Roop and his partner, Katherine Flynn assumed the ownership of ARS, at which time the main company office was moved to Novato in Marin County. The company moved to Petaluma in 1990 and maintained their office their until 2014, when operations moved to Rohnert Park, where they remain.

Education:

Degrees:
1978 Master of Arts degree at San Francisco State University. Major in Anthropology.

Thesis: ADAPTATION ON BEN L0MOND MOUNTAIN: Excavations at 04-SCr-20. 1970 Bachelor of Arts degree at San Francisco State University. Major in Anthropology, Minor in History.
1968 San Jose City College. General Studies.

Licenses:
2005-current Certified as a Registered Professional Archaeologist (Membership #15428) by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
1982-1995 Certified by the Society Of Professional Archeologists in Field Research 1963-current Class C California Drivers License.

Professional Memberships And Supported Organizations
The Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
California Historical Society Vallejo Naval and Historical Museum Assoc.

Society for California Archaeology Lassen County Historical Society Society for American Archaeology Nevada Historical Society Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Petaluma Historical Museum Association Chinese Historical Society of America California Native Plant Society Chinese Historical and Cultural Project Napa County Historical Society California Academy of Sciences San Jose Historical Museum Association Sonoma County Museum Association Sonoma County Alliance Assoc. of Environmental Professionals (Charter member)
Charles Babbage Institute, Center for the History of Information Processing Society for the History of Technology, Special Interest Group in the History of Computing Society for the History of Technology, Special Interest Group in History of Military Technology Agenda Item #7.4:

Publications And Presentations:

Publications:
1978: HERITAGE ON THE HALFSHELL: Excavations at Mnt-298 (with K. Flynn and others) 1984: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF VERNAL POOLS: An Example from Placer County. In S. Jain and P. Moyle (Editors) Vernal Pools and Intermittent Streams. Institute of Ecology Publication 28.

U.C. Davis.
1989: Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-Sol-313 Within the Proposed Travis Air Force Base Medical Facility, Fairfield, Solano County, California. Final Report (with K. Flynn and others) 1991-2009: A Few Historic Facts About Petaluma And Its River. Multiple versions of an outline history of Petaluma. Initially a handout for the Petaluma River Committee and later enlarged for distribution to Leadership Petaluma classes.
2008: The Creekside Village Archaeological Testing Program, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Final Report. With others.

Presentations:
1974: Excavations at SCr-20, a Preliminary Report. Paper presented to the Society For California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Riverside.
1975: The Aptos Model, Predicting Site Sensitivity. Paper presented to the Society For California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Santa Cruz.
1979: Shrimps, Shrubs and Shrinking Pools: Vernal Pool Exploitation in Prehistoric California. Paper presented to the Society For California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Sacramento. 1981: Pooling Our Resources: A Deeper Look at Vernal Pools. Symposium presented to the Society For California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Redding. Papers presented:

The Distribution of Vernal Pools in California -- Geography, Geology, and Implications to Cultural Behavior (W. Roop)
Islands In The Land -- Vernal Pools and Land Use in Prehispanic California (W. Roop) 1981: The Archaeology of Vernal Pools: An Example From Placer County. Presented to the Institute of Ecology, U.C. Davis. Published in Moyle and Jain (eds.) 1984. 1985: Artifacts from the Fairmont Collection. Slide presentation, artifact display and discussion of the San Jose Fairmont Hotel Archaeological Project presented to representatives of the Chinese women's clubs of Santa Clara County.
1987: San Jose's First Chinatown. Slide presentation and discussion of the San Jose Fairmont Hotel Archaeological Project presented to the San Jose Historical Museum Association. 1987: Artifacts of San Luis Obispo's Chinatown. Exhibit of artifacts from San Luis Obispo's Chinatown presented at the San Luis Obispo County Historical Museum. Produced with Katherine Flynn and Mark Hall-Patton, Curator
1989: San Jose's First Chinatown. Slide presentation and discussion (with Katherine Flynn) of the San Jose Fairmont Hotel and the adjacent Silicon Valley Financial Center Archaeological Projects. Presented to the Chinese Historical Society of America. 1991: A History of Petaluma and the River. Paper presented to the Petaluma River Enhancement Committee of the City of Petaluma. Petaluma.
1994: Petaluma Underground. Slide presentation and discussion of historical archaeology as practiced by ARS. Presented to the Petaluma Museum Guild. 1996: Underground Petaluma. Presented to Class 2 of Leadership Petaluma. Discussion of Petaluma prehistory and history to 1850, with an emphasis on archaeological sites and buildings that no longer exist. Presented with “Aboveground Petaluma,” a discussion of historic buildings of the Downtown Petaluma Historic District by Deborah Riddle of the Petaluma Museum Association. Repeated annually since 1996 for each new class. 1997: Waking the Dragon: Community Involvement in the San Jose Chinatown Archaeological Project. Paper and slide presentation in Session 30: Working Together: Historical Archaeologists and Minority Communities. Presented January 10, 1997 at the Society for Agenda Item #7.4:

Historical Archaeology, 30th Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Corpus Christi, Texas.
1997-2017: Petaluma’s History, a presentation given to classes of Leadership Petaluma. The presentation usually includes a discussion on Petaluma prehistory and history to 1850, with an emphasis on archaeological sites and buildings that no longer exist. Mr. Roop has been a leader of a guided tour of General Vallejo’s Petaluma Adobe, paying special attention to the partially reconstructed adobe as well as several prehistoric and historic-era Native American habitation and task-specific activity areas that are located within and adjacent to the State park limits. Through the 2002 program year the History Day presentation and tour of the Petaluma Adobe and other historic sites located in the Downtown Petaluma Historic District was made with the participation of Ms. Deborah Riddle, the former director of the Petaluma Museum Association and historic re-enactor. Mr. Roop continued to conduct history tours at the Adobe and other areas with various later Leadership Petaluma classes; he has been assisted by staff members from the Museum Association as well as other individuals who are knowledgeable regarding the natural and cultural environment of Petaluma and the northern Bay region
Ongoing Researach
Subtle Patterns On The Land. Ongoing research into the distribution of artifacts in the California grassland environment. Research conducted intermittently over the past thirty years has led to the detection of distinct patterns of artifact distribution in the grasslands of eastern Merced County. The opportunity to examine a large area of essentially undisturbed valley borderland has led to the observation of simple tools in apparent clusters over a broad area. This appears to be a preserved prehistoric cultural landscape. The age of the pattern has not been determined, but it logically corresponds to expansion of the population to a point where more prolific resources were not adequate. The pattern seems more likely to be associated with late prehistory, perhaps extending into the early historic era. Historic events curtailed use of these areas by Native populations.

These events include the plague of 1833, the Mariposa Indian War of 1851, and the widespread replacement of native species in the California prairie after the drought of 1864-65.

The artifacts appear to be clustered in areas where early spring biological resources associated with reliable seasonal wetlands provide abundant food. Artifacts associated with the gathering of corms, roots, flowers, seeds, and several species of clam, fairy, and tadpole shrimp can be found in and around vernal wetlands. Variation in the wetlands related to soil type, underlying geology, and the source biota appear to be directly related to the density and types of artifacts extant.

Civic/Professional Activities:
1995-1999: Member of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District representing Supervisorial District 2, Petaluma.
1994-1995: Member of the 11th Class of the LEADERSHIP SANTA ROSA Program. 1995-2014: Member of the LEADERSHIP SANTA ROSA Alumni Association. 1998-2008: Associate Director of Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (northern Sonoma County)
2004-2008, 1992-1998: Second Vice President, 1994-1995 and Member of the Board of Directors of the Chinese Historical Society of America, 1993-1998 and 2004-2006. Member of the Speakers subcommittee. Chairman of the Archives committee and Keeper of the Archives of the Chinese Historical Society of America, 1994-1996. 2004-2006 Member of the Research Committee.
1991-1994: Member of the Board of Directors of the Petaluma River Council. 1991-2010: Member of the Sonoma County Alliance. Served on the: Low Cost Housing Element Task Force (1992-93), Low Cost Housing subcommittee (1993-94), Land Use subcommittee (1993-95) and Infra-Structure Committee (1996-99).

Agenda Item #7.4:

1990-1997: Member of the Advisory Board, Chinese Historical and Cultural Project of Santa Clara County. Assisted In the development and preparation of the interpretive display and exhibition materials for the Ng Shing Gung Temple restoration project at the City of San Jose Historical Museum at Kelley Park.
1991-1994: Advisor to Hahn Elementary School, Rohnert Park, Archaeology Program. 1990-1991: Exhibits Committee of the CHCP [project to recreate the Ng Shing Gung Temple]. 1989-1994: Participant in Novato Sister City Program (Sister City, Shepparton, Australia). 1989-1991: Archaeology class, Olive Elementary School, Novato. Taught archaeological principles and laboratory methods to elementary school children.
1979-1980: Member, Novato City Cultural Resource Ordinance Committee. 1975-1980: Member, Black Point Home Improvement Club.
1976-1981: Member, City of Novato Environmental Impact Review Committee 1975-1976: Commissioner, Marin County Native American-Archaeological Community Cooperative Committee.
1974: Director of the Bay Area Archaeological Cooperative.

REFERENCES
Dr. Glenda Humiston, Vice President UC Division of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 1111 Franklin St. 10th floor Oakland, CA 94607-5200, (510) 987-0716
Dr. Michael J. Moratto, Ph. D., RPA, Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2008 Goldenrod Court, Westlake Village, Ca 91361 (805) 497-8493
Keith and Brenda Christopherson, Christopherson Properties. 1045 College Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95404 • (707) 484-6558
Agenda Item #7.4:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 May 2023
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Kristina Tierney, Associate Planner
Agenda Item Title
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.60 (Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission); Title 14, Section 14.32.070 (Review Requirements and Procedures); Title 19, Chapter 19.52 (Applications: Filing and Processing), Chapter 19.54 (Planning Permit Approval or Disapproval), and Chapter 19.88 (Public Hearings) to Streamline the Design Review Process, and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines Summary
The proposed ordinance was introduced to City Council on May 3, 2023, and would streamline the design review permitting process. The proposed ordinance would:
• Remove references to "site design and architectural review" and replace them with "Design Review" for consistency;
• Align dates for historic structures with the State CEQA Guidelines (50 years or older rather than constructed in 1945 or earlier)
• Create a "Major" and "Minor" Design Review, with Minor Design Review applications being approvable by staff.
• Major Design Review applications would be approvable by the Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission (DRHPC) or the Planning Commission. Removes the review of landscape plans from the purview of the DRHPC; • Establish requirements for the submittal of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for potentially historic structures requiring Design Review or a Demolition Permit; and • Establish a process for noticing administrative decisions in Chapter 19.88 (Public Hearings)
The City Council is being asked to adopt the ordinance at this time. Upon adoption, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days later, on June 17, 2023.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.60 (Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission); Title 14, Section

14.32.070 (Review Requirements and Procedures); Title 19, Chapter 19.52 (Applications: Filing and Processing), Chapter 19.54 (Planning Permit Approval or Disapproval), and Chapter 19.88 (Public Hearings) to streamline the Design Review Process, and finding the proposed amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines.

Alternative Actions
Agenda Item #7.5:

Council discretion.

Financial Impact
N/A
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Ordinance - Design Review Streamlining
Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #7.5:

1 City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE # ______ - 2023

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AMENDING THE CITY OF SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING AMENDING TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL) , CHAPTER 2.60 (DESIGN REVIEW AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION); TITLE 14, SECTION 14.32.070 (REVIEW REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES); TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.52 (APPLICATIONS:

FILING AND PROCESSING), CHAPTER 19.54 (PLANNING PERMIT APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL), AND CHAPTER 19.88 (PUBLIC HEARINGS) TO STREAMLINE THE

DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND FINDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) - GENERAL RULE - OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

WHEREAS, the California Legislature has declared that there is a severe shortage of affordable housing and has changed laws to expedite the local residential development process; and WHEREAS, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed several housing bills into law (SB 13, SB 330, AB 68, AB 881, AB 587 and AB 670) in fall of 2019 that amend California Government Code requiring the City to modify local regulations to further facilitate development of housing; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme to facilitate the construction of housing to comply with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma City Council and Planning Commission have independently discussed the need for updates to the Development Code for greater clarity, consistency and ease of use and understanding.

The proposed ordinance would streamline the Design Review process to facilitate permitting; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023, the Planning Commission discussed amendments including Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.60 (Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission); Title 18 (Signs and Display Advertising); and Title 19, Chapter 19.52 (Applications: Filing and Processing), Chapter 19.54 (Planning Permit Approval or Disapproval), Chapter 19.88 (Public Hearings) to streamline the Design Review process. Staff presented a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission on February 16, 2023 and received direction regarding permitting of potentially historic structures and procedures for historic resource evaluation consultants to ensure they are prepared by an independent third party; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed a revised ordinance and unanimously recommended that the ordinance be forwarded to the City Council for introduction; and WHEREAS, the City Council found this Action to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) and 15061(b) (3) prior to taking action; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2023, the City Council considered amendments to the Sonoma Municipal Code, consistent with the applicable policies of the Sonoma General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Sonoma Municipal Code are consistent with State Law.

Agenda Item #7.5:

2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
The Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

A. Title 2, Chapter 2.60.030 (Duties and responsibilities) is amended as follows:

2.60.030 Duties and responsibilities.

The design review and historic preservation commission shall have the following responsibilities:

A. Exercise the authority set forth in this chapter and as otherwise provided in the municipal code.

B. Recommend to the city council policies and programs in support of historic preservation including but not limited to goals and policies for the general plan and other regulatory plans as well as programs for historic preservation incentives.

C. Review and make recommendation to the State Office of Historic Preservation regarding nominations of property located within the city to the National Register of Historic Places.

D. Perform the duties pursuant to the certified local government provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This shall include undertaking review and comment upon those projects on which the city as a certified local government has an obligation or opportunity to provide review and comment under the National Historic Preservation Act including but not limited to private and public projects undertaken within the Sonoma Plaza National Landmark District, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the municipal code.

E. Administer the nomination, designation, and registry of local historic resources and districts as set forth in SMC 19.42.020.

F. Develop and administer historic preservation plans, historic resource inventories, context statements, design guidelines and other information, plans and procedures related to historic preservation.

Agenda Item #7.5:

3 G. Implement the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pertaining to historic and cultural resources, consistent with its authority under the provisions of Chapter 19.54 SMC.

H. Conduct the review of applications for the demolition or relocation of buildings and structures within the historic overlay zone and of potentially historic buildings and structures located outside of the historic overlay zone, in accordance with SMC 19.54.090 (Demolition permit).

I. Conduct architectural review, in accordance with SMC 19.54.080 (Site design and architectural review).

J. Conduct sign review in accordance with the provisions of SMC Title 18.

K. Conduct landscaping review in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.32 SMC.

K L. Consult with, advise, and report to the city council on a regular basis in connection with the exercise of the commission’s duties and functions.

The above-listed duties and functions shall be performed in compliance with SMC 19.52.020 (Authority for land use and zoning decisions), Table 5-1 (Review Authority for Planning Permits), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable. (Ord. 06-2013 §§ 1 (Exh. A), 3, 2013; amended during June 2011 supplement; Ord. 96-2 § 1, 1996).

B. Title 14, Section 14.32.040 (Landscape design plan) shall be amended as follows:

14.32.040 Landscape design plan.

A. The landscape design plan, at a minimum, shall:

1. Delineate and label each hydrozone by number, letter, or other method;

2. Identify each hydrozone as very low, low, moderate, high water, or mixed water use;

3. Identify new and existing trees, shrubs, groundcovers, turf, and any other planting areas;
Agenda Item #7.5:

4 4. Identify plants by botanical name and common name;

5. Identify plant sizes and quantities;

6. Identify recreational areas;

7. Identify areas permanently and solely dedicated to edible plants;

8. Identify areas irrigated with recycled water;

9. Identify type of mulch and application depth;

10. Identify soil amendments, type, and quantity;

11. Identify type and surface area of pools, fountains and water features;

12. Identify property lines, new and existing building footprints, streets, driveways, sidewalks and other hardscape features (pervious and nonpervious);

13. Identify location, installation details, and size of any stormwater best management practices, including rainwater harvesting or catchment technologies that will provide stormwater retention, infiltration, and/or treatment. Project applicants shall refer to the city or North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for information and approval requirements;

14. Identify any applicable graywater discharge piping, system components and area(s) of distribution;

15. Contain the following statement: “I have complied with the criteria of the ordinance and applied them for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan”; and

16. Bear the signature of a licensed landscape architect, licensed landscape contractor, or any other person authorized to design a landscape. (See Business and Professions Code
Sections 5500.1, 5615, 5641, 5641.1, 5641.2, 5641.3, 5641.4, 5641.5, 5641.6, 6701, 7027.5, 16 CCR Section 832.27, and Food and Agriculture Code Section 6721.) B. For each landscape project subject to this chapter applicants shall submit a landscape design plan in accordance with the following:

Agenda Item #7.5:

5 1. Amendments, Mulching and Soil Conditioning.
a. Prior to the planting of any materials, compacted soils shall be transformed to a friable condition. On engineered slopes, only amended planting holes need meet this requirement.
b. Soil amendments shall be incorporated according to recommendations of the soil report and what is appropriate for the plants selected. c. Incorporate compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent organic matter in the top six inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and tilling.
d. A minimum three-inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers or direct seeding applications. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, up to five percent of the landscape area may be left without mulch.

Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such.

2. Plants.
a. Selected plants shall not cause the estimated water use to exceed the maximum applied water allowance (see calculation in maximum applied water allowance).
b. Plants with similar water use needs shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones and where irrigation is required the distinct hydrozones shall be irrigated with separate valves.
c. Very low, low and moderate water use plants can be mixed, but the entire hydrozone will be classified as moderate water use for MAWA calculations. d. High water use plants shall not be mixed with very low, low or moderate water use plants.
e. All nonturf plants shall be selected, spaced and planted appropriately based upon their adaptability to the climatic and topographical conditions of the project site.

Agenda Item #7.5:

6 f. Turf shall not be planted in the following conditions:
i. Slopes exceeding 25 percent where the toe of the slope is adjacent to an impermeable hardscape and where 25 percent means one foot of vertical elevation change for every four feet of horizontal length (rise divided by run x 100 = slope percent).
ii. Front yard landscape of single-family residential subdivisions where backyard landscape is not developer installed.
g. Turf irrigation may be considered at the discretion of the city planner design review and historic preservation commission in the following conditions:
i. Slopes exceeding 10 percent;
ii. Planting areas eight feet wide or less;
iii. Street medians, traffic islands, planter strips or bulbouts of any size. h. Invasive plants as listed by the California Invasive Plant Council are prohibited.

3. Water Features.
a. Recirculating water systems shall be used for water features. b. Recycled water shall be used when available on site. c. Surface area of a water feature shall be included in the high water use hydrozone area of the water budget calculation. (Ord. 02-2017 § 1, 2017).

C. Title 14, Section 14.32.070 (Review requirements and procedures) shall be amended as follows

14.32.070 Review requirements and procedures.

Projects shall be subject to the following review requirements and procedures:

A. Landscape Design Review. Landscape design review shall be conducted prior to plan check.

1. Administration. Landscape design review of projects requiring a use permit, variance, or other entitlement requiring review by the planning commission Agenda Item #7.5:

7 shall be reviewed concurrently in compliance with SMC Section 19.52.030 (Concurrent permit processing) and shall be approved by the planning commission. shall be conducted by the design review and historic preservation commission, except as follows, in which case Landscape design review of all other projects shall be conducted by the city planner planning director or his/her designee. Review of the below project types shall be conducted by the city planner:
a. Rehabilitated landscape project for a single-family home. b. Rehabilitated landscape project for an existing multifamily development with a landscaped area less than or equal to 2,500 square feet. c. Rehabilitated or new landscape project for a single-family home (which includes entitled subdivisions) that are not part of a new subdivision, planned development, or within the historic overlay zone area, provided the following criteria are met:
i. No turf is planted; and
ii. Only medium and low water use plants are planted; and iii. No overhead irrigation sprinklers are installed. (Ord. 02-2017 § 1, 2017).

D. Section 19.52.050 (Application fees) is amended to read as follows:

19.52.050 Application fees.

The council shall, by resolution, establish a schedule of fees for permits, amendments, and other matters pertaining to this development code. The schedule of fees may be changed or modified only by resolution of the council. The city’s processing fees are cumulative, unless otherwise specified in the city fee resolution. Processing shall not commence on any application until all required fees have been paid. No new application shall be filed for a property until all outstanding fees, including late changes and penalties, have been paid for the subject property(Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

E. Section 19.52.060 (Initial application review) is amended to read as follows:

19.52.060 Initial application review.

Agenda Item #7.5:

8 All applications filed with the city planner in compliance with this development code shall be initially processed as follows:

A. Completeness Review. The city planner shall review all applications for completeness and accuracy before they are accepted as being complete.

1. Notification of Applicant. The applicant shall be informed, as required by the Government Code, either that the application is complete and has been accepted for processing, or that the application is incomplete and that additional information shall be provided. All additional information needed shall be specified in the letter providing notice of an incomplete application.

2. Appeal of Determination. Where the city planner has determined that an application is incomplete, and the applicant believes that the application is complete and/or that the information requested by the city planner is not required, the applicant may appeal the determination in compliance with Chapter 19.84 SMC, Appeals.

3. Environmental Information. The city planner may require the applicant to submit additional information needed for the environmental review of the project in compliance with SMC 19.52.070, Environmental assessment.

4. Expiration of Application. If the applicant does not provide sufficient information to complete an application within six months after the first filing with the city planner, the application shall be deemed withdrawn. A new application, including fees, plans, exhibits and other materials that are required to commence processing of any development project on the same property, must then be filed in compliance with this division before processing will begin. No new application shall be filed for a property until all outstanding fees, including late changes and penalties, have been paid for the subject property.

B. Referral of Application. At the discretion of the city planner, or where otherwise required by this development code, state or federal law, any application filed in compliance with this development code may be referred to any public agency that may be affected by or have an interest in the proposed land use activity.

Agenda Item #7.5:

9 Table 5-1
Review Authority for Planning Permits1
Role of Review Authority2
Type of Decision City
Planner
Planning
Commission
Design Review
and Historic
Preservation
Commission
City
Council
Administrative Approvals and Amendments
Development Agreements Recommend Recommend Decision
Interpretations Decision3 Appeal Appeal Appeal
General Plan Amendment4 Recommend Recommend Decision
Development Code
Amendment
Recommend Recommend Decision
Zoning Map Amendment Recommend Recommend Decision
Planning Permits and Development Approvals
Zoning Clearance Decision Appeal Appeal Appeal
Temporary Use Permits Decision Appeal Appeal
Use Permits Recommend Decision Appeal
Exceptions Recommend Decision Appeal
Variances Recommend Decision Appeal
Planned Development Permit Recommend Decision Appeal
Design Review – Major Site
Design and Architectural
Review
Recommend Decision Decision Appeal
Design Review - Minor Decision Appeal Appeal
Agenda Item #7.5:

10 Table 5-1
Review Authority for Planning Permits1
Role of Review Authority2
Type of Decision City
Planner
Planning
Commission
Design Review
and Historic
Preservation
Commission
City
Council
Demolition Permit Recommend Decision Appeal
Notes:

1. The review authority for subdivision-related approvals is set forth in Table 6-1 (Division VI, Subdivisions).

2. “Recommend” means that the review authority makes a recommendation to a higher decision-making body; “Decision” means that the review authority makes the final decision on the matter; “Appeal” means that the review authority may consider and decide upon appeals to the decision of an earlier decision-making body, in compliance with Chapter 19.84 SMC, Appeals.

3. The city planner may refer any matter subject to his/her decision to the planning commission, so that the commission may instead make the decision.

4. See Chapter 19.86 SMC, General Plan and Development Code/Zoning Map Amendments. (Ord. 06-2013 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

F. Section 19.52.080 (Staff report and recommendations) is amended to read as follows:

19.52.080 Staff report and recommendations.

A. Staff Evaluation. City planner shall review all applications filed in compliance with this chapter to determine whether they comply and are consistent with the provisions of this development code, other applicable provisions of the municipal code, and the General Plan, and shall provide a recommendation to the reviewing commission and/or council (as applicable) on whether the application should be approved, approved subject to conditions, or disapproved.

Agenda Item #7.5:

11 B. Staff Report Preparation. A staff report shall be prepared by the city planner that describes their conclusions about the proposed land use and any development as to its compliance and consistency with the provisions of this development code, other applicable provisions of the municipal code, applicable specific plans, and the General Plan. The staff report shall include recommendations on the approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application, based on the evaluation and consideration of information provided by an initial study or environmental impact report.

C. Report Distribution. Staff reports shall be furnished to applicants at the same time as they are provided to members of the commission and/or council prior to a hearing on the application. If no hearing is required, the staff report will be distributed to the applicant and interested parties only. (Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

G. Chapter 19.54.080 (Site Design and Architectural Review) is amended to read as follows:

19.54.080 Design review Site design and architectural review.

A. Purpose. This section establishes the review procedures necessary to ensure that all applicable development projects comply with the required standards, design guidelines and ordinances of the city; minimize potential adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment; implement general plan policies regarding community design; and promote the general health, safety, welfare, and economy of the residents of the city. Therefore, it is the purpose of this section to:

1. Protect and enhance historic buildings and the city’s historic character;

2. Encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the city along with associated facilities, landscaping, parking areas, and streets;

3. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and provide a method by which the city may implement this interdependence; and

4. Ensure that new developments, including residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial developments, build on the city’s character and do not have an adverse aesthetic impact upon existing adjoining properties, the natural environment, or the city in general.

B. Applicability. Design review The review of project site planning and architectural design is an integral part of the development approval process. Therefore, each project that requires approval of a building permit, unless exempted as set forth below, shall Agenda Item #7.5:

12 require review and approval by the city planner, design review and historic preservation commission (DRHPC) or the planning commission and/or the design review and historic preservation commission (DRHPC), as applicable, prior to the issuance of a building permit or the commencement of any work on a new structure, or improvements to alter, enlarge, remodel, repair, or otherwise change the exterior of an existing structure.

1. Residential Development. Design review shall be required for new residential development, the alteration and enlargement of existing residential structures, and residential accessory structures, as set forth in the Table 5-2 below following table:

Table 5-2
Design Review Requirements for Residential Development
Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition
Inside
Historic
Overlay
District
Outside
Overlay
District

1. Design Review Exemptions – Existing Residential Development Building and site maintenance, repainting, in-kind replacement of exterior materials
No No
Interior remodeling No No
Exterior alterations for which no building permit is required No No Exterior painting No No
Rehabilitated Landscaping less than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review
No No

2. New Residential Development
Agenda Item #7.5:

13 Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition
Inside
Historic
Overlay
District
Outside
Overlay
District
Single-family residence and associated accessory structures Major No Single-family development, two to five units, and associated accessory structures Major No Single-family development, five or more units on adjacent parcels Major Major Duplex, and associated accessory structures Major No
Multifamily dwellings and associated accessory structures Major Major New Landscaping: New construction projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review
Minor Minor

3. Existing Residential Development, Constructed over 45 years ago Alterations to the rear of existing structures not visible from the public right of way that increase floor area by less than 10% or 200 square feet (whichever is less)
No No
Alterations to the rear of existing structures not visible from the public right of way that increase floor area by more than the lesser of 10% or 200 square feet but less than 20% or 400 square feet (whichever is less) Major Major
Alterations to the rear of existing structures not visible from the public right of way that increase floor area by more than 20% or 400 square feet (whichever is less)
Major Major
Alterations to existing structures requiring a building permit that result in changes to a front or street-side building elevation
Major Major
Building relocation Major Major
Change in roof design (e.g., alterations in pitch and height) Major Major Window modification, including change of window material, configuration, or opening size or location
Major Major
Agenda Item #7.5:

14 Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition
Inside
Historic
Overlay
District
Outside
Overlay
District
Repair or replacement of windows, siding, roofs, or other building material in kind
Major Major
Rehabilitated Landscaping: Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review
Minor Minor

4. Existing SFD/Duplexes, Constructed less than 45 years ago Additions No No
Exterior alterations (including change in roof design) No No Relocation No No
Detached residential accessory structures No No
Window replacement No No
Repair or replacement of windows, siding, roofs, or other building material in kind
No No
Rehabilitated Landscaping: Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review
Minor Minor

5. Existing Multifamily, Constructed less than 45 years ago Alterations or additions to existing structures that increase floor area by less than 20%
No No
Alterations or additions to existing structures that increase floor area by more than 20% or result in changes to a primary or street-side building elevation Major Minor
Change in roof design (e.g., alterations in pitch and height) Minor Minor Alterations to approved landscaping plan with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit Major Major
Agenda Item #7.5:

15 Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition
Inside
Historic
Overlay
District
Outside
Overlay
District
(private yard areas excepted)

2. Commercial and Mixed Use Development. Design review shall be required for new commercial and mixed use development (including public and quasi-public facilities) and the alteration and enlargement of existing structures, as set forth in Table 5-3:

Table 5-3
Design Review Requirements for Commercial and Mixed Use Development
Development Type/Condition Design
Review
Requirement
Maintenance and in-kind replacement of exterior materials No Accessory structures not in public view. No
Improvements and additions to provide access for persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
No
Repair or replacement of windows, siding, roofs, or other building material, when same or similar materials are used
No
Improvements to existing parking facilities with 10 or fewer spaces Minor New construction and building additions over 400 square feet Major Repair or replacement of windows, siding, roofs, or other building material, when new materials or locations are proposed
Major
Exterior painting, except when the existing color scheme is substantially retained. Major Improvements to existing parking facilities with 10 or more parking spaces. Major Agenda Item #7.5:

16 Development Type/Condition Design
Review
Requirement
Lighting of parking areas Major
Landscaping for a new development or alterations to an approved landscape plan (excluding private yards).

Major
Agenda Item #7.5:

17 Design Review Requirements for Residential Development Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition Inside
Historic
Zone
Outside
Historic
Zone

1. New Development
Single-family development, fewer than five units,
and associated accessory structures.

Yes No
Single-family development, five or more units. Yes Yes
Duplex, and associated accessory structures. Yes No
Triplex, PUD, or other multifamily, and associated
accessory structures.

Yes Yes

2. Existing Development
Maintenance, repainting, in-kind replacement of
exterior materials.

No No
Reroofing. No No
Interior remodeling. No No
Exterior alterations for which no building permit is
required.

No No

3. Existing Residential Development, Constructed Prior to 1945 Alterations to existing structures that increase
floor area by 10% or 200 square feet, whichever is
greater.

Yes No
Alterations to existing structures requiring a
building permit that result in substantive changes
to a primary or street-side building elevation.

Yes No
Other exterior alterations or additions for which a
building permit is required.

No No
Agenda Item #7.5:

18 Design Review Requirements for Residential Development Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition Inside
Historic
Zone
Outside
Historic
Zone
Building relocation. Yes Yes
Change in roof design (e.g., alterations in pitch and
height).

Yes No

4. SFD/Duplexes, Constructed in 1945 or Later
Additions. No No
Exterior alterations (including change in roof
design).

No No
Relocation. No No

5. Multifamily, Constructed in 1945 or Later (Including Planned Unit Developments)
Alterations to existing structures that do not
increase floor area by more than 10% or result in
substantive changes to a primary or street-side
building elevation.

No No
Other exterior alterations or additions that require
a building permit.

Yes Yes
Change in roof design (e.g., alterations in pitch and
height).

Yes Yes

6. Other
Detached residential accessory structures
developed in conjunction with an existing primary
residence.

No No
Landscape modifications, existing single-family
residences and duplexes.

No No
Agenda Item #7.5:

19 Design Review Requirements for Residential Development Design Review
Requirement
Development Type/Condition Inside
Historic
Zone
Outside
Historic
Zone
Significant alterations to approved landscaping
plan, existing multifamily development/PUDs
(private yard areas excepted).

Yes Yes

2. Commercial and Mixed Use Development. Design review shall be required for new commercial and mixed use development (including public and quasipublic facilities) and the alteration and enlargement of existing structures, as set forth in the following table:

Design Review Requirements for Commercial Uses and Mixed Uses Development Type/Condition Design Review
Requirement
New construction and building additions. Yes
Maintenance and in-kind replacement of exterior materials. No Exterior building modifications for which a building permit is required.

Yes
Repainting, except when the existing color scheme is
substantially retained.

Yes
Improvements to existing parking facilities with 10 or less spaces.

No
Improvements to existing parking facilities with 10 or more parking spaces.

Yes
Lighting of parking areas. Yes
Landscaping for a new development or significant alteration to an approved landscape plan (excluding private yards).

Yes
Accessory structures not in public view. No
Agenda Item #7.5:

20 3. Demolitions. Demolitions shall be regulated as provided for under SMC 19.54.090 (Demolition permit).

4. Signs. Signs shall be regulated as provided for under SMC Title 18.

5. Use Permits. Notwithstanding the exemptions identified in subsections (B)(1) and (2) of this section, the planning commission may impose design review as a condition of use permit approval.

C. Authority. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 above identify when minor or major design review is required. Minor design review applications shall be reviewed and approved by the city planner unless referred to the planning commission. Major design review applications shall be approved by the DRHPC or planning commission.

D C. Application Requirements. An application for design review shall be prepared, filed, and processed Any person proposing to construct, alter, enlarge, remodel, or otherwise change a new or existing structure subject to site design and architectural review in compliance with this chapter shall make application for project review prior to the application for a building permit in compliance with SMC 19.52.040 (Application preparation and filing), prior to the application for a building permit.

1. The application shall provide a site plan, building elevation, narrative, and any other information, plans and maps prescribed by the planning and community services director.

2. Historic Resource Evaluation. A historic resource evaluation (HRE) prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture shall be submitted for all primary and detached accessory structures over 45 years old. The architectural historian shall be selected and retained by the city planner from a list of qualified members selected by the planning and community services director. Alternatively, at the discretion of the Planning and Community Services Director, an applicant submitted HRE prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture shall be peer reviewed by an architectural historian selected and retained by the city planner from a list Agenda Item #7.5:

21 of qualified members. All costs and fees for the services of the HRE shall be paid by the applicant and shall be paid in full at the time of the project application.

The HRE shall evaluate the potential significance of the existing structures and their eligibility for listing on the California Register. For those structures determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register, a report prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture shall also be provided which evaluates the proposed project according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. This report shall determine whether the proposed project would cause a significant impact to a historical resource and shall be prepared by architectural historian selected and retained by the city planner from a list of qualified members. All costs and fees for the services of the report shall be paid by the applicant.

3. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (H) of this section (Findings, Decision).

D. Review Responsibility. Certain types of projects are subject to review by both the planning commission and the design review and historic preservation commission, while other types of projects are subject to review by only one commission. The responsibilities of the two commissions with regard to site design and architectural review are as follows:

1. Nondiscretionary Projects. Projects subject to site design and architectural review, as set forth in subsection (B) of this section, but which are not otherwise subject to discretionary review by the planning commission (e.g., use permit review), shall be reviewed by the design review and historic preservation commission only.

2. Discretionary Projects. For projects subject to discretionary review by the planning commission, the planning commission shall be responsible for reviewing and acting upon the project site plan, building massing and elevation concepts to the extent it deems necessary. Subsequent review by the design review and historic preservation commission shall be limited to elevation details, colors and materials, landscaping (including fences and Agenda Item #7.5:

22 walls), lighting, site details (such as the placement of bike racks and trash enclosures), and any issues specifically referred to the DRHPC by the planning commission.

3. Single-Family Development of Five or More Units. For new single-family development of five or more units, except in conjunction with a planned development permit, the planning commission shall be responsible for reviewing and approving design guidelines to ensure an appropriate variety of unit types and styles. Design guidelines may include building heights and mix of stories, setbacks, architectural concepts, elevation details, building materials, and landscaping. The topics and level of detail required for the review of a particular project shall be as deemed appropriate by the planning commission. Review by the design review and historic preservation commission shall not be required, except as referred to the design review and historic preservation commission by the planning commission.

E. Review Procedures. Each application for design review site design and architectural review shall be reviewed by the city planner to ensure that the application is consistent with the purpose and intent of this section and with applicable requirements of this development code. The review authority shall hold a public meeting, and may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for design review site design and architectural review in compliance with this section.

F. Public Notice.

1. Public notice of administrative actions shall be provided as follows:
a. Planning Division website. Notice published on the planning division website at least 10 days before a decision is issued, with an additional publication of the final decision.
b. Mailing. Notice mailed or delivered at least 10 days before the issuance of an administrative decision to the following:
i. Affected Owners. All owners of real property as shown on the latest Sonoma County equalized assessment roll, within a radius of 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the parcel that is the subject of the Agenda Item #7.5:

23 hearing; and any other person whose property might, in the judgment of the city planner, be affected by the proposed project; ii. Persons Requesting Notice. Any person who has filed a written request for notice with the city planner and has paid the required fee for the notice.

Notice and hearing requirements for such applications are as follows:

1. New Single-Family Residential Structures and Additions within the Historic Overlay Zone. The design review commission shall conduct a public hearing on any application involving a new single-family structure or an addition to a single-family structure within the historic overlay zone. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted in compliance with Chapter 19.88 SMC (Public Hearings).

2. All Other Applications for Site Design and Architectural Review. Notice shall be accomplished through the posting of the meeting agenda at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting date.

2. The design review and historic preservation commission shall conduct a public hearing on applications for a major design review permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted in compliance with Chapter 19.88 SMC, Public Hearings, and may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the design review permit in compliance with this section.

FG. Factors to Be Considered. In the course of design review site design and architectural review, the consideration of the review authority shall include the following factors:

1. The historical significance, if any, of the site or buildings or other features on the site;

2. Environmental features on or adjacent to the site;

3. The context of uses and architecture established by adjacent development; Agenda Item #7.5:

24 4. The location, design, site plan configuration, and effect of the proposed development.

These factors shall be considered in relation to the development standards and design guidelines of this development code, other applicable ordinances of the city, and applicable general plan policies.

H. Findings, Decision. The review authority may approve, approve subject to conditions, or disapprove an application for design reviewsite design and architectural review. The review authority may approve an application, with or without conditions, only if it first makes the findings set forth below.

1. Basic Findings. In order to approve any application for design reviewsite design and architectural review, the review authority must make the following findings:
a. The project complies with applicable policies and regulations, as set forth in this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions), other city ordinances, and the general plan;
b. On balance, the project is consistent with the intent of applicable design standards set forth in this development code; and
c. The project responds appropriately to the context of adjacent development, as well as existing site conditions and environmental features.

2. Projects within the Historic Overlay District or a Local Historic District. In addition to the basic findings set forth in subsection (H)(1) of this section, the review authority must make the following additional findings for any project located within the historic overlay district:
a. The project will not impair the historic character of adjacent historic resourcesits surroundings;
b. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties substantially preserves the qualities of any significant historic structures or other significant historic features on the site;
Agenda Item #7.5:

25 c. The project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines set forth in Chapter 19.42 SMC (Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone); and d. The project substantially complies with any applicable preservation plan or other guidelines or requirements pertaining to a local historic district as designated through SMC 19.42.020 and adopted by the City of Sonoma.

These findings shall not apply to demolitions associated with a project which have been approved under SMC 19.54.090 (Demolition permit).

3. Projects Involving Historically Significant Resources. In addition to the basic findings set forth in subsection (GH)(1) of this section, the review authority must make the following additional findings for any project on which site is located a resource that is listed or eligible for listing inon the CaliforniaState Register of Historical Resources or that has been designated as a local historic resource pursuant to SMC 19.42.020:
a. The project substantially preserves the qualities of any significant historic structures or other significant historic features on the site. b. The project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines set forth in Chapter 19.42 SMC (Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone). c. The project substantially complies with the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

These findings shall not apply to demolitions associated with a project which have been approved under SMC 19.54.090 (Demolition permit).

I. Post Approval Procedures. Post approval procedures shall comply with Chapter

19.56 (Permit Implementation, Time Limits, Extensions) and Chapter 19.84 (Appeals) after the decision on a design review application.

Expiration. If a building permit has not been applied for and issued within one year of site design and architectural review approval, the approval shall become void, unless an extension is approved in compliance with Chapter 19.56 SMC (Permit Implementation, Time Limits, Extensions). (Ord. 06-2013 §§ 2(B) (Exh.

C), 3, 2013; Ord. 07-2008 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-2007 § 1 (Exh. A), 2007; Ord. 2003- 02 § 3, 2003).

Agenda Item #7.5:

26 H. Chapter 19.54.090 (Demolition permit) is amended to read as follows:

19.54.090 Demolition permit.

A. Purpose. Sonoma has a significant heritage of historic buildings, as exemplified by the designation of the Sonoma Plaza as a National Historic Landmark. These buildings provide a tangible link to the city’s past, foster civic pride and a sense of community, and constitute an important aesthetic, cultural, and economic resource. In order to preserve this heritage while respecting the rights of the property owners, this chapter establishes provisions for the review of demolitions, including a requirement for demolition permits.

B. Applicability. For any proposed demolition, a demolition permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit, unless the demolition is exempted by subsection (C) of this section. Applications for a demolition permit shall be subject to the review and approval by the design review and historic preservation commission (DRHPC).

C. Exemptions. The following categories of demolition shall be exempt from DRHPC review:

1. Structures that are less than 45 50 years of age and that are not identified on the City of Sonoma Inventory of Historic Sites and Structuresin the inventory of historic structures prepared by the League for Historic Preservation;

2. Detached accessory structures less than 45 years of age that are not identified on the City of Sonoma Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in the inventory of historic structures prepared by the League for Historic Preservation;

3. Structures that the building official has determined present a clear and immediate threat to public safety.

D. Timing. When an application for demolition is associated with a development proposal that requires a discretionary permit from the planning commission, the review of the demolition application shall be completed concurrent with prior to commencing review of any other application for a discretionary permit.

E. Application Requirements and Procedures. Any person seeking approval of a nonexempt demolition in compliance with this chapter shall make application for a demolition permit prior to an application for a building permit, in compliance with SMC 19.52.040, Application preparation and filing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (G) of this section, Findings, Decision.

Agenda Item #7.5:

27 1. Commencement of Review. The review of an application for a demolition permit shall not be initiated until the planning division receives a complete application, including all required documentation as specified in the application form and any additional information required by the city planner in order to conduct a thorough review of the proposed demolition, including, if applicable, a historic resource evaluation (HRE) prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture. An HRE shall be submitted for all primary and detached accessory structures over 45 years old. The HRE shall evaluate the potential significance of the existing structures and their eligibility for listing on the California Register. The architectural historian shall be selected and retained by the city planner from a list of qualified members selected by the planning and community services director.

Alternatively, at the discretion of the Planning and Community Services Director, an applicant submitted HRE prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture may be peer reviewed by an architectural historian selected and retained by the city planner from a list of qualified members. All costs and fees for the services of the HRE shall be paid by the applicant and shall be paid in full at the time of the project application.

2. Notice and Hearing. The design review and historic preservation commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a demolition permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted in compliance with Chapter 19.88 SMC, Public Hearings, and may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the demolition permit in compliance with this section.

3. Factors to Be Considered. In the course of demolition permit review, the consideration of the design review and historic preservation commission shall include the following factors:
a. The relative historical significance, if any, of the structure proposed for demolition;
b. The contribution, if any, the structure makes to a historic context; c. The cost of preserving or rehabilitating the structure; Agenda Item #7.5:

28 d. The potential for adaptive re-use; and
e. The potential for relocating the structure.

4. Cooling-Off Period. Prior to taking final action on an application for a demolition permit, the design review and historic preservation commission may impose a cooling-off period of up to six months in order to allow an opportunity to investigate alternatives to demolition.

F. Determination of Significance. For purposes of requiring an application for a demolition permit, it shall be presumed that a structure possesses historic significance if said structure is over 45 years old and/or identified on the City of Sonoma Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or found during previous or current evaluation to be eligible for listing in the California Register in the inventory of historic structures prepared by the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation. However, in its review of an application for a demolition permit, the design review and historic preservation commission may determine that a listed structure is not historically significant if, based on evidence in the record, it finds that:

1. The listing in the inventory or finding or eligibility is based on erroneous or incomplete information; or

2. The property no longer meets the eligibility criteria for listing due to loss of integrity. The structure does not meet the criteria for historic significance as defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation.

G. Findings, Decision. Following the public hearing, the design review and historic preservation commission may approve or approve with conditions or disapprove a demolition permit application. In order to approve an application for a demolition permit, the design review and historic preservation commission must find that:

1. The structure is not historically significant, based upon the criteria established by the State Office of Historic Preservation; or

2. The structure does not represent a unique and irreplaceable historic or architectural resource;

3. The community benefit of preserving the structure is outweighed by the cost of preservation and rehabilitation;
Agenda Item #7.5:

29 4. The adaptive re-use of the structure is infeasible or inappropriate, due to economic considerations, structural conditions or land use incompatibility; and

5. The relocation of the structure is infeasible due to cost, structural conditions or lack of an interested taker.

H. Review of Replacement Structures. Notwithstanding the limitations on the architectural design review set forth in SMC 19.54.080(B), the DRHPC may require, as a condition of approval for a demolition permit issued within the historic overlay district zone, that any replacement structures, including single-family residences, be subject to design review in order to assure that the new construction is compatible with the historic context of the site.

I. Post Approval Procedures. Post approval procedures shall comply with Chapter

19.56 (Permit Implementation, Time Limits, Extensions) and Chapter 19.84 (Appeals) after the decision on a design review application. Expiration. If a building permit has not been applied for and issued within two year of demolition permit approval, the approval shall become void, unless an extension is approved in compliance with Chapter 19.56 SMC, Permit Implementation, Time Limits, Extensions. (Ord. 06-2013 § 3, 2013; Ord. 07-2007 § 1 (Exh. A), 2007; Ord. 2003- 02 § 3, 2003).

SECTION 2. CEQA
This Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the city. City Planning Staff has determined that the adoption and implementation of the Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions without any physical project being approved, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Each future land use proposal will be independently reviewed for adherence to specific criteria and the requirements of CEQA. The proposed ordinances are therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA because it does not involve a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The City Council concurs in these findings and adopts them as its own. The City Council, therefore, directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Sonoma in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. Severability.

Agenda Item #7.5:

30 If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage thereof.

SECTION 5. Publication.

This ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 36933(c)(1).

SECTION 6. This Ordinance Prevails Where There is Conflict.

To the extent that this Ordinance conflicts with any other provision in the Sonoma Municipal Code or city ordinance (urgency or otherwise), policy or regulation, this Ordinance will control.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma on this 17th day of May 2023.
* * * * * *
APPROVED:
__________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:

Attest Date: _______________
_________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
* * * * * *
State of California )
County of Sonoma )
City of Sonoma )
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the 17th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Agenda Item #7.5:

31 ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Attest Date: _______________
___________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.5:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 May 2023
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director/City
Engineer
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to 1) Grant Bid Relief to Valentine Corporation and Allow the Apparent Low Bidder to Withdraw Their Bid Without Monetary Penalties and 2) Execute an Agreement with Granite Construction Company for the Construction of the Chase Street Replacement Bridge Project, Federal Project No. CML5114(016) (Project), In the Amount of $2,871,557.10.

Summary
The Chase Street Bridge is a timber stringer structure with metal forms and a reinforced concrete/asphalt concrete (AC) paved deck. The bridge is located on Chase Street over Nathanson Creek, between Broadway and Austin Avenue, in the City of Sonoma. The City has been approved to receive Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds for the replacement of the existing bridge. The project will replace an existing structurally deficient bridge and provide a safe creek crossing for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians and has been approved to receive $1,601,743.00 of Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant funding. The construction contract to build the bridge has been advertised and has an anticipated award date of May 18, 2023.

The construction consists of bridge replacement and relocation of water and sewer services, including demolishing and removing existing concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk and/or residential driveway, adjusting utility valve boxes to grade, installing concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and driveway, installing rock slope protection, temporary traffic control, storm water pollution control, and other related work, as set forth on the project Plans and Specifications.

This project also includes relocating sewer and water services, including trenching/shoring installation, backfill and surface restoration.

The Chase Street Bridge Replacement Project was advertised on Thursday April 13, 2022 and bids were received on May 9, 2023, providing 3.5 weeks for contractors to respond and prepare bids. In anticipation of bid opening, and due to the constrained construction window for this project, the City Council provided advanced authorization to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, not to exceed $2.5 million, at the May 3rd City Council meeting via Resolution No. 27-2023.

When bids were opened on May 9, 2023, Valentine Corporation was the apparent low with a bid of $2,469,359.00. On May 10th, Valentine Corporation in accordance with Public Contract Code section 5100 et seq. and Section 11 of the Proposal Requirements requested bid relief from their apparent low bid.

According to Public Contract Code § 5103 to obtain bid relief and be relieved of its bid, the contractor must show: (a) A mistake was made. (b) He or she gave the public entity written notice within five working days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after the opening of the bids of the mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred.

Agenda Item #7.6:

(c) The mistake made the bid materially different than he or she intended it to be. (d) The mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications.

City staff, after consulting with the City Attorney, has found that Valentine has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it likely meets all elements required for bid relief. Valentine provided timely written notice to the City within the first 24 hours after bid opening that it made a mistake and requested relief, specifying the error with supporting evidence. Attached is Valentine’s letter and supporting evidence for its bid relief request. Valentine specified that mistake was simply one of transposing the amount for mobilization by omitting a “1” such that it had the effect of reducing its bid by $100,000.00 —writing $58,106.00 instead of $158,106.00. The notice also identified the original estimated amount, and the bid document was written by hand, which could make such an error more likely. The error was the omission of one digit, it appears to be a simple clerical error, and not one of judgment or carelessness in inspecting the work site or reading plans. Additionally, the specified amount for mobilization was substantially below the engineer’s estimate and other bidders, which could indicate a mistake. The $100,000.00 difference is likely material because it constitutes over 4% of the total bid price and, as indicated by Valentine, was material to its bid in its view. As a result, it is likely that a court would grant Valentine bid relief under Public Contract Code section 5103 if the City did not consent to bid relief.

Granite Construction Company with a bid of $2,871,557.10 was the second lowest bidder.

When the lowest bidder is unable to execute the contract, the City may award the project to the second lowest bidder when it finds doing so is in the City’s best interest. If the City grants Valentine bid relief, staff believes it is in the City’s best interest to award to the second lowest bidder given that the Chase Street Bridge has a very constrained construction window of July 1 – October 15, 2023. Further delays caused by rebidding would upset this time frame for constructing vital City infrastructure. In order for the responsive contractor to accomplish the project this year, preconstruction work will need to commence as soon as possible following the bid opening. Public Works is requesting authorization to have the City Manager execute a contract with Granite Construction Company.

Budget
On June 22, 2022, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Capital Improvement (CIP) Budget. This budget included funding for the Project, as follows:
$228,713.00 Gas Tax (302-51001)
$105,735.00 Transportation Measure M (313-54000)
$1,601,743.00 Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) Grant Funds $1,936,191.00 Total Project Budget – CIP Project T-1
It is anticipated (standard process) that HBRR Funds will be scaled to accommodate the market bids received for this project and that this will be inclusive of construction management funds.

The Project Budget above reflects the engineers estimate as envisioned during the FY22/23 budget cycle. The budget is anticipated to be adjusted upon receipt of construction bids.

Anticipated HBRR Funds can be obligated to this project up to 88.53% of the project total including construction and engineering.

Staff has submitted the required Cost Adjustment Forms reflecting Granite Construction Company’s bid price and the Construction Management Contract Price of $500,662.00 to Caltrans Local Assistance requesting that the Construction Authorization be adjusted to reflect market rates.

Recommended Council Action
Agenda Item #7.6:

Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to 1) grant Bid Relief to Valentine Corporation and allow the apparent low bidder to withdraw their bid without monetary penalties and 2) Execute an Agreement with Granite Construction Company for the construction of the Chase Street Replacement Bridge Project, Federal Project No. CML-5114(016) (Project), in the amount of $2,871,557.10.

Alternative Actions
Reject all bids and delay the project until the Summer of 2024 with the hope that market prices will decrease. This action will result in additional costs to revise existing project documents to current 2024 required specifications.

Financial Impact
CIP Project T-1 existing budget is not sufficient for project construction, construction management, inspection and materials testing services. The City has been awarded HBRR funds to replace the Chase Street Bridge. The HBRR fund programmed for this year is $1,601,743.00, however the funding procedure for HBRR allows for the funds to scale according to the actual project costs. It is anticipated that following the award of the construction contract, the City will apply for additional funds from Caltrans and the HBRR will fund up to 88.53% of the total project costs inclusive of construction and engineering.

Additional project funding from the City of Sonoma for the other 11.47% of the project have been allocated in the City’s Capital Improvement Program Fiscal year 22/23 budget. State Gas Tax funding of $228,713.00. as well as the City’s Transportation Measure M fund of $105,735.00.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution - Chase Street Bridge
Chase St Construction Contract
Valentine Bid Relief Request
Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #7.6:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION NO. ___- 2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO 1) GRANT BID RELEIF TO VALENTINE CORPORATION AND ALLOW

THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER TO WITHDRAW THEIR BID WITHOUT MONETARY PENALTIES AND 2) EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHASE STREET REPLACEMENT BRIDGE PROJECT, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5114(016) (PROJECT), FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,871,557.10.

WHEREAS, the Chase Street Bridge Replacement Project, City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project T-1, Federal Project No. CML-5114(016) (project) was advertised for Construction on April 13, 2023; and
WHEREAS, bids for the construction of the Chase Street Bridge Replacement Project where opened on May 9, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council budgeted a total of $1,936,191.00 in Fiscal Year 2022/23 inclusive of a current minimum of $1,601,743.00 in HBRR grant funds inclusive of the cost of construction administration and engineering support during construction; and WHEREAS, the City has submitted a cost change request to FHWA/Caltrans for the additional funding for the obligated amount; and
WHEREAS, the HBRR funding is such that it scales according to the cost of received bids for the project at a cost reimbursement ratio of up to 88.53%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma authorizes the City Manager to:
1) Grant Bid Relief to Valentine Corporation (“Valentine”) and allow the apparent low bidder to withdraw their bid without monetary penalties pursuant to the following findings and those discussed in the accompanying Agenda Item Summary, which is incorporated herein by this reference:
a. Valentine made a mistake in completing its bid when it transposed the amount for mobilization by omitting a “1” such that it had the effect of reducing its bid by $100,000.00 —writing $58,106.00 instead of $158,106.00. b. Valentine provided timely written notice to the City within the first 24 hours after bid opening that it made a mistake and requested relief, specifying the error with supporting evidence.
c. Valentine has indicated the $100,000 difference made its bid materially different than it intended as it constitutes over 4% of the total bid price. d. Valentine’s mistake was a clerical error in filling out the bid and not due to an error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications.
2) Execute an Agreement with Granite Construction Company for the construction of the Chase Street Replacement Bridge Project, Federal Project No. CML-5114(016) (Project), in the amount of $2,871,557.10.

Agenda Item #7.6:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 27-2023 is hereby rescinded and replaced by this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council on this 17th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-2 APRIL 2023

CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ________ day of ______________ 20___, by and between the CITY OF SONOMA, California, a municipal corporation of the General Law Class, herein called the “City,” and ___________________________________ _________________________________________________, herein called the “Contractor.”

1. That for and in consideration of the payments of the price specified in Contractor’s Proposal (included in Part II of the Contract Documents) and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the City, the Contractor hereby agrees with the City to commence and complete the work described in the Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents for the CHASE STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO.0811 (“Project”) including all extra work in connection therewith, under and in accordance with the terms as stated therein, and at the Contractor’s own proper cost and expense to furnish all plant, labor, materials, tools, equipment, superintendence, bonds, insurance, guaranty’s and other accessories and services necessary therefor. Said Plans, Contract Documents, and Specifications, together with the contract bonds, are made a part hereof and together herewith collectively evidence and constitute the contract.

2. The Contractor hereby further agrees to commence work under this Contract and to diligently prosecute the same to completion within the time limits prescribed in Part IV - General Special Provisions; and further agrees to pay, as liquidated damages, the sum of $4,000.00 for each consecutive calendar day of delay in completing said work or any portion thereof in excess of said time limits and any authorized time extensions.

3. Upon execution of this Contract, Contractor shall also execute and deliver to the City a Guaranty in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D which is incorporated by this reference.

4. The City hereby agrees with the Contractor to retain, and does hereby retain, the Contractor for the performance of the Contract according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, and further agrees to pay the Contractor for the performance of the Contract in accordance with the prices set forth in the Contractor’s proposal, a copy of which is incorporated herein, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the Contract Documents and Specifications and to make payments on a monthly basis as provided in the Special Provisions.

5. Indemnification – City of Sonoma: To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Sonoma and its elected and appointed officials, and employees and agents, and Consor and its employees from all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney’s fees and other defense costs, resulting from injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor’s employees), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which injury, death or damage arises out of or is in any way connected with the performance of the work, regardless of the Contractor’s fault or negligence, including any of the same resulting from the City’s and Consor alleged or actual negligent act or omission, or its agents, contractors or employees; except that said indemnity shall not be applicable to injury, death or damage to property arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City and Consor, its officers, agents, or servants who are directly responsible to City and Consor This indemnification shall extend to claims asserted after termination of the Contract for whatever reason. This indemnification shall survive termination of this Contract for whatever reason.

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-3 APRIL 2023
This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for Contractor or its agents under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employment benefit acts. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for Contractor or its agents under any insurance policy covering Contractor’s performance under this Contract. Contractor shall be liable to City for any loss or damage to City property arising from or in connection with Contractor’s performance hereunder.

City may deduct any costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Section from payments due or which may become due Contractor.

Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations and laws pertaining to hazardous materials or hazardous substances as those terms are defined by any such law or regulation. Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend City and Consor, its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all actions, claims, demands, damages, disabilities, losses, costs of clean-up, administrative penalties, remediation and/or expenses, including attorney’s fees and other defense costs or liabilities of any nature that may be asserted by any person or entity including Contractor arising out of or in any way connected with Contractor’s failure to comply with said hazardous substance and/or hazardous materials laws and regulations.

6. Contractor further agrees to be bound by and comply with all of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California in the performance of all work under this Contract. a. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.1, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in the bid Proposal Forms, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of the Contract for this Project unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Section 1771.1 nor of this Contract for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid for this Project that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform the work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. b. A bid shall not be accepted nor any contract or subcontract entered into without proof of the contractor or subcontractor's current registration to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5.
c. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
d. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the county in which this Project is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work fixed as provided under the Cal. Labor Code, shall be paid to all workers employed on this Project.
e. In accordance with Labor Code sec. 1860, the Contractor shall be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees.
f. The Contractor hereby certifies that s/he/it is aware of and will comply with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workmen’s compensation or to undertake self-insurance before commencing any of the work.

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-4 APRIL 2023

7. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations in regard to nondiscrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, age, medical condition or disability.

8. Contractor agrees to comply with Public Contracts Code Section 7104, which requires notification to City of any hazardous waste or other unusual conditions.

9. Contract Bonds
a. Before execution of the Contract by the City, the Contractor shall file with the City surety bonds satisfactory to the City Council in the amounts and for the purposes noted below. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California. The Contractor shall pay all bond premiums, costs, and incidentals.
b. Each bond shall be signed by both the Contractor and surety and the signature of the authorized agent of both parties shall be notarized. Attorneys-in-fact who sign bonds must file with each bond a certified and effectively dated copy of their power of attorney. c. The “Faithful Performance Bond” shall be for 100% of the contract price to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City, and that all materials and workmanship will be free from original or developed defects. Said bond shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
d. The Contractor shall provide two good and sufficient surety bonds. The “Material and Labor Bond” shall be for 100% of the contract price, to satisfy claims of material suppliers and of mechanics and laborers employed on the work. The bond shall be maintained by the Contractor in full force and effect until the completed work is accepted by the City and until all claims for materials and labor are paid and shall other-wise comply with the Government Code. Said bond shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
e. The surety for such security shall be currently admitted to transact surety insurance by the California Department of Insurance and shall carry a Best’s rating of no less than AV. f. Should any bond become insufficient, the Contractor shall renew the bond within ten (10) days after receiving notice from the City.
g. Should any Surety at any time be unsatisfactory to the City Council, notice will be given the Contractor to that effect. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under the Contract by the City until a new Surety shall qualify and be accepted by the City Engineer.
h. Changes in the work, or extensions of time, made pursuant to the Contract, shall in no way release the Contractor or Surety from their obligations. Notice of such changes or extensions shall be waived by the Surety.
i. The "Maintenance Bond" shall be for 10% of the Final Contract price at the Project completion, in accordance with Part IV, Section 6.16 of these Specifications. Said bond shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-5 APRIL 2023

10. Insurance. The Contractor shall obtain insurance acceptable to City of Sonoma from a company or companies acceptable to the City. The nature and amounts of insurance which the Contractor must furnish are set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The required documentation of such insurance (in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits F and incorporated by this reference) shall be furnished to the City at the time Contractor returns the executed contract and within 10 days after the Contractor has received the Notice of Award and prior to the City executing the Contract and issuing a Notice to Proceed.

The Contractor shall not commence work nor shall s/he/it allow his/her/its employees or subcontractors or anyone to commence work until all insurance required hereunder has been submitted and approved by the City and a Notice to Proceed has been issued by the City.

11. Contract Documents Defined. “Contract Documents” shall mean and include the Contract (as defined in Part IV “Special Provisions”), Part 1 - Bidding & Proposal Requirements, Part II - Proposal Forms, Part III - Contract Requirements, Part IV - General Special Provisions, all documents and provisions included in said Parts I – IV, Special Provisions, Part V - Bridge and Roadway Technical Specifications, Part VI - Waterline and Sewerline Technical Specifications, Standard Specifications to the extent not addressed in the Special Provisions, Plans, Figures, and all exhibits thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor have executed this Contract in three counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, on the date first above written.

FOR THE CITY: FOR THE CONTRACTOR:

BY _______________________________ BY _____________________________ CITY MANAGER Name:

Title:

ATTEST _______________________________ BY _____________________________ CITY CLERK Name:

Title:

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-6 APRIL 2023
(On Surety Letterhead)

PERFORMANCE BOND
(100%)
WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma, (hereinafter designated as “City”), State of California, and__________________________, (hereinafter designated as “Principal”), have entered into an Agreement whereby Principal agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, services, appliances, and appurtenances for the work and identified as CHASE STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO.0811, which said agreement and work are referred to and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said Agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and _________________ as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of __________________________ Dollars ($__________________), lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-7 APRIL 2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and surety above-named, on______________________, 20__.
[NOTE: To be signed by Principal
and Surety and acknowledgement and
notarial seal for both attached.]
(SEAL)

__________________________________

PRINCIPAL
By:_______________________________
Name:

Title:
___________________________________
SURETY
By:________________________________
Name:

Title:

I certify under penalty of perjury that Surety is admitted by the Department of Insurance to transact business in the State of California and has a Best’s rating of A-V. ___________________________________
SURETY
By:________________________________
Name:

Title:

NOTE: Attach Notary and Power of Attorney and County Clerk's Certificate of Authority of Admitted Surety Pursuant to 995.648 of Code of Civil Procedures.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-8 APRIL 2023
(On Surety Letterhead)

LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND
(100%)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the City of Sonoma (“City”) a municipal corporation located in the County of Sonoma, State of California has awarded a contract to and has entered into an agreement with_________________
__________________________________________, hereinafter designated as “Principal” whereby Principal agrees to complete the improvements more particularly described in all documents forming the complete contract entitled, CHASE STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO.0811, which said agreement is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection and with said contract, provided that if said Principal, or any of his/her/its contractors, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender or other supplies or teams used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, the Surety of this bond will pay the same to the extent hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal and ________________________, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Sonoma in the penal sum of $_______________ lawful money of the United States, being not less than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated contract cost of the work, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if said Principal, his/her/its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, or its subcontractors, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 3181 of the Civil Code, or to pay for any materials, provisions, provender, or other supplies or teams used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor, then said Surety will pay the same in or to an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also will pay in case suit is brought upon this bond a reasonable attorney's fee in such suit, which fee shall be fixed by the Court.

AS FURTHER TERMS OF THIS BOND, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS:

1. This bond and all its provisions shall inure to the benefit of and all persons named in Section 3181 of the Civil Code so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-9 APRIL 2023

2. This bond is given to comply with the provisions of Chapter 7, Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code. The liability of the Principal and Surety hereunder is governed by the provisions of said Chapter, all acts amendatory thereof, and all other statues referred to therein.

And the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any ways affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of this contract or to the work or to the specifications.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above bound parties have executed this instrument under their seals this ___________ day of_________________, 20____, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body. [NOTE: To be signed by Principal and Surety and acknowledgement and notarial seal attached.] (SEAL)
___________________________________________________

PRINCIPAL
By:_______________________________
Name:

Title:
____________________________________________________
SURETY

By:________________________________
Name:

Title:

I certify under penalty of perjury that Surety is admitted by the Department of Insurance to transact business in the State of California and has a Best's rating of_____________. _____________________________________________________
SURETY
By:_________________________________
Name:

Title:

NOTE: Attach Notary and Power of Attorney and County Clerk's Certificate of Authority of Admitted Surety Pursuant to 995.648 of Code of Civil Procedures.

EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-10 APRIL 2023
MAINTENANCE BOND (1-YEAR)
(10%)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the City of Sonoma hereinafter designated as "City"), a municipal corporation located in the County of Sonoma, State of California, and ____________________(hereinafter designated as "Principal") entered into a contract on the _____ day of ___________________, 20__, whereby Principal agreed to complete the improvements more particularly described in all documents forming the complete contract entitled CHASE STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO.0811, which said contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee the maintenance of those improvements ("said improvements") for a period of ______ year(s) from the date of acceptance of said improvements by the City, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal and_________________________________, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of______________________, Dollars (_____________) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. This penal sum shall not be less than ten percent of the contract amount, meaning the entire amount paid by the City to the Contractor (Principal), including but not limited to the contract bid amount awarded and any change orders.

THE CONDITION of this obligation is such that if the said Principal shall faithfully carry out and perform said guaranty in accordance with the terms of said specifications and shall, on due notice, promptly repair and make good at its own expense all defects of material or workmanship in the said work which may develop or become apparent during the ___ year period beginning from the effective date of City acceptance of said improvements by the City Council, or shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the City all loss and damage which the City may sustain by reason of failure or defect of said Principal so to do, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

AS PART OF THE OBLIGATION secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-11 APRIL 2023
THE SURETY HEREBY STIPULATES AND AGREES that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or the work to be performed thereunder of the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way effect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above bounden parties have executed this instrument under their seals this _____ day of __________, 20__, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body.

NOTE: To be signed by Principal and Surety
and acknowledgment and notarial seal
attached.
[Attach Notary Acknowledgment]
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Principal
By ______________________
[Attach Notary Acknowledgment]
_________________________
Surety
__________________________
__________________________
Address of Surety
___________________________

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-12 APRIL 2023

GUARANTY
(This guaranty shall be executed by the successful Bidder prior to the time the contract is executed.) To the City of Sonoma for construction of
CHASE STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO.0811
The undersigned guarantees all construction performed on this project and also guarantees all material and equipment incorporated therein.

Contractor hereby grants to City for a period of one (1) year following the date of Final Completion of the Work, its unconditional warranty of the quality and adequacy of all of the Work including, without limitation, all labor, materials and equipment provided by Contractor and its Subcontractors of all tiers in connection with the Work.

Neither final payment nor use or occupancy of the Work performed by the Contractor shall constitute an acceptance of work not done in accordance with this Agreement or relieve Contractor of liability in respect to any express warranties or responsibilities for faulty materials or workmanship. Contractor shall remedy any defects in the Work and pay for any damage resulting therefrom which shall appear within one (1) year, or longer if specified, from the date of Final Completion.

Should any of the materials or equipment prove defective or should the Work as a whole prove defective, due to faulty workmanship, material furnished or methods or installation, or should the Work or any part thereof fail to operate properly as originally intended and in accordance with the Contract Documents due to any of the above causes within one (1) year after date of Final Completion, the Contractor shall:
(1) reimburse the City, upon demand, for its expenses incurred in restoring said Work to the condition contemplated in the Contract Documents, including the cost of any such equipment or materials replaced and the cost of removing and replacing any other work necessary to make such replacement or repairs, or
(2) upon demand by the City, replace any such material and to immediately repair said Work completely without cost to the City so that said Work will function successfully as originally contemplated.

Inspection of the work shall not relieve the Contractor of any of its obligations under the Contract Documents. Even though equipment, materials, or work required to be provided under the Contract Documents have been inspected, accepted, and estimated for payment, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, replace or repair any such equipment, material, or work found to be defective or otherwise not to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents up to the end of the guaranty period.

EXHIBIT D

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-13 APRIL 2023
The City shall have the unqualified option to make any needed replacement or repairs itself or to have such replacements or repairs done by the Contractor. In the event the City elects to have said work performed by the Contractor, the Contractor shall make such repairs within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of demand from the City; provided, however that in no event shall such period exceed twenty-five (25) days.

Signature of Contractor Date
Name:

Title:

EXHIBIT D

CONTRACTOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY PROJECTS
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-14 APRIL 2023
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

1.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 00 01). b) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto).
c) Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
d) Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subsection (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code.

1.2 Minimum Limits of Insurance
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
a) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage including operations, products and completed operations. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. c) Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. d) Pollution liability: $180,000

1.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

EXHIBIT E
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-15 APRIL 2023

1.4 Other Insurance Provisions
The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a) The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor: and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with your work or operations. General liability coverage shall be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance or as a separate Owner’s policy. b) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. c) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after ten (10) days’ prior written notice given to the City. d) Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code.

1.5 Waiver of Subrogation
The Contractor's workers’ compensation policy and general liability policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation. The insurance company, in its endorsement, agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of these policies which arise from the work performed by or on behalf of the named insured for the City.

1.6 Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers either admitted to conduct insurance business in California and with a current A. M. Best rating of no less than A: VII or other (non-California admitted) insurance business with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A+:X.

1.7 Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

EXHIBIT E
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-16 APRIL 2023

1.8 Subcontractors
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

1.9 Material Breach
If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain any of the insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to Contractor any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to City.

EXHIBIT E
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-17 APRIL 2023

EXHIBIT F
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-18 APRIL 2023

EXHIBIT F
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page III-19 APRIL 2023

EXHIBIT F
Agenda Item #7.6:

GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS

VALENTINE
May 10, 2023
’ Total Pages: ;
City of Sonoma
#1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA. 95476
Attention: Mr. Mike Berger, P.E., Public Works Director Subject: Chase Street Bridge Replacement
— Request for Bid Relief
Bid Date: 5/9/23 @ 2PM
Via Fax @ 707-938-3240
Via email @ [email protected]
Dear Mr. Berger,
It has come to my attention that Valentine Corporation made a significant clerical keystroke entry mistake yesterday in completing our bid pricing for the subject project. We were running late with final Bid Item pricing entry for bid submission, and we did not realize the keystroke entry mistake until after our bid was submitted. Bid Item 75, Mobilization,was incorrectly entered at $58,106 by accident when the correct pricing was intended to be $158,106. We have evaluated this significant clerical error and determined that we cannot in good faith honor our bid price with a $100K clerical keystroke bid entry error. In the interest of time requirements and transparency, we are providing this Bid Relief request with urgency less than a half day after our bid submission yesterday afternoon. Please see the attached bid pricing summary for Bid Item 75 showing desired bid versus actual bid with clerical keystroke error.

Given this keystroke entry error, and in accordance with the Public Contract Code and Section 11 of Proposal Requirements and Conditions, Valentine Corporation herein respectfully requests bid relief for our apparent low bid submitted for the subject project on May 9,2023. Please note that this request is a result of a significant keystroke clerical error, and not an error in estimating judgment or care.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss ifyou wish.

Sincerely,
,5,,£,_, 0. M4,.’
Robert O. Valentine Jr., P.E.

President
VALENTINECORPORATION 111 PELICANWAY
° SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
0 P.O. BOX 9337 - SAN RAFAEL,CA 94912 - (415) 453-3732
° FAX (415)457-5820
Agenda Item #7.6:

ValentineCorporation Page 5
230509BV SonomaChaseStreetBridgeReplacement 05/10/2023 6:58

ESTIMATESUMMARY(BIDPRICES)
Bid# ClientBid# Total TotalCost Balanced BalancedBid Pricing Bid Bid Quantity Unit Cost UnitPrice Markup BidTotal UnitPrice Status Price Total 6600 67 Prepare&StainConcrete 23.9%
1,126.00 SF 44,593.88 39.60 10,665 55,259 49.08 F 50.000 56,300.00 6700 68 WoodFence 23.9%

82.00 LF 13,745.89 167.63 3,287 17,033 207.72 F 210.000 17,220.00 6800 69 TempFence(TypeCl-6) 23.9%

39.00 LF 801.62 20.55 192 993 25.47 F 25.000 975.00
6900 70 RemoveFence 23.9%

83.00 LF 3,125.45 37.66 747 3,873 46.66 F 40.000 3,320.00 7000 71 RemoveMarker 23.9%

2.00 EA 307.56 153.78 74 381 190.56 F 190.000 380.00
7100 72 RemoveRoadsideSign 23.9%

2.00 EA 461.36 230.68 110 572 285.85 F 300.000 600.00
7200 73 CableRailing(F)‘ 23.9%

60.00 LF 15,341.52 255.69 3,669 19,011 316.84 F 315.000 18,900.00 7300 74 ConcreteBarrier(Type80 SW,M 23.9%

84.00 LF 128,041.68 1,524.31 30,623 158,664 1,888.86 F 1.900.000 159,600.00 7400 I E 23.9% A 1.00 LS 127,591.38 127,591.38 30,515 , TOTALS: 2,070,842.15 495,267 2,469,359.00
’
Code between Balanced Bid & Bid Price:
absorb unbalancing differences).

U=Unos anced, F=Frozen, C=Closing Bio tem (item to
** infrontoftheBiditemindicatesa Non-Additiveitem
_ ;;:¢a‘:;i.r;;e?,’eftqm'
.
— .m,rstai<e_for-._,
» mobiliz-ation:;_priee~'
Agenda Item #7.6:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 May 2023
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Laura Simpson, Interim Planning & Community
Services Director
Agenda Item Title
Discussion, Consideration, and Take Possible Action to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Housing In-Lieu Fees Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for Fractional Inclusionary Units and Small Residential Projects, and Pursuant to the City’s Residential Component Ordinance, With A Finding that the Adoption of this Resolution Establishing Housing In-Lieu Fees is Not a “Project” Under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3).

Summary
In January 2023, the City contracted with Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare an updated analysis to the 2018 housing and commercial fee study commissioned by the City of Sonoma. The update was requested to support Housing In-Lieu Fees required under the City’s revised Inclusionary Housing Ordinance adopted on June 7, 2021, and the Residential Component ordinance the City Council adopted in March 1, 2023. The following are development scenarios under which these Housing In-Lieu Fees may be applied:

1. If the 25% inclusionary housing requirement for a new residential development results in requiring a fractional unit of below 0.5, the developer may pay a fractional in-lieu fee instead of rounding up to the next whole number and providing that affordable unit on site. For example, a 13-unit development would be required to provide 3.25 affordable units and therefore the developer could opt to pay a fractional in-lieu fee for the 0.25 affordable units required (and build the other 3).

2. If a residential project consists of 4 or fewer units, the developer may pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing the affordable housing unit or units.

3. Where a new commercial development in Mixed Use or certain Commercial Zones meets particular requirements, upon approval from the Planning Commission, the developer may choose not to build the required Residential Component of the development and pay an in-lieu fee based on the square footage of the Residential Component the developer would otherwise be required to build. If the developer proposed constructing a portion of the required Residential Component, the fee may be paid for the balance of the required residential square footage.

Background
On June 7, 2021, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was revised and took effect to require the following Below Market Rate unit requirements in new residential development consisting of five or more parcels or units:

Rental Projects:
• 5% Extremely Low Income (ELI)
• 10% Very Low Income (VLI)
• 10% Low Income (LI)
Agenda Item #8.1:

Ownership Projects:
• 5% Low Income (LI)
• 10% Moderate Income (M)
• 10% Middle Income (MI)
In the implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, there were two scenarios where fees could be applied:
• A development containing four or fewer parcels or units shall pay a fee pursuant to SMC § 19.44.030 - In-Lieu Fees; and
• Fractional Units (Applicable to residential projects providing five or more parcels or units). When the application of the percentages specified above results in a number that includes a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number if the fraction is 0.50 or more. If the result includes a fraction below 0.50, the developer shall have the option of rounding up to the next whole number and providing the affordable unit on-site, or paying an in lieu fee instead of providing an additional affordable unit.

For projects of four or fewer units, KMA recommends a fee equal to $25 per square foot of Floor Area for the individual residential units. This fee level is set to be consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For a Fractional Unit, KMA recommends that the fee be based on Full In-Lieu Fees that are then prorated based on the portion of the inclusionary unit obligation to be satisfied with in-lieu fees and multiplied by the floor area of the units. The Full In-Lieu Fees are as follows:
i. For-Sale $97 per square foot of Floor Area
ii. Rental $110 per square foot of Floor Area
An example of how the fee for a Fractional Unit would be calculated is shown below:

Agenda Item #8.1:

The Residential Component Ordinance (in certain Commercial and Mixed-Use zoning districts), adopted on March 1, 2023, requires that a residential component be built equal to 100% of the proposed commercial floor area within a project. The ordinance allows for an in-lieu fee option if a developer opts not to construct the residential component. The in-lieu fee per square foot is multiplied by the square footage of the required residential component that is not built. If a portion of the residential component is built, a fee may be paid based upon the balance of the residential square footage required.

The KMA analysis for the Residential Component Ordinance determined that an in-lieu fee of $93.50/SF multiplied by the required Residential Component square footage, or balance thereof, could be charged. For ease of facilitation of this requirement, the Council may reasonably round up the fee to $100/SF of Required Residential Component.

The table below provides an example of the Residential Component in-lieu fee.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the attached Housing In-Lieu Fee Resolution.

Alternative Actions
Council Discretion.

Financial Impact
None.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Agenda Item #8.1:

Attachments
Resolution - In Lieu Fees
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Memorandum - In-Lieu Fees Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #8.1:

309234.v1
City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ____ - 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ESTABLISHING HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES

PURSUANT TO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND RESIDENTIAL

COMPONENT ORDINANCE IN THE SONOMA DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has declared that there is a severe shortage of affordable housing and has changed laws to expedite the local residential development process, including regulations requiring the modification of local regulations to streamline housing development and for clarity; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2023, the City amended its local regulatory scheme to facilitate the construction of housing to comply with State law through the Residential Component Ordinance No. 3-23, which requires development within certain C and MX zoning districts to construct a residential component equal in floor area to the proposed commercial floor area, and which allows an option for a housing in- lieu fee to be paid for any and all portions of the residential component the developer voluntarily chooses not to construct; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-2021 which revised the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements to require 25% (“inclusionary percentages”) of new residential projects to meet the affordability requirements specified in that ordinance, and under which, housing in-lieu fees were permitted to be paid if application of the inclusionary percentages resulted in a fractional unit below 0.5, and also in the case of projects of four or fewer residential units or parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Interim Planning and Community Services Director has submitted to the City Council a report prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) and dated March 23, 2023, which updates KMA’s 2018 fee nexus study and further analyzes facts necessary to support adoption of reasonable in-lieu fees for fractional inclusionary units and small residential projects pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and an in-lieu fee for the Residential Component Ordinance for certain commercial properties (the KMA Housing In-Lieu Fee Study).

Said KMA study is incorporated by this reference ; and
WHEREAS, all housing in-lieu fees collected through implementation of these two ordinances will be held in the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for the future construction, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing in the City of Sonoma and to enhance the public welfare by promoting the use of available land for the development of housing that would be available to low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on May 17, 2023 to consider the KMA Housing In-Lieu Fee Study (“KMA Study”), which Study was available for public review in advance of the hearing, and the proposed housing in-lieu fees.

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

Agenda Item #8.1:

309234.v1
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby approves the KMA Housing In-Lieu Fee Study and adopts the housing in-lieu fees reflected below for the implementation of the City’s Inclusionary and Residential Component Ordinances. 1) Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee
a) Fractional Unit Fee – Pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code sections 19.44.030 and

19.44.020(D), there is hereby established a Fractional Unit Fee in the amount and calculated as set forth hereinbelow and to be imposed in those instances governed by Sonoma Municipal Code section 19.44.020(D. The Fractional Unit Fee is calculated based on Full In-Lieu Fees specified in Table 1 on page 2 of the KMA Study that are then prorated based on the portion of the inclusionary unit obligation to be satisfied with in-lieu fees. Proration is calculated by multiplying the Full In-Lieu Fee rate by a fraction, with the numerator of such fraction equal to the fractional number of units for which inlieu fees are proposed to be paid, and the denominator of such fraction equal to the total number of inclusionary units that are required. The prorated Full In-Lieu Fee is then multiplied by the sum of the Floor Areas of the individual units in the project. The Full InLieu Fees are as follows:
i) For-Sale $97 per square foot of Floor Area of the individual units ii) Rental $110 per square foot of Floor Area of the individual units b) Projects of 4 units or fewer -- Pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code sections 19.44.030 and 19.44.020(C)(2), there is hereby established an inclusionary unit fee in the amount and calculated as set forth hereinbelow and to be imposed in those instances governed by Sonoma Municipal Code section 19.44.020(C)(2). The fee established herein shall equal $25 per square foot of Floor Area for the individual units. 2) Residential Component In-Lieu Fee – Pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code Section

19.10.020 (B)(3) (Residential Component) and Section 19.010.020 (C)(2) (Residential Component) there is hereby established a residential component in-lieu fee in the amount and calculated as set forth hereinbelow and to be imposed in those instances governed by Sonoma Municipal Code Section

19.10.020 (B)(3) (Residential Component) and Section 19.010.020 (C)(2) (Residential Component).
a) $100 per square foot of Required Residential Component. 3) “Floor Area” is defined to mean as specified in SMC Section 19.92.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases).
4) “Required Residential Component” is defined to mean the residential component required by Section 19.10.020 (B)(3) (Residential Component) and Section

19.010.020 (C)(2) (Residential Component).

SECTION 2. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall take affect 60 days after the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 3. If any section or any portion thereof of this Resolution or the fees imposed herein is held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, said ruling shall negate only the applicable section, or portion thereof, and the balance of this Resolution shall stand as written and shall remain in full force and effect.

Agenda Item #8.1:

309234.v1
SECTION 4. Adoption of this Resolution establishing housing in-lieu fees is not a “Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) as it relates solely to the creation of government funding mechanisms, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk of the City of Sonoma shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and its approval by the City Council and shall cause the same to be listed in the records of the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council on this 17th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:

2130 Center Street, SUITE 301  BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704  PHONE: 415 398 3050  FAX: 415 397 5065 001-002; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 19331.004
ADVISORS IN:

REAL ESTATE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BERKELEY
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
DEBBIE M. KERN

DAVID DOEZEMA

LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO-HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY

TIM BRETZ

SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA

LINNIE GAVINO

MEMORANDUM
To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning & Community Services Director City of Sonoma
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Date: March 23, 2023
Subject: In-Lieu Fees for Fractional Inclusionary Units, Small Residential Projects, and the Residential Component
The following memorandum was prepared for the City of Sonoma by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., (KMA) to support adoption of in-lieu fees for fractional inclusionary units and small residential projects pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing program, and an in-lieu fee for the proposed amendment to the Residential Component zoning requirement for certain commercial properties. This memorandum presents KMA’s findings.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In-lieu fees for the inclusionary program are expressed per habitable square foot within the project. Applying in-lieu fees on a per square foot basis allows the amount of the fee to scale with unit size and is a well-established approach used in many jurisdictions. Inlieu fees for the Residential Component requirement are expressed per square foot of Required Residential Component, as specified in the proposed zoning amendment.

A. Fractional Inclusionary Units In-Lieu Fee
When the application of the 25% inclusionary percentage results in a number that includes a fraction below 0.50, the developer has the option of providing the affordable unit onsite or paying an in-lieu fee for the fractional unit owed. For projects that choose to meet the fractional unit inclusionary requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, the amount is determined based on a per square foot “Full” in-lieu fee multiplied by the share of the inclusionary unit requirement to be satisfied with in-lieu fee payment. The Full in-lieu fee reflects the entire affordability gap assuming no inclusionary units are provided within the Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 2
001-002; jf
19331.004
project. The Full in-lieu fees are calculated based on the onsite inclusionary requirements and the gaps between market-rate and affordable sales prices and rents.

Table 1. Full In-Lieu Fees, If No Affordable Units Provided Per Habitable Square Foot (1)
For-Sale Rental
Full In-Lieu Fee $97 /SF $110 /SF
(1) Excludes garages, parking area, common areas and common amenities, and other non-livable space.

To calculate the fractional unit in-lieu fees, the Full in-lieu fee amounts must be reduced to reflect the share of the inclusionary requirement to be satisfied with in-lieu fee payment, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Fractional Unit In-Lieu Fees, Projects with Five or More Units ForSale
Units
$97 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ×
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝑈𝑈 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂
𝑇𝑇 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝑈𝑈 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅
× 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐹𝐹 = 𝑇𝑇 𝐷𝐷
Rental
Units $110 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑓𝑓 ×
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝑈𝑈 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂
𝑇𝑇 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼 𝑈𝑈 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅
× 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐹𝐹 = 𝑇𝑇 𝐷𝐷
Appendix Table 1 provides a sample calculation.

B. Small Projects (Four or Fewer Units) In-Lieu Fee
The City’s inclusionary ordinance allows projects with four or fewer units to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing affordable units. When establishing inclusionary housing in-lieu fees for small residential projects (particularly one- or two-unit projects), it is typically advised that the in-lieu fee be set at a level below the maximum supported by a residential nexus analysis. This is because, for one- and two-unit projects, providing onsite inclusionary units is not generally a true compliance option; therefore, it is recommended that the fee be set at a level consistent with the requirements of a mitigation impact fee.

KMA prepared a residential nexus analysis for the City of Sonoma as part of a prior work effort completed in February 2018. The nexus analysis quantifies the increase in demand for affordable housing generated by new market rate housing and then estimates the cost to mitigate the increased need for affordable housing. To estimate nexus maximums for the purpose of this in-lieu fee analysis, KMA prepared updated mitigation costs and applied them to the demand estimates from the 2018 analysis. The results are presented in Table 3.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 3
001-002; jf
19331.004
Table 3. 2018 Residential Nexus Maximums with Updated Affordability Gaps Per Habitable Square Foot (1)
Larger Lot
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Lot
Single Family
Detached
Townhome /
Condominium
Rental
Apartments
Nexus Cost Per
Square Foot (2) $30.30 /SF $31.30 /SF $36.30 /SF $29.40 /SF (1) Excludes garages, parking area, common areas and common amenities, and other non-livable space. (2) Updated affordability gaps are presented in Appendix Table 7 and the updated nexus cost calculation is presented in Appendix Table 9. The remainder of the nexus analysis was not updated.

Source: February 2018 Residential Nexus Analysis, prepared for the City of Sonoma by KMA.

It is recommended that the City’s in-lieu fee for one- or two-unit projects be set at a level below these nexus maximums. The City might consider a phasing in of the in-lieu fee by project size, where the in-lieu fee per square foot increases with the number of units in the project. The fee for one- and two-unit projects should be set below the nexus maximums, while the fees for three- and four-unit projects could exceed the nexus maximums. An example of this type of phasing in is shown in Table 4 below. The Full inlieu fees presented in Table 1 and shown again in Table 4 represent the estimated cost of complying with the ordinance onsite.

Table 4. Sample Phasing-In of In-Lieu Fees for Projects with Four or Fewer Units Number of Units in Project For-Sale Rental Nexus
One Unit $25 /SF $25 /SF below nexus max
Two Units $25 /SF $25 /SF below nexus max
Three Units $50 /SF $50 /SF above nexus max
Four Units $75 /SF $75 /SF above nexus max
Full In-Lieu Fee $97 /SF $110 /SF
Per net habitable sf. Excludes garages, parking area, common areas and common amenities, and other non-livable space.

The above table is just one example of a phasing-in approach. Again, it is typically advised that the fees on one- and two-unit projects be set below the residential nexus maximums. Fees for larger projects, in this case three- and four-unit projects, are generally not constrained by the nexus maximums.

C. Residential Component In-Lieu Fee
The City's Zoning Code requires parcels zoned for Mixed Use, and parcels one-half acre and larger zoned for Commercial and Commercial Gateway provide a "Residential Component" within the project in an amount equal to the square footage of commercial development. The City is considering an amendment that allows for the voluntary Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 4
001-002; jf
19331.004
payment of an in-lieu fee for the residential development in certain circumstances. The Residential Component would be subject to the inclusionary ordinance. Forgoing the residential development would therefore result in a loss of new inclusionary units. The inlieu fee is based on the affordable units not produced if the Residential Component is not included in the project.

Residential Component fee revenues would be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund, which is earmarked for the advancement and development of affordable housing.

Establishing the in-lieu fee based on the loss of affordable units is consistent with the use of the fee revenue.

As specified in the proposed zoning amendment, in-lieu fees for the Residential Component are expressed per square foot of Required Residential Component. Per City staff, the Required Residential Component in the ordinance is expressed based on gross residential square footage, which includes common areas and amenity spaces, but does not include parking garages or parking spaces.

Table 5. Residential Component In-lieu Fee
Per Square Foot of Required Residential
Component for Commercial Projects
In-Lieu Fee $93.50 /SF
More detail on all of the in-lieu fee calculations is contained in the following section, with supporting tables showing the calculations included in the Appendix.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 5
001-002; jf
19331.004

SUPPORTING ANALYSES
The following sections walk through the calculation of the in-lieu fees presented above.

A. Full In-Lieu Fee Calculation for For-Sale Projects
KMA calculated the Full in-lieu fee based on a review of recent market rate sales and an estimate of the affordable sales prices for comparable units. The analysis is summarized below and in Appendix Table 2.

To estimate the market rate sales price of a new unit in Sonoma, KMA calculated the median sales price of units sold since January 2022, using data for the City of Sonoma from CoreLogic. There were 333 units that sold during this time, representing a mix of single family detached and attached units. Using the median sales price for all units in Sonoma is a conservative estimate of sales prices for new units, as newer units typically sell for a premium over older units. The median number of bedrooms, unit size and sales prices are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Median Price of Units Sold in City of Sonoma Since January 2022 Median Sales Price $1,050,000
Median Number of Bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms
Median Net Square Footage 1,606 sq ft
Source: CoreLogic
The median market rate sales prices for for-sale housing in the City of Sonoma is the first component of the for-sale affordability gap calculation.

The City’s Inclusionary Housing program requires for-sale projects to set aside 10% of units at prices affordable to Middle Income (up to 160% of Area Median Income (AMI)), 10% at Moderate Income (up to 120% of AMI), and 5% at Low Income (up to 80% AMI).

When establishing an in-lieu fee, the affordable prices should be calculated in a manner consistent with the pricing of inclusionary units that are built to comply with the program.

Therefore, KMA estimated the affordable sales prices for a unit comparable to the median market rate unit based on the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and the methodology employed by Rise Housing Solutions, which administers the City’s program and calculates the City’s inclusionary sales prices. Appendix Table 6 provides the supporting calculations, including illustrating the methodology and documenting the assumptions.

The pricing is set to be affordable to households with 35% of income set aside for housing costs (30% for Low Income households). Housing costs include mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, maintenance and utilities. Per City Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 6
001-002; jf
19331.004
policy, the Moderate and Low Income pricing levels are set at 110% AMI and 70% AMI to be consistent with California Health & Safety Code. California Health & Safety Code does not include the Middle Income category and Rise Housing has not calculated prices for this income category. For the purposes of this analysis, KMA selected the midpoint of the income range, 140% of AMI, for pricing the units.

Table 7 presents the affordable sales prices for the three income categories, and the weighted average sales price based on the inclusionary obligation.

Table 7. Affordable Sales Prices

Middle
Income
Moderate
Income
Low
Income
Weighted
Average(1)
3BR Affordable Price $556,200 $417,700 $197,100 $428,980 (1) Weighted to reflect the inclusionary requirement (10% Middle, 10% Moderate, 5% Low).

See Appendix Table 6.

The for-sale affordability gap is the difference between the market rate sales price (Table 6) and the weighted average affordable sales prices (Table 7). The affordability gap represents the forgone revenue to the developer from setting aside a unit as affordable.

The calculation is shown in Table 8.

Table 8. For-Sale Affordability Gap
Market Price $1,050,000
Less: Affordable Price ($428,980)
Affordability Gap $621,020
Using the affordability gap, KMA calculated a per-square-foot in-lieu fee. The fee is calculated based on the onsite inclusionary requirement (25% of units) and the average size of the market rate units (1,606 square feet). The calculation is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Calculation of Full For-Sale In-Lieu Fee

Affordability
Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average Unit
Square Feet
Full In-Lieu
Fee
Full For-Sale In-Lieu Fee $621,020 x 25% ÷ 1,606 sq ft = $97 /SF Fractional in-lieu fees are based on the Full in-lieu fee per square foot in Table 9. A sample fractional fee calculation is provided in Appendix Table 1.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 7
001-002; jf
19331.004
B. Full In-Lieu Fee Calculation for Rental Projects
KMA calculated the Full in-lieu fee for rentals based on a review of market rate rents and an estimate of the affordable rents for comparable units. Appendix Table 3 presents the calculations. The analysis is summarized below.

KMA reviewed current market rate asking rents in Sonoma. There were three projects with rental units advertised at the time of our analysis. One was built in 2020 and the others two were recently renovated. There is one project in the development process in Sonoma for which programmatic details were available. To supplement this data, KMA analyzed effective rent data for newer apartment units in Santa Rosa (effective rents include incentives and other discounts from asking rents). The rental data is summarized in Appendix Table 4. KMA’s estimate of current average market rent for new units in Sonoma is shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Estimated Market Rate Rent for New Units in Sonoma

Avg Number
of BRs
Avg
Unit SF
Avg Effective
Rent Per Month
Effective Market Rate Rent, New Units in Sonoma 1.8 1,000 $2,700 The estimated market rate rent for new apartments in Sonoma presented in Table 10 is the first component of the rental affordability gap calculation.

The City’s Inclusionary Housing program requires rental projects to set aside 10% of units at rents affordable to Low Income (up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI)), 10% at Very Low Income (up to 50% of AMI), and 5% at Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI). KMA estimated the affordable rents for a unit comparable to the market rate unit based on the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and the methodology employed by Rise Housing Solutions. The rents are set to be affordable to households with 30% of income set aside for housing costs, which includes rents and utilities. Consistent with California Health & Safety Code, Low Income rents are set at 60% of Area Median Income (AMI), Very Low at 50% AMI, and Extremely Low at 30% AMI. The results are summarized in Table 11. The supporting calculations are presented in Appendix Table 3.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 8
001-002; jf
19331.004
Table 11. Affordable Monthly Rent
1 BR/
2-p HH
2 BR/
3-p HH
Weighted
Average (1)
Low Income $1,303 $1,449 $1,420
Very Low Income $1,066 $1,181 $1,158
Extremely Low Income $591 $646 $635
Weighted Average, All Income Levels $1,158
(1) Weighted to reflect the inclusionary requirement (10% Low, 10% VL, 5% Extremely Low).

See Appendix Table 3.

The difference between market rate rents (Table 10) and the affordable rents (Table 11) is shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Net Difference: Market vs. Affordable Rents
Market
Rent
Affordable
Rent
Rent Difference
Per Month
Rent Difference
Per Year
Net Difference:

Market and Affordable Rents $2,700 $1,158 $1,542 $18,506

The rental affordability gap is calculated based on the annual difference between market rate and affordable rents in Table 12, divided by a capitalization rate of 4.2%, to identify forgone project value associated with setting aside a unit as affordable. The capitalization rate is based on the market capitalization rate for the Santa Rosa submarket (which includes Sonoma), according to CoStar as of February 2023. The calculation is shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Rental Affordability Gap (Capitalized value of rent difference)

Rent Difference
Per Year
Capitalization
Rate (1)
Capitalized Value
of Rent Difference
Affordability Gap $18,506 ÷ 4.20% = $441,000
(1) Costar. Santa Rosa area market cap rate, February 2023.

Using the affordability gap, KMA calculated the Full in-lieu fee. The fee is calculated based on the affordability gap, the onsite inclusionary requirement (25% of units), and the average size of the new market rate units (1,000 square feet). The calculation is shown in Table 14.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 9
001-002; jf
19331.004
Table 14. Calculation of Full Rental In-Lieu Fee

Affordability
Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average Unit
Square Feet
Full In-Lieu
Fee
Full Rental In-Lieu Fee $441,000 x 25% ÷ 1,000 sq ft = $110 /SF Fractional in-lieu fees are based on the Full in-lieu fee per square foot in Table 14. An example of the fractional fee calculation is provided in Appendix Table 1.

C. Updated Mitigation Costs for 2018 Residential Nexus Analysis KMA prepared a residential nexus analysis for the City of Sonoma as part of a prior work effort completed in February 2018. The nexus analysis quantifies the increase in demand for affordable housing generated by new market rate housing and then estimates the cost to mitigate the increased need for affordable housing. The mitigation costs represent the cost to provide new affordable housing units and are based on affordability gaps for new affordable housing. To estimate nexus maximums for the purpose of the small project in-lieu fee, KMA prepared updated mitigation costs and applied them to the demand estimates from the 2018 analysis.

Development Costs. The mitigation costs assume that the City will provide funding assistance for the development of affordable rental units. To estimate the development costs of affordable rental units, KMA reviewed tax credit applications for recent affordable projects in Sonoma County. Development costs for the most relevant projects are summarized in Appendix Table 8. For the purposes of the mitigation cost analysis, prevailing wages are assumed because the project receives financial assistance from the City. Based on the review of recent projects summarized in Appendix Table 8, KMA estimates that a new affordable multi-family tax-credit apartment unit in the City of Sonoma would have a total development cost of approximately $715,000. Details of this estimate are shown in Appendix Table 7.

Unit Values. Unit values are based upon the funding sources assumed to be available for the project. For the Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income rental units, the funding sources include permanent debt financing supported by the project’s operating income, a deferred developer fee, and equity generated by 4% federal low income housing tax credits. For the Moderate-Income rental units, the funding sources include permanent debt financing supported by the project’s operating income, a deferred developer fee and developer equity supported by the remaining project value after debt financing. Details for these calculations are presented in Appendix Table 7.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 10
001-002; jf
19331.004
Affordability Gaps. The affordability gap is the difference between the cost of developing an affordable unit and the unit value based on the restricted affordable rent.

The resulting affordability gaps are shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Affordability Gaps for Nexus Maximums
Moderate
Income
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
Extremely
Low Income
Supported Permanent Financing $418,000 $466,000 $426,000 $347,000 (Less) Total Development Costs ($715,000) ($715,000) ($715,000) ($715,000) Affordability Gap ($297,000) ($249,000) ($289,000) ($368,000) Total Nexus Cost / Maximum Fee Levels. To calculate the updated maximum nexussupported fee levels, the affordability gaps are multiplied by the demand for new affordable housing generated by the market rate development and divided by the square footage of the market rate units. The calculations are shown in Appendix Table 9 and the results are summarized in Table 16.

Table 16. 2018 Residential Nexus Maximums with Updated Affordability Gaps Per Habitable Square Foot (1)
Larger Lot
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Lot
Single Family
Detached
Townhome /
Condominium
Rental
Apartments
Nexus Cost Per Square Foot (2) $30.30 /SF $31.30 /SF $36.30 /SF $29.40 /SF (1) Excludes garages, parking area, common areas and common amenities, and other non-livable space. (2) See Appendix Table 9. Updated affordability gaps are presented in Appendix Table 7. The remainder of the nexus analysis was not updated.

Source: February 2018 Residential Nexus Analysis, prepared for the City of Sonoma by KMA.

D. Residential Component Calculation
The City's Zoning Code requires parcels zoned for Mixed Use, and parcels one half acre and larger zoned for Commercial and Commercial Gateway provide a "Residential Component" within the project in an amount equal to the square footage of commercial development. The City is considering an amendment that allows for the voluntary payment of an in-lieu fee for the residential development in certain circumstances. The units in the Residential Component would be subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance. Forgoing the residential development would therefore result in a loss of new inclusionary units. The in-lieu fee is based on the affordable units not produced if the Residential Component is not included in the project. It is assessed based on the square footage of the required Residential Component. Any funds collected through the Residential Component in-lieu fee would be put into the City’s Housing Trust Fund, earmarked for the advancement and development of affordable housing.

Agenda Item #8.1:

To: Laura Simpson, Interim Planning Director March 23, 2023 Subject: In-Lieu Fees Page 11
001-002; jf
19331.004
The in-lieu fee for the Residential Component is based on the Full In-Lieu Fee for Rental Units. For the purpose of estimating the fee, it is assumed that the residential units built onsite in mixed use projects in Sonoma would more typically be rental units than forsale. The Full In-Lieu Fee is estimated per habitable square foot, while the Residential Component in-lieu fee would be assessed per gross square foot of required residential development. A simple conversion must be made to the Full In-Lieu Fee in order to apply it to the Residential Component. Appendix Table 5 walks through the conversion using a hypothetical project with 10,000 square feet of commercial development, for ease of understanding the arithmetic. The steps are summarized below.

A project with 10,000 square feet of commercial development that is subject to the Residential Component requirement would be required to also provide 10,000 square feet of gross residential development onsite or voluntarily pay an in-lieu fee if the development meets certain criteria. The residential development would be subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance. If the commercial project does not provide the Residential Component, however, then the inclusionary units are not provided as well.

The in-lieu fee for the inclusionary units not provided is estimated by the Full In-Lieu Fee for rental units at $110 per habitable square foot (Appendix Table 3). A typical rental building efficiency of 85% is assumed to convert gross residential square footage to net habitable square footage for rental units (gross residential square footage includes common areas and amenity spaces, but does not include parking garages or parking spaces). In the case of our example, this results in 8,500 square feet of habitable square footage. At $110 per square foot, the total in-lieu fee owed for the forgone inclusionary units is $935,000 for the project. Applying this total fee owed to the full 10,000 square feet of gross residential square footage (the required Residential Component) results in an in-lieu fee of $93.50 per square foot of required Residential Component.

Table 17. Residential Component In-lieu Fee
Per Square Foot of Required Residential
Component for Commercial Projects
In-Lieu Fee $93.50 /SF
If a project provides some residential units onsite, but not in an amount equal to the Required Residential Component, the project would owe the residential component inlieu fee for the portion of the Required Residential Component that is not built. For example, if the Required Residential Component is 6,000 square feet and the project includes 5,000 square feet of residential development onsite, the project would owe the in-lieu fee for the remaining 1,000 square feet of residential not built.

If a project satisfies the Residential Component by building 4 or fewer units onsite and does not provide an inclusionary unit onsite, then the project would owe the Small Project inclusionary in-lieu fee for the forgone inclusionary unit in the residential development.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 1
Fractional Fee Sample Calculation
In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Rental For-Sale
Full In-Lieu Fee $110 /SF $97 /SF
Appendix Table 3 Appendix Table 2
(1) Excludes garages, parking area, common areas and common amenities, and other non-livable space.

Sample Fractional Unit In-Lieu Fee Calculation for For-Sale Project 1) Habitable Square Footage in Project 23,800 This example assumes 1,400 sf units. 2) Total Units in Project 17
3) Inclusionary Units Required = 25% X Total Units 4.25 4) Whole Inclusionary Units Due 4.00
5) Fractional Inclusionary Units Due 0.25
6) In-Lieu Fee $97 /SF This example is for a for-sale project. 7) Fractional Unit In-Lieu Fee Calc. $135,800
B. Fractional Unit In-Lieu Fees
Formula for Fractional Unit In-lieu Fees
= Fractional Units Owed / Total Inclusionary Unit Requirement x In-Lieu Fee x Total Habitable Square Footage in the Project.
= 0.25 fractional units /

4.25 inclusionary units x
$97/SF x 23,800 SF
Per Habitable Square Foot (1)
A. Full In-Lieu Fees if No Inclusionary Units Provided
The project either pays this amount or
rounds up to five whole inclusionary units.
_________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; Summary Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 2
For-Sale Units - Calculation of In-Lieu Fee
In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Median Sales Price $1,050,000
Median Number of Bedrooms 3.00
Median Unit Size (SF) 1,606 sq ft
Source: CoreLogic
B. Affordable Sales Price
Middle Income
Moderate
Income Low Income
Weighted
Average(1)
Appendix Table 6 Appendix Table 6 Appendix Table 6
Affordable Price of 3.0 Bedroom Unit $556,200 $417,700 $197,100 $428,980 (1) Weighted to reflect the inclusionary requirement of 5% Low, 10% Moderate, and 10% Middle.

Market Price $1,050,000
Less: Affordable Price ($428,980)
Affordability Gap $621,020
Affordability Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average Unit
Square Feet In-Lieu Fee
$621,020 x 25% ÷ 1,606 sq ft = $97 /SF
A. Median Price of Homes in City of Sonoma Sold Since January 2022 C. Affordability Gap
D. Calculation of For-Sale In-Lieu Fee
For-Sale In-Lieu Fee
_________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; FS fee Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 3
Rental Units - Calculation of In-Lieu Fee
In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Avg Number
of BRs Avg Unit SF
Avg Rent
per Month Rent/SF
Estimated Rent for New Rental Unit in Sonoma 1.8 BR 1,000 $2,700 $2.70 Source: CoStar, apartments.com, City of Sonoma planning submittals. See Appendix Table 4.

B. Affordable Monthly Rent
Low Income 1 BR/ 2-p HH 2 BR/ 3-p HH
Weighted
Average (2)
Sonoma County 60% Income Level, 2022(1) $57,050 $64,233 Affordable Hsg Cost/Mo at 30% of Income $1,426 $1,606 $1,570 Less: Utilities (3) ($123) ($157) ($150)
Affordable Rent $1,303 $1,449 $1,420
Very Low Income 1 BR/ 2-p HH 2 BR/ 3-p HH
Weighted
Average (2)
Sonoma County Very Low Income Limit, 2022(4) $47,550 $53,500 Affordable Hsg Cost/Mo at 30% of Income Limit $1,189 $1,338 $1,308 Less: Utilities (3) ($123) ($157) ($150)
Affordable Rent $1,066 $1,181 $1,158
Extremely Low Income 1 BR/ 2-p HH 2 BR/ 3-p HH
Weighted
Average (2)
Sonoma County Extremely Low Income Limit, 2022(4) $28,550 $32,100 Affordable Hsg Cost/Mo at 30% of Income Limit $714 $803 $785 Less: Utilities (3) ($123) ($157) ($150)
Affordable Rent $591 $646 $635
Weighted Average Rent: 10% Low, 10% Very Low and 5% Extremely Low $1,158 (2) Weighted to reflect the average of 1.8 bedrooms in the market rate rental units. (3) Assumes gas heat, hot water and cooking, electricity and water. (4) California Department of Housing & Community Development, State Income Limits for 2022.

Market Rent Affordable Rent
Rent
Difference
Per Month
Rent
Difference Per
Year
Net Difference: Market and Affordable Rents $2,700 $1,158 $1,542 $18,506 Rent
Difference
Per Year
Capitalization
Rate (1)
Capitalized
Value of Rent
Difference
Affordability Gap $18,506 ÷ 4.20% = $441,000
(1) Market cap rate for Santa Rosa multifamily, per CoStar, February 2023.

Affordability
Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average Unit
Square Feet In-Lieu Fee
$441,000 x 25% ÷ 1,000 sq ft = $110 /SF
A. Estimated Market Rate Rents for New Units in Sonoma
C. Net Difference: Market vs. Affordable Rents
D. Affordability Gap (Capitalized value of rent difference) Rental In-Lieu Fee
E. Calculation of Rental In-Lieu Fee
(1) Estimated based on the methodology used by Rise Housing, which administers the City's Inclusionary Housing program. Their methology estimates 60% AMI based on one-third of the difference between HCD's Low and Very Low Income limits plus the Very Low Income limit. _________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; R fee Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 4
Market Rate Rentals
In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Bedrooms SF Rent Rent/SF Notes
Oliva Apts 1 BR 705 $2,275 $3.23 Built 2020, DeNova Homes 30 units 1 BR 705 $2,700 $3.83 655 West Spain St.
2 BR 982 $2,900 $2.95 Average Unit Size 1,057 sf
2 BR 982 $3,000 $3.05 24 2BR, 6 1BR: 1.8 BR average
2 BR 1,087 $3,100 $2.85
2 BR 1,349 $3,450 $2.56
2 BR 1,466 $3,500 $2.39
18775 Riverside Dr 2 BR 865 $2,850 $3.29
135 W Napa studio 525 $2,000 $3.81
Montaldo Apartments 100% 2BR 896 In the entitlement process. 50 units DeNova Homes
19320 Sonoma Highway
# of Units SF Rent Rent/SF Notes
Newer Santa Rosa Apartments 881 1,063 $2,801 $2.63 Built Since 2017 Source: CoStar, apartments.com, Oliva Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Montaldo Apartment planning submittals, City of Sonoma website.

I. Asking Rents in Sonoma
II. Planned Apartment Development in Sonoma
III. Effective Rents for Newer Apartments in Santa Rosa _________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; rent data Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 5
Residential Component of Commercial Projects - Calculation of In-Lieu Fee In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Source
1) Commercial Development 10,000 sf Illustrative
2) Required Residential Development 10,000 sf (gross) Zoning Code, Residential Component 3) Rental Units In-Lieu Fee Per Habitable SF $110 /sf (habitable) Appendix Table 3 4) Residential Habitable SF 8,500 sf (habitable) 85% residential efficiency 5) Total Fee Owed $935,000 = Fee per SF * Residential Habitable SF 6) Fee per Square Foot of Required Residential $93.50 /sf (gross) In-Lieu Fee for Residential Component of Commercial Project = Total fee / 10,000 sf required residential
The in-lieu fee is based on the affordable units that would have been built had the residential component been included onsite. It assumes that rental units would have been built. _________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; Commercial Fee Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 6
Affordable Sales Price Calculations
In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Middle Income Moderate Income Low Income
Unit Size (Bedroom) 3-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 3-Bedroom
Household Size 4-person HH 4-person HH 4-person HH
Sonoma County 2022 Median Income $112,800 $112,800 $112,800 Income Level for Pricing 140% 110% 70%
Annual Income(3) $157,920 $123,575 $83,167
% for Housing Costs 35% 35% 30%
Available for Housing Costs $55,272 $43,251 $24,950
(Less) Property Taxes ($6,950) ($5,213) ($2,463)
(Less) Personal Homeowner's Insurance ($1,200) ($1,200) ($1,200) (Less) Maintenance and Repairs ($600) ($600) ($600)
(Less) HOA ($1,200) ($1,200) ($1,200)
(Less) Utilities ($4,056) ($4,056) ($4,056)
(Less) Mortgage Insurance ($4,003) ($3,002) ($1,497)
Income Available for Mortgage $37,263 $27,980 $13,934
Supported Mortgage $500,600 $375,900 $187,200
Down Payment $55,600 $41,800 $9,900
Affordable Home Price $556,200 $417,700 $197,100
- HOA ($/month) $100 $100 $100
- Utilities ($/month) (1) $338 $338 $338
- Mortgage Interest Rate (2) 6.32%
- Down Payment (3) 10.00% 10.00% 5.00%
- Property Taxes (% of sales price) (3) 1.25%
- Property Maintenance and Repairs ($/month)(3) $50 $50 $50 - Personal Homeowner's Insurance ($/month)(3) $100
- Mortgage Insurance (4) 0.80% loans up to $625,500

1.00% loans over $625,500
(1) Assumes gas heat, cooking, water heating. Utility allowances per Sonoma County Housing Authority (October 2022). (2) Freddie Mac 30-year fixed rate, average rate, 2/16/2023. (3) Rise Housing Solutions.
(4) Based on FHA mortgage insurance premium schedule.
_________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; Affordable prices Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 7
Affordability Gap Calculation, City-Funded Tax Credit Rental Units In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Tenure
Density 25 dua
Average Number of Bedrooms
Per Unit
Land Acquisition $50,000
Directs $450,000
Indirects $175,000
Financing $40,000
Total Development Costs $715,000
Affordable Rents Moderate Income Low Income Very Low Income Extremely Low
Income
Average Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2 2
Maximum Rent [2] $2,791 $1,605 $1,337 $802
(Less) Utility Allowance [3] ($104) ($104) ($104) ($104) Maximum Monthly Rent $2,687 $1,501 $1,233 $698
Net Operating Income (NOI)
Gross Potential Income Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Monthly $2,687 $1,501 $1,233 $698
Annual $32,247 $18,012 $14,796 $8,376
Other Income $175 $175 $175 $175
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% ($1,621) ($909) ($749) ($428)
Effective Gross Income (EGI) $30,801 $17,278 $14,222 $8,123 (Less) Operating Expense & Reserves [4] ($8,000) ($8,000) ($8,000) ($8,000) (Less) Property Taxes [5] ($4,800) $0 $0 $0
Net Operating Income (NOI) $18,001 $9,278 $6,222 $123
Permanent Financing
Permanent Loan [6] $236,000 $121,000 $81,000 $2,000
Deferred Developer Fee [7] $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 4% Tax Credit Equity / Developer Equity[8] $147,000 $310,000 $310,000 $310,000 Total Sources $418,000 $466,000 $426,000 $347,000
Supported Permanent Financing $418,000 $466,000 $426,000 $347,000 (Less) Total Development Costs ($715,000) ($715,000) ($715,000) ($715,000) Affordability Gap ($297,000) ($249,000) ($289,000) ($368,000) [3] Gas heat, cooking, and hot water heating. Utility allowances from Sonoma County Housing Authority (2022). [5] Assumes tax exemption for non-profit general partner. Property taxes for Moderate Income based on capitalized value at 4.7% and a 1.25% tax rate. [6] Based on representative tax-exempt loan terms including 6% interest rate, 1.15 debt service coverage and 40 year term. [7] Based on the average deferred developer fee for pipeline projects in Sonoma County. [4] Based on operating expense and replacement reserves for pipeline projects in Sonoma County, as reported in TCAC [1] Construction costs estimated by KMA based on costs for pipeline affordable projects in Sonoma County summarized in Appendix Table 8. Land costs reflect City of Sonoma location.
[8] Estimate based on average tax credit yield for pipeline projects in Sonoma County. Estimate aligns with calculation of tax credit yield using current tax credit underwriting assumptions drawn from Novogradac.com as of February 2023 with a tax credit yield of $0.90 assuming high cost area adjustment and basis limit adjustments for prevailing wage, and inclusion of Very Low or ELI units as part of the unit mix. Moderate Income units over 80% AMI are not eligible for tax credits. Supported equity for moderate income is estimated based on a capitalization rate of 4.7%, which reflects a

0.5% premium over a market rate cap rate of 4.2% less debt financing. A cap rate is used rather than a return on cost as the developer receives a return through a developer fee included in project costs.

I. Affordable Prototype
II. Development Costs (1)
III. Supported Financing Per Unit
IV. Affordability Gap per Unit
Rental
2 [2] Maximum rents per Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for projects utilizing Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Moderate rents at 30% of 110% AMI, per Rise Housing methodology.
_________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; nexus gaps Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 8
Development Costs for Recent Affordable Housing Projects in Sonoma County In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
Meridian at
Corona Stn.

Redwood
Glen Apts
Shiloh
Crossing
Bennett
Valley
Burbank
Avenue Apts
Casa
Roseland
Average, All
Projects
Average,
Prevailing
Wage
Projects
City Petaluma Windsor Windsor Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Number of Units 131 43 173 62 64 75 91 67
Density 32.75 28.1 29.22 32.63 30.92 49.01 34 38
Avg No. Bedrooms (1) 1.78 2.86 1.77 1.57 1.97 1.95 2.0 1.8 Prevailing Wages no no no yes yes yes
Land $81,000 $24,000 $17,000 $39,000 $56,000 $31,000 $41,000 $42,000 Direct Construction $317,000 $269,000 $268,000 $489,000 $434,000 $642,000 $403,000 $522,000 Indirect Costs $137,000 $149,000 $137,000 $176,000 $178,000 $178,000 $159,000 $177,000 Financing $27,000 $23,000 $37,000 $40,000 $34,000 $82,000 $41,000 $52,000 Total Development Cost $562,000 $465,000 $459,000 $745,000 $702,000 $932,000 $644,000 $793,000 (1) For purposes of average bedroom size calculations, studios are treated as having zero bedrooms.

Source: Applications submitted for 2022 low-income housing tax credits; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\Draft In-Lieu Fee Analysis 3.21.23; recent TC projects Agenda Item #8.1:

Appendix Table 9
2018 Residential Nexus Findings with Updated Affordability Gaps In Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Sonoma, CA
AFFORDABLE UNIT DEMAND PER MARKET RATE UNIT(1)
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4
Household Income Level
Under 30% AMI 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
6 30% to 50% AMI 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03
6 50% to 80% AMI 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.04
6 80% to 120% AMI 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03
Total Employee Households <120% AMI 0.27 0.15 0.14 0.10 TOTAL NEXUS COST PER SQUARE FOOT(3)
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4
Avg. Unit Size (SF)(4) 2,500 SF 1,400 SF 1,050 SF 950 SF Household Income Level
Under 30% AMI $368,000 $3.10 $3.40 $3.90 $3.10
6 30% to 50% AMI $289,000 $9.10 $9.50 $11.00 $8.60
6 50% to 80% AMI $249,000 $9.90 $10.20 $11.90 $9.70
6 80% to 120% AMI $297,000 $8.20 $8.20 $9.50 $8.00
Total Supported Fee Per Sq.Ft. $30.30 $31.30 $36.30 $29.40 Notes:

2. Assumes affordable rental units. See Appendix Table 7.

1. Households of retail, education, healthcare and other workers that serve residents of new market rate units. Source:

Table C-3, Residential Nexus Analysis prepared for City of Sonoma by Keyser Marston Associates, February 2018.

Affordability Gap
Per Unit2

4. Residential Nexus Analysis prepared for City of Sonoma by Keyser Marston Associates, February 2018.

3. Nexus cost per square foot calculated by multiplying the affordable unit demand by the affordability gap and dividing by the average unit size.

Number of New Households
Nexus Cost Per Square Foot(3)
Larger Lot
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Lot
Single Family
Detached
Townhome /
Condominium
Rental
Apartments
Larger Lot
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Lot
Single Family
Detached
Townhome /
Condominium
Rental
Apartments
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\19\19331\004\App Tab 9 res nexus updated gaps; 3/23/2023; dd Agenda Item #8.1:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 May 2023
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Kristina Tierney, Associate Planner
Agenda Item Title
Discussion, Consideration, and Take Possible Action to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with De Novo Planning Group to Provide Consulting Services to the City to Prepare an Updated General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for an Amount Not to Exceed $591,690, and Finding that the Action to Award the Contract is Not a Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Summary
Background
In January 2023 the City Council identified initiating the General Plan Update as a 6-month and One Year priority goal during the 2023 Council goal setting. A General Plan is each local government’s blueprint for meeting the community’s long-term vision for the future. General Plans are required by California law to address the mandated elements in Government Code section 65302, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The City’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2006 and encompasses a time frame from 2006 – 2020. Since 2006, the Housing Element has been regularly updated and re-adopted on the cycle prescribed by the State. Besides updating the Circulation Element in 2017, none of the other elements have been comprehensively revised since 2006.

Legislative Updates and Requirements
There have been several changes to State Planning and Zoning Law that General Plans must address. General Plans still must cover seven primary elements; however, within the context of these overarching elements, the State has provided direction on how to cover specific topics including:
• Climate change and resiliency
• Environmental justice
• Wildfire risk
• Urban/wildland interface
• Flooding
• Complete streets and
• Transportation impact metrics (vehicle miles traveled).

The General Plan update will address new state law requirements enacted since the last update in 2006, including the following bills which require updates to the Community Development, Environmental Resources, Circulation, and Public Safety elements (note that only the Local Economy and Noise elements are not required to be updated by these regulations):

Agenda Item #9.1:

• Flood Control (California Assembly Bill No. 162 and Senate Bill No. 5, 2007) - AB 162 requires cities and counties to update specified elements (land use, safety, and conservation) of the general plan to account for flood management and protection. AB 162 expands the general plan requirements for flood management. • Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (California Senate Bill No. 375, 2008) - The legislation requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to look at the interface between land use and transportation. It also requires MPOs to develop strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is a precursor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
• Fire Protection (California Senate Bill No. 1241, 2012) - SB 1241 requires the safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). • Transportation Impacts (California Senate Bill No. 743, 2013) - Required OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS (level of service) for evaluating transportation impacts. Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, vehicle miles traveled per employee, and net vehicle miles traveled.” Statewide implementation of new VMTbased metrics was required by July 1, 2020. However, SB 743 leaves it up to local jurisdictions to establish the methodology to calculate VMT and the appropriate thresholds and significance criteria. The existing General Plan utilized Level of Service, not VMT and needs to be updated to comply.
• Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies (California Senate Bill No. 379, 2015) - SB 379 requires cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety element of their general plan upon the next revision of their housing element or upon the next update to their general plan. The requirements took effect beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for the respective community based on the most current information available regarding climate change adaptation and resiliency. It also requires cities and counties to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives and specified feasible implementation measures based on this information. • Environmental Justice (California Senate Bill No. 1000, 2016) - SB 1000 requires that when a City revises two or more General Plan elements concurrently and has areas defined as “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs), the City must address environmental justice (EJ) in their General Plan. The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (“CalEnviroScreen”) version 4.0, developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is the recommended method to identify DACs. CalEPA defines a DAC as a “low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” CalEnviroScreen assigns composite scores to census tracts in California based on aggregate data from 21 indicators including potential exposures to pollutants, adverse environmental conditions, socioeconomic factors, and the prevalence of certain health conditions. Census tracts with a composite CalEnviroScreen score of 75 or higher are considered DACs. The City of Sonoma has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score of 14. Based on this score, Sonoma is not considered a DAC; indicators listed in the element can still be incorporated into the plan based on community and City Council input.

Agenda Item #9.1:

• Emergency Evacuation Routes (California Assembly Bill No. 747 and Senate Bill No. 99) - Assembly Bill (AB) 747, approved in October 2019, requires cities and counties to update the safety element of their general plan to identify evacuation routes and assess the capacity, safety, and viability of those routes under a range of emergency scenarios. Senate Bill (SB) 99, approved in August 2019, similarly requires jurisdictions to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. State guidance has not yet been developed to determine the type and level of analysis needed under AB 747 or SB 99. • Evacuation Locations (California Assembly Bill No. 1409, 2021) - AB 1409 requires local jurisdictions to amend the safety element of the general plan to identify evacuation locations, in addition to evacuation routes, for identified fire and seismic hazards within the jurisdiction. The additional information required for the safety element must be completed upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan by Jan. 1, 2022, or by Jan. 1, 2022, if a local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan. Cities and counties need to evaluate sites for potential evacuation locations as part of any revision to the general plan safety element. AB 1409 provides no guidance for determining appropriate evacuation sites. As a result, local jurisdictions need to consider various factors when evaluating their appropriateness, including accessibility to evacuation routes, capacity, suitability, proximity to emergency services, and short and long-term appropriateness.

In addition, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated its General Plan Guidelines in 2017, which must be considered and followed when undertaking a General Plan Update. This is also an opportunity to ensure internal consistency between the General Plan and the City’s newly-adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element.

General Plan Update
This General Plan update will provide the City with the opportunity to review its existing General Plan elements, add elements, revise and update its policies, objectives, and goals, and guide growth in the community through the year 2045. While the current General Plan does a good job of articulating the City’s desires to remain a beautiful, environmentally friendly, and safe place, widely recognized as one of the most desirable cities in Northern California to live, visit and do business, the General Plan update provides an excellent opportunity to reassess how the City will accomplish these goals, given changing economic conditions, climate change, housing conditions, and new State requirements. This General Plan update would update all existing elements (except the Housing Element recently updated and adopted by HCD), including the introduction of new topics including Historic and Archeological Resources, Equity, Sustainability and Climate Change, and Parks, Open Space and Recreation. The updated General Plan would these elements:
• Community Development Element (Land Use)
• Local Economy Element
• Environmental Resources Element
• Circulation Element
• Public Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Housing Element
• Historic and Archeological Resources
Agenda Item #9.1:

• Environmental Justice and Equity
• Sustainability and Climate Change
• Parks, Open Space and Recreation.

Ultimately, the goal of this update is to produce a General Plan that is accessible and implementable.

Request for Proposal Process and Recommended Contract
To select a consultant to assist the City with this effort, staff circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) from December 5, 2022 to January 20, 2023 and received four proposals (from De Novo Planning Group, M-Group, AECOM, and Dyett and Bhatia). Proposals ranged in price substantially from $451,977 to $925,630.

The City review team included five representatives from the City Manager's office, Planning and Community Services, and the Department of Public Works who reviewed and scored the proposals according the rubric distributed with the RFP. Each proposal was scored based on organization of the proposal, cost proposal, staff qualifications and approach, project scope, schedule of work, the in person presentation, and questions and answers with the panel. In person interviews were held on February 22, 2023 with the top three firms, De Novo, AECOM, and M-Group.

Staff unanimously selected De Novo Planning Group ($591,690) as the team that best fits the City’s needs based on its successful experience with the City of Sonoma Housing Element, and local projects such as the Sonoma Springs Specific Plan and General Plans for the City of Sebastopol and Cotati. De Novo Planning Group would serve as the prime consultant for this contract with the City and would be supplemented by a well qualified team of subconsultants, including W-Trans (traffic), BAE Urban Economics, Peak and Associates (cultural), and Saxelby Acoustics (noise).

The proposed budget of $591,690 would include approximately $435,000 for developing the General Plan and $103,000 for the associated EIR. The General Plan budget is broken down further by task below:

Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Collection - $9,470
Task 2: Community Participation Program - $53,960
Task 3: Existing Conditions Report - $143,730
Task 4: Issues, Opportunities, and Land Use Alternatives - $59,570 Task 5a: Draft General Plan - $114,820
Task 5a: Final General Plan - $18,850
Task 7: Meetings and Project Management - $34,680
The total of $591,690 includes a 10 percent contingency fund, which could be used toward the optional tasks or to address additional community outreach or public meetings needed. This contingency fund could only be utilized with staff authorization. The two optional tasks for Council consideration are described below.
• Optional Task 1) Level of Service (LOS) Analysis: An analysis of intersection LOS for key intersections and roadway segments in or abutting the City of Sonoma as part of Agenda Item #9.1:

the Preferred Plan transportation analysis. Optional Task 1 would cost an additional $18,850.
• Optional Task 2) Fiscal Analysis for Preferred Land Use Map: Fiscal impact analysis to project the impact of General Plan buildout on the City’s General Fund costs and revenues. Optional Task 2 would cost an additional $16,090.

As a result of the extended General Plan timeframe (anticipated to be 20 to 30 years), staff recommends that both the optional tasks be implemented to maximize data available for decision-makers during the alternatives analysis and Preferred Land Use Map selection process; however, these funding decisions can be made later. Staff recommends moving forward with the existing proposal and revisit the need for the optional tasks at a later date.

The contract before City Council for approval is for a total of $591,690 and includes both the General Plan Update and the associated EIR. This professional services contract is before City Council for approval as it exceeds $25,000, in compliance with the City of Sonoma procurement policy. Funding for this project would be available from the general fund and is anticipated to be recouped in the future through a fee for long range planning received as new developments are issued building permits.

Timeline
The General Plan Update process will occur in a 24-month period, over 3 calendar years, as summarized below:
2023
• Project Initiation
• Community Outreach and Participation
• Existing Conditions Report
2024
• Community Outreach and Participation
• Issues, Opportunities, and Land Alternatives
• Draft General Plan
2025
• Community Outreach and Participation
• Final General Plan and EIR
Given the long timeframe required to complete this effort, staff recommends initiating the process now to ensure adequate time for the City to engage the public, conduct visioning workshops, develop General Plan alternatives, and conduct environmental review ahead of the next 8 year Housing Element Cycle.

Community Outreach and Participation
A large component of the General Plan process will be a robust effort to engage the public in the General Plan Update process. The City and De Novo will conduct targeted and meaningful public outreach, including Visioning Workshops, Community-wide open house workshops, joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshops, stakeholder outreach and interviews, adoption hearings, and extensive digital outreach. There will be a General Plan Update website maintained throughout the General Plan Update process which will provide regular updates Agenda Item #9.1:

regarding the status of the General Plan, identify the schedule of upcoming meetings, provide agendas for meetings, and serve as a library of General Plan documents, including staff reports, meeting agendas, technical reports, and public review drafts. The website will also provide a forum to receive comments on the General Plan Update process, and will host a variety of polls and surveys to foster increased public participation in the process.

Next Steps
The first step in the process will be a joint public meeting held before the City Council and Planning Commission and will serve as an opportunity for City leadership to meet the consultant team. The meeting will serve as a “General Plan 101” with an overview of the General Plan process, including key steps, and opportunities for public involvement. This will also provide an opportunity for the PC and CC to provide input on key issues, challenges, and priorities for the General Plan Update to address. This meeting could tentatively take place on June 19, 2023.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with De Novo Planning Group to Provide Consulting Services to the City to Prepare an Updated General Plan and EIR for an amount not to Exceed $591,690, and finding that the action to award the contract is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Alternative Actions
1) Provide direction to amend the proposal
2) Council discretion.

Financial Impact
The City allocated $506,000 to fund the General Plan update in 2020 and the remainder was allocated on April 19, 2023, with a mid-year budget amendment. A portion of this funding is anticipated to be recovered through the proposed Long Range Planning Fee.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution - De Novo
Proposal - De Novo
Budget - De Novo
Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:

Agenda Item #9.1:

n/a
Agenda Item #9.1:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______- 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP TO PROVIDE

CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE CITY TO PREPARE THE SONOMA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $591,690 AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION TO AWARD THE CONTRACT IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

WHEREAS, the City desires and is required to update its General Plan (last adopted in 2006) and needs to hire a consultant to prepare the updated General Plan and its associated environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Request For Proposals (RFP) from December 5, 2022 to January 20, 2023 and received four proposals (from De Novo Planning Group, M-Group, AECOM, and Dyett and Bhatia). The City review team included five representatives from the City Manager's office, Planning and Community Services, and the Department of Public Works who reviewed and scored the proposals according the rubric distributed with the RFP.

WHEREAS, City staff followed up with in person interviews on February 22, 2023 with the top three firms, De Novo, AECOM, and M-Group. Staff unanimously selected De Novo Planning Group as the team that best fits the City’s needs based on its successful experience with the Housing Element, and local projects such as the Sonoma Springs Specific Plan and General Plans for the City of Sebastopol and Cotati; and WHEREAS, the City has budgeted $506,000 towards the total cost of $591,690 for the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, a mid-year budget adjustment of $85,690 was previously approved to cover the difference between the proposed budget and the existing allocation. This balance is anticipated to be covered by a proposed longrange planning fee on building permit applications that would accumulate during the 24-month General Plan process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with De Novo Planning Group to provide consulting services to the City to prepare the Sonoma General Plan Update and environmental impact report (EIR) for an amount not to exceed $591,690; and
PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council on this 17th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

CITY OF SONOMA

PROPOSAL TO PREPARE THE SONOMA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
SUBMITTED ON:

January 17, 2023
SUBMITTED TO:

City of Sonoma
Planning Department
Attn: Kristina Tierney
1 the Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
SUBMITTED BY:

De Novo Planning Group
Contact: Ben Ritchie, Principal
1020 Suncast Ln #106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 949-3231
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

W-Trans
BAE Urban Economics
Peak and Associates
Saxelby Acoustics
Agenda Item #9.1:

D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

D E N O V O P L A N N I N G G R O U P
1 0 2 0 S U N C A S T LA NE , S U IT E 1 0 6 , E L D O RA D O H I LLS , C A 9 5 7 6 2 b r i t c h i e@ d e n o vo p l a n n i n g . c om | ( 9 1 6 ) 949- 3231 January 17, 2023
City of Sonoma
Planning Department
Attn: Kristina Tierney
#1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476-6618
SUBJECT: Proposal to Prepare the Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Dear Ms. Tierney:

Speaking on behalf of the entire De Novo Planning Team, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to comprehensively update the City of Sonoma’s General Plan, and prepare the corresponding Program EIR. Based on our past work and knowledge of the unique needs of smaller cities in Sonoma County, our review of the existing General Plan, and extensive recent experience preparing a wide range of planning and environmental projects throughout the region, we are confident that we have assembled a first-class team to undertake this exciting project and deliver the City with a world-class General Plan and EIR within a very competitively priced budget and schedule.

Our team will provide the City with an energetic and dedicated group of professionals with exceptional skills and qualifications. We are 100% committed to this project and will allocate our resources and energy in a way that will exceed all expectations, leaving the City with a useful General Plan that satisfies the community and your elected officials. Our goal is to serve as an extension of your staff in a capacity that will provide the tools, research, and professional knowledge to help craft a General Plan that will implement the vision of the City Council, staff, and the community.

We take tremendous pride in our ability to not only craft exceptional general plans, but to also prepare a useful and legally defensible EIR, which will serve the City well for years to come. We propose to craft the General Plan to be a self-mitigating document, wherein the policies and actions contained in the General Plan will also serve as implementing mitigation measures to be applied at the project level during the processing of subsequent applications and City programs. This proven approach has been very successful in reducing the burdens placed on staff and the development community following general plan adoption.

De Novo Planning Group would serve as the prime consultant for this contract with the City. We are joined by our excellent team of subconsultants, including W-Trans (traffic), BAE Urban Economics, Peak and Associates (cultural), and Saxelby Acoustics (noise). This project team has worked together on numerous recent General Plan Updates and EIRs, including the cities of Cotati, Sebastopol, Milpitas, and Lathrop, to name just a few.

Agenda Item #9.1:

To: M s . K r i s t i n a T ie r n e y , As s o c i a te P l a nn e r S u b je c t : P r o p o s a l t o p r e pa r e t he S o n o ma Ge n e r al P l a n Up d a te a nd E I R D a t e : J a n u a r y 17 , 20 2 3

D E N O V O P L A N N I N G G R O U P
1 0 2 0 S U N C A S T LA NE , S U IT E 1 0 6 , E L D O RA D O H I LLS , C A 9 5 7 6 2 b r i t c h i e@ d e n o vo p l a n n i n g . c om | ( 9 1 6 ) 949- 3231 Our team is led by De Novo Principal, Ben Ritchie, who will serve as the manager and principal in charge for this project. Mr. Ritchie is an owner/officer with the firm, and is authorized to negotiate on the firm’s behalf. Mr. Ritchie’s contact information is provided in the footer of this page. De Novo Principal, Beth Thompson will serve as the co-Project Manager, and will assist the project team throughout the entire process.

We have structured this scope of work to best meet the City’s needs, as we understand them. However, I would like to emphasize that we are more than happy to work collaboratively with the City to refine this scope of work and approach to best meet the City’s needs and expectations for this very important project.

As described in greater detail in this proposal, we have extensive experience working in smaller communities with historical downtowns and tourism-oriented economies located in Sonoma County and beyond, including comprehensive General Plans and EIRs for the cities of Cotati, Sebastopol, Brentwood, Manteca, Jackson, Willows, and Lathrop.

We look forward to the opportunity to meet with you either in person or via video call to further discuss our proposal and our approach to the preparation of your General Plan and EIR. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 949-3231 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Ben Ritchie, Principal
Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
i
i
i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
WORK PLAN 3
EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS 4
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP (PRIME CONSULTANT) 4
DE NOVO KEY STAFF 6
SUBCONSULTANTS 9
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE 14
PROJECT ROLES AND ORGANIZATION 21
MANAGEMENT APPROACH 22
TECHNICAL APPROACH 24
SCOPE OF WORK 26
TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION 26
TASK 2 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION 26
TASK 3 – EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 29
TASK 4- ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 33 TASK 5 –GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 35
TASK 6- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 38
TASK 7- MEETINGS, HEARINGS, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 41
OPTIONAL TASKS 42
DEDICATED PROJECT WEBSITE 42
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS 42
FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR PREFERRED LAND USE MAP 42
SCHEDULE 43
CONFLICTS, LITIGATION, AND CONTRACT 45
SELECT SUBCONSULTANT PROJECT EXAMPLES 46
PROJECT MANAGER RESUME 49
Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
ii De Novo Planning Group
This page left intentionally blank
Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
1 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Sonoma is seeking a qualified consulting firm who has demonstrated and relevant General Plan Update experience, to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan and prepare an EIR in compliance with CEQA.

The successful consultant team must be familiar with the unique needs of communities in Sonoma County, and must have demonstrated success implementing a wide range of community outreach and participation tools, in order to maximize meaningful public participation, gain community support, and ensure that the Plan carries forward the vision and values of Sonoma residents, businesses, and leadership. As demonstrated throughout this proposal, the De Novo team is uniquely well-qualified to undertake this project. Our project team has completed comprehensive General Plan updates for the cities of Cotati and Sebastopol, we are currently working with Sonoma County on the preparation of The Springs Specific Plan and EIR (located immediately north of the City), and we currently preparing the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

The City is seeking a firm that will lead and manage all aspects of the General Plan Update, while coordinating with staff, the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The successful firm will be able to complete this comprehensive work effort within a reasonable schedule and will maintain strict adherence to the project budget. The General Plan shall be prepared in accordance with State of California General Plan Guidelines and with California Government Code Section 65350 et seq. The EIR shall be completed in accordance with the Public Resources Code and applicable CEQA Guidelines.

The City’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2006 with exception of the Housing Element, which has been regularly updated and re-adopted on the cycle prescribed by the State.

This General Plan update will provide the City with the opportunity to review its existing General Plan elements, add elements, revise and update its policies, objectives, and goals, and guide growth in the community through the year 2045. While the current General Plan does a good job of articulating the City’s desires to remain a beautiful, environmentally friendly, and safe place, widely recognized as one of the most desirable cities in Northern California to live, visit and do business, the General Plan update provides an excellent opportunity to reassess how the City will accomplish these goals in light of changing economic conditions, housing conditions, and new State requirements.

There have been a number of changes to state Planning and Zoning Law in regards to the topics General Plans are required to address. General Plans are still required to cover seven primary elements: land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. However, within the context of these overarching elements the State has provided direction on how to cover specific topics including climate change and resiliency, environmental justice, wildfire risk, urban/wildland interface, flooding, complete streets, and transportation impact metrics. In addition, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated its General Plan Guidelines in 2017, which must be considered and followed when undertaking a General Plan Update. Our team has completed several comprehensive General Plan updates utilizing OPR’s current Guidelines.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
2 De Novo Planning Group
A comprehensive General Plan Update—whereby the City updates the entire General Plan at once and prepares a program-EIR—provides the City with the opportunity to engage the community in a robust discussion regarding the City’s vision and values. This is a chance for the City to create a Vision Statement and clearly articulate the community’s contemporary goals, policies and desired implementation actions. By addressing all topics at once, the City can address critical topics from a broad perspective, realize better public involvement due to increased scope and momentum, achieve full CEQA coverage at once, and benefit from a shorter schedule and reduced costs.

A solid General Plan is the bedrock for future growth and development in the City and it supports other critical City plans and programs, including Specific Plans, park planning, fees, and infrastructure master plans.

As noted in our work plan, this proposal would include a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan elements, and includes the introduction of new topics including Historic and Archeological Resources, Environmental Justice, Sustainability and Climate Change, and Parks and Recreation. Each of these new topics will be addressed via a robust set of goals, policies, and implementation actions. We will work collaboratively with the City to determine if these new topics should be addressed within other General Plan Elements, or if new Elements should be included in the updated General Plan.

The key components of our proposed work plan are outlined below.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
3 3

WORK PLAN
This Scope of Work is divided into the following components:

General Plan Update

1. Project Initiation

2. Community Participation Program

3. Existing Conditions Report and Market Study

4. Issues, Opportunities, and Land Use Refinements

5. General Plan Update

6. General Plan Adoption

7. Meetings and Project Management
Environmental Impact Report

1. EIR Project Initiation (Kick-off, NOP, Scoping)

2. Draft Environmental Impact Report

3. Final Environmental Impact Report

4. Meetings and Project Management
Optional Tasks

1. Fiscal Analysis of Preferred Land Use Map

2. Traffic LOS Analysis of Preferred Land Use Map

3. Dedicated Project Website (Sonoma.generalplan.org)
Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
4 De Novo Planning Group

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP (PRIME CONSULTANT)
De Novo Planning Group is a land use and environmental planning firm specializing in community planning, environmental studies, and sustainability planning. The founding principals have successfully completed over 300 projects consisting of general plans, specific plans, housing elements, environmental impact reports, negative declarations, initial studies, NEPA analyses, climate action plans, biological assessments, wetland delineations, and development projects throughout California. De Novo Planning Group incorporated in July 2008.

We understand that the City desires a comprehensive General Plan Update that addresses all relevant regulatory requirements and builds off of the community’s assets and values. We weave economic development opportunities and fiscal sustainability principles into the planning process, emphasizing an extensive public involvement process to help residents and decisionmakers reach consensus on a vision for their community’s future, assisted by a meticulous process of information gathering.

The cornerstone of our approach to this project is the extensive use of Principal level planners for all aspects of the project. Our Principals, whom are also owners of the firm, are present for all project meetings, draft all sections of all documents prepared throughout the process, and maintain open and continuous lines of communication with City staff throughout the entire project. We take tremendous pride in our ability to consistently exceed our clients’ expectations and deliver on our commitments. We encourage the City to contact our references to inquire about our recent performance preparing complex projects.

OUR MI SS I O N
Our mission is to provide municipal and private sector clients with world-class professional services, through principal-level attention to every project. We pride ourselves on our ability to work with clients to balance the often conflicting goals of economic, social, environmental, legal, and political forces. Our services result in an integrated planning and environmental solution for every project that is technically sound, cost effective and delivered within the client's schedule.

OUR PH I L O S O PHY
Our philosophy is to proactively plan and design projects in such a way that public and environmental concerns are addressed and accommodated early in the process. We strongly believe in the use of local knowledge for developing sensible and cost-effective solutions to local concerns. Our solutions integrate local knowledge with the best available resources to achieve recognized national and international standards for planning and environmental management, to achieve a balance in local economic, social, and environmental goals. De Novo Planning Group is dedicated to fostering a partnership with each agency we serve, through listening to the community and stakeholders and reflecting the ideas and concerns we hear in the approach developed for each project.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
5 5

PR O V E N SUC C ES S I N GE NE R A L PL A N UPDA TE S
At De Novo, we pride ourselves on delivering unparalleled work quality and ensuring high levels of client satisfaction on all of our projects. Our team of Principals own the firm, and we approach each and every project with exceptional levels of energy, enthusiasm, and accountability. All of the general plan projects that we have undertaken as a firm have been highly successful. We strongly encourage the City to contact all of our general plan references to inquire about the quality of our work, the responsiveness of our management team, and our ability to adapt to project changes without altering our budget.

PR O GR E S SI V E PLA NNI NG IDE A S , CO NC E PT S , A ND DE S I GN SKI L LS The De Novo team includes individuals with broad urban planning knowledge and ideologies that will serve to create a General Plan that is progressive and reflects the City's philosophies, beliefs, and values. Our team includes firms with recent local experience and an understanding of pertinent local and regional issues. We have extensive experience preparing General Plans for communities facing growth and economic development pressures, while balancing the desire to retain community charm and character. We have selected a team that is extremely well suited to develop a General Plan that promotes a vibrant and thriving community supported by a land use plan, circulation plan, and policy framework that is based on the values identified by the community.

ONE PR O JE C T TE AM F O R A L L AS PEC T S O F T HE GE NE R A L PL A N UPDA TE We have assembled a focused group of Principal-level planners who will be dedicated to all aspects of this project from start to finish. De Novo’s principal and senior-level staff will serve as the primary authors of each document prepared as part of this work effort (Background Report, General and EIR). By using the same focused team of planners for all stages of this process, we will ensure that each document prepared as part of this process is written in a manner that will maximize its utility later in the process.

BE NE F I T S OF A REL A T IV E L Y SMA L L PLA NNI NG FI R M The De Novo Principals have served as senior project managers with larger consulting firms in California, and through this experience we have gained intimate knowledge of the operational inefficiencies of large firms and the burdens that they can cause public agencies. Larger firms tend to carry cumbersome over-head costs, which results in the need for higher hourly billing rates, frequent contract modifications, and can have high staff turnover, which causes changes in project managers midstream during a project. Because we remain small we are able to offer our clients with significantly lower rates, while still providing our clients with Principal-level attention to each project. We pride ourselves on our ability to deliver on our commitments, exceed expectations, and satisfy our clients with quality work on schedule and on time. Since your project managers are also firm owners, you can rest assured that there will be team continuity throughout the entire General Plan Update process.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
6 De Novo Planning Group

EXC E PT I O NA L EIR EXPE R I E NC E
Our team is well experienced with managing Environmental Impact Reports for a variety of longrange policy-level planning documents, including General Plans, Housing Elements, Specific Plans, Redevelopment Plans, Air Quality Elements, Circulation Elements, and Regional Transportation Plans, as well as complex development projects including mixed use, alternative energy, hospitals, schools, and parks. Our broad experience is described in detail below.

FI NA NC I A L ST A BI LI T Y
Our firm is financially stable, and there are no pending issues or concerns that would in any way impair our ability to deliver on our client commitments. The firm has no past or pending litigation, no planned office closures, and no planned mergers. Additionally, we carry no debt whatsoever, and we own our office building outright, which allows us to keep our overhead costs exceptionally low.

DE NOVO KEY STAFF

BE N RI T C H I E - PR I NCI PA L PL A NNE R A ND PR O JE CT MA NA GE R Mr. Ritchie is a Founding Principal with De Novo and is responsible for managing long range planning documents, completing
complex and controversial CEQA documents, and facilitating community outreach and public communications efforts for the firm. Mr. Ritchie will serve as Project Manager and will be the primary point of contact with City staff.

Mr. Ritchie’s experience includes a variety of land use, transportation, and sustainability projects throughout California.

Mr. Ritchie recently served as the Project Manager for the City of Cotati General Plan and EIR, the City of Sebastopol General Plan and EIR, the City of Milpitas General Plan and EIR, the City of Brentwood General Plan and EIR, and the City of Lathrop General Plan and EIR, among several others. He is currently serving as the project manager for the Red Bluff, Glenn County, Willows, Campbell and Jackson General Plans.

Mr. Ritchie is very adept at leading and facilitating the public outreach, visioning, and consensus building process required for a successful General Plan Update. Mr. Ritchie has extensive experience communicating complex topics in public forums in a manner that enhances community participation, understanding, and interest in community planning topics.

Mr. Ritchie is an expert in Green House Gasses and has developed a partnership with the Attorney General’s office and ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability to develop methodologies that local agencies can implement to address climate change at the local level and to achieve compliance with AB 32 and SB 32. Mr. Ritchie served as the Environmental Coordinator for the City of Rancho Cordova, where he oversaw the environmental planning division and the preparation of all CEQA documents prepared by staff and outside consultants.

This experience has given Mr. Ritchie the knowledge of how local agencies use and implement planning documents, and specifically general plans, on a day to day basis. He has extensive experience preparing the full range of General Plan Elements and General Plan EIRs.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
7 7
Mr. Ritchie graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a Master of City and Regional Planning. He is regularly invited back to Cal Poly to guestlecture in the City and Regional Planning Department.

BE T H TH O M PS O N - PRI NC I PA L PLA NNE R
Ms. Thompson is a Founding Principal with De Novo with over 25 years of professional planning experience. Her
responsibilities include general plan preparation and
management, senior review of environmental documents,
environmental planning, Housing Element updates, policy document preparation, and contract planning.

Ms. Thompson specializes in Community Planning, CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act compliance. Her
experience includes the preparation and management of
numerous General Plan projects, including the Colusa County General Plan Update, Cotati General Plan Update, Brentwood General Plan Update, Sebastopol General Plan Update and Zoning Code, Half Moon Bay General Plan Housing Element, Zoning Code, and Land Use Element/Local Coastal Program Revisions, City of Lakeport Housing Element Update, City of Escalon Housing, Air Quality, Circulation, and Land Use Elements Update, Town of Paradise Housing Element Update, and City of Lakeport Housing Element Update. Ms.

Thompson also has extensive experience preparing and managing General Plan EIRs, including the City of Colusa GP EIR, the City of Manteca Circulation Element Update EIR, the City of Jackson Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, the El Dorado County General Plan Amendment EIR, the City of Elk Grove General Plan Amendment EIRs, the Mendocino County General Plan EIR, and senior CEQA review of the City of Livingston General Plan Master EIR. Ms. Thompson is an industry leader in the field of Housing Elements, and General Plan EIRs, and she has a proven track record of successfully completing complex and legally defensible environmental and planning documents. Ms. Thompson graduated from the University of California, Davis with a bachelor’s degree in Environmental and Resource Sciences.

ST A R LA BA R KE R, AICP - PR I NCI PA L PLA NNE R
Starla Barker, AICP, is a principal planner with De Novo Planning Group and is primarily responsible for the management and preparation of Hazard Mitigation Plans, environmental documents (Initial Studies, Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Reports, and Environmental Assessments), and General Plans. With over 20 years of professional planning experience, Starla has successfully managed a wide range of projects with particular emphasis in hazard mitigation planning and urban infill, transit-oriented development, downtown, redevelopment, and General Plan projects. Utilizing her vast background and understanding of the interrelatedness of comprehensive planning, hazard mitigation, and environmental compliance, Starla develops and integrates context-sensitive mitigation strategies that contribute to and improve the resiliency and safety of communities throughout California. Starla is also regularly involved in land use and policy planning, including the development and implementation of community outreach programs, typically leading community engagement and facilitation activities for her projects.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
8 De Novo Planning Group
WI L L I AM CR E NS HA W – SE NI O R PLA NNE R
Mr. Crenshaw is a Senior Planner with De Novo Planning Group, and is responsible for project support, management and research in the preparation of environmental documents, and General Plans. He has been with De Novo for over 8 years, and has served as a key planner for comprehensive General Plan Updates in Lathrop, Manteca, Campbell, Milpitas, Willows, Jackson, Glenn County, and Red Bluff. Mr.

Crenshaw’s General Plan project work has included public outreach, research, environmental document writing, and policy preparation. He graduated from UCLA in 2011 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Geography, and continued his studies at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo where he received a Master of City and Regional Planning (MCRP).

Throughout his academic endeavors, he received multiple honors including two UCLA scholarship recognition awards “In recognition of high achievement and outstanding promise,” as well as the 2013 Errett Fisher Foundation Scholarship.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
9 9

SUBCONSULTANTS
We are proud to partner with the following firms to complete the Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR. The project team identified below has worked with De Novo on over a dozen General Plan Updates, including but not limited to: Cotati, Sebastopol, Lathrop, Manteca, Campbell, Colusa County, Glenn County, Willows, and Jackson. Our track record of successful collaboration has resulted in a seamless team of professionals prepared to offer the City the highest level of professionalism and synergy.

W-TRA NS (TRA FFIC A ND CIRC U LA TION)
For nearly 25 years, W-Trans has provided traffic engineering and transportation planning services to the City of Sonoma, ranging from traffic operations and safety studies to longrange transportation network planning and analyses, including the 2016 Circulation Element update. W-Trans has also worked extensively with SCTA in completing modeling for the in Sonoma and throughout the County. W-Trans will capitalize on their familiarity with Sonoma, SCTA, and the region to help the team craft an effective Circulation Element and informative EIR analysis.

W-Trans provides traffic engineering and transportation planning services that emphasize mobility within available resources and help transform streets to serve all potential users. We are particularly skilled in retrofitting streets and roads to make walking, bicycling and transit use safer and more convenient while also appropriately managing vehicle traffic. We have applied these skills to many different types of projects and programmatic plans, and with the changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that now place more emphasis on non-auto modes versus driver convenience, this long-term focus has become even more important.

Our staff have applied their skills to a variety of projects ranging from analyses for traffic studies, including Initial Studies and EIRs, traffic collision reduction programs, transportation facilities design including traffic signal and roundabout design as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities to downtown revitalization, streetscape planning efforts and complete street projects. We take a holistic approach to traffic engineering, realizing that solutions cannot be developed in a vacuum or strictly follow the standards of the past. Traffic analysis and design must be sensitive to the context of the surrounding land use and community goals to be successful.

W-Trans provides traffic engineering and transportation planning services that emphasize mobility within available resources and help transform streets to serve all potential users. We are particularly skilled in retrofitting streets and roads to make walking, bicycling and transit use safer and more convenient while also appropriately managing vehicle traffic.

Our strength and focus are on balancing the technical needs and functionality of traffic with the desire of communities to create more livable streets and sustainable transportation systems.

Our staff have applied their skills to a variety of projects ranging from traffic operation analyses, traffic collision reduction programs, transportation facilities design including traffic signal and roundabout design to downtown revitalization, streetscape planning efforts and complete street projects. We take a holistic approach to traffic engineering, realizing that solutions cannot be developed in a vacuum or strictly follow the standards of the past. Traffic analysis and design Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
10 De Novo Planning Group
must be sensitive to the context of the surrounding land use and community goals to be successful.

ZA C HA R Y MA T LE Y, AICP – PR I NCI PA L
Zack Matley is a Principal and has a wide focus area ranging from Complete Street areawide planning to a unique specialization in roundabout planning, operations and design. Zack is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Zack would serve as the W-Trans Principal in Charge, overseeing the transportation-related work on the General Plan and EIR transportation analysis.

Zack joined W-Trans in 1998, three years after the company’s founding. His education and experience produce a rare combination of knowledge of the urban and environmental planning disciplines, along with expertise in transportation planning, engineering, and operations. Some of his favorite projects are those that tap into both the planning and engineering realms, including Complete Street retrofits and working on the circulation-related components of Specific Plans, as well as those involving roundabout design and feasibility studies. He has worked closely with Sonoma staff over the years on several projects including the most recent update of the Circulation Element. Zack holds a B.S. degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from the University of California, Davis, and dual M.S. degrees in City and Regional Planning and Engineering from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He is a member of both the American Planning Association (APA) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

BA R R Y BE R GM A N, AICP – SE NI O R PLA NNE R
Barry Bergman is a Senior Planner with a multimodal transportation planning background, specializing in active transportation and grant writing. Barry is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Barry would assist with W-Trans project management and would take the lead in assisting the project team with transportation-related policy development efforts.

Barry completed his Master of Regional Planning (MRP) degree in 1993 at the University of Massachusetts. He joined W-Trans in 2018 with more than 20 years of planning experience, including 17 years in the public sector working on regional plans at the metropolitan planning organization in Baltimore as well as on local plans and projects for the City of Alameda.

Barry specializes in active transportation planning, having managed regional, citywide, corridorlevel, and project-specific plans in rural, suburban, and urban contexts. With an eye toward transportation as a key part of placemaking, he maintains a focus on the larger policy context and with his experience preparing grant applications, strategically guides planning projects to successfully compete for future funding. Barry has led highly inclusive public engagement efforts for numerous plans, working effectively with a broad range of stakeholders, including agency staff, elected officials, business leaders, and community-based organizations.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
De Novo Planning Group 3
-
11 11

BAE URB A N EC ONOMIC S (EC ONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A ND FIS C A L SU S TA INAB ILITY) Since 1986, BAE has focused on creating sustainable
communities by providing real estate economics and
development advisory services to clients throughout the U.S.

BAE’s experience ranges from statewide policy studies to local development projects. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area with additional offices in Davis, CA, Washington D.C., and New York City, our projects reflect our commitment to excellence, stewardship of communities and resources, and dedication to the future of our places.

BAE’s services include feasibility studies, strategic planning, revitalization, public-private transactions, public financing, fiscal and economic impacts analyses, and development advisory services. We have extensive work experience in:
• Development Feasibility
• Public Finance
• Community Facilities, Parks, and Services
• Affordable Housing
• Redevelopment & Revitalization Strategies
• Economic Development
• Public/Private Transactions
• Economic Impacts Analysis
• Place and Site Marketing
Our key asset is our highly-skilled core team of staff members who have worked together for many years. Collectively, our professional staff members bring training in real estate development, city planning, geography, economic development, marketing, and public policy to every engagement. Many BAE staff are experts in community involvement and strategic planning, while others excel in technical analysis and the application of GIS to urban problems.

We have provided public sector real estate advisory services to some of the largest revitalization efforts in the U.S. The outstanding quality of our work has been recognized by the American Planning Association (APA), the Congress for New Urbanism, and other organizations through numerous awards for excellence. The San Francisco Business Times has recognized BAE as one of the 100 Largest Women-Owned Bay Area Businesses each year since 2000.

DA V I D SHI V E R, PRI NC I PA L
David has more than 30 years of real estate market and financial analysis and has worked on many of the Bay Area’s most high-profile planning initiatives and public/private partnerships. His experience includes preparing and managing the preparation of market studies, market rent surveys, project and prototypical project financial analyses, value capture and community benefits studies, fiscal impact studies, economic benefit studies, lease analyses, highest and best use studies, and developer solicitations.

David is currently engaged on or has recently completed real estate market assessments and economic development assignments for the cities of San Francisco, San Carlos, San Rafael, Daly bae urban
economics
Agenda Item #9.1:

Sonoma General Plan Update and EIR Proposal
12 De Novo Planning Group
City, Burlingame, Foster City, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Milpitas, Fremont, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Los Altos.

Over the past 20 years, David assisted NASA in the initial concept planning and subsequent implementation of the award-winning NASA Research Park at Moffett Field. He served as the lead real estate advisor for NASA’s landmark long-term leases to Google, Inc. (for 42-acre office/R&D campus and 1,000-acre airfield), and Clark Realty Capital (for 1,900-unit residential mixed-use development on 45 acres). His work in Silicon Valley keeps him abreast of the latest trends in technology tenant space and facility requirements, mixed-use development, and retail space demand.

David has made numerous presentations of his work to public bodies and professional associations, including CoreNet Global, American Planning Association, American Defense Communities, Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and National Academy of Sciences, and he recently served on ULI Technical Advisory Panels for the cities of Orinda and Dublin.

CH E L S E A GUE R R E R O, VI CE PR ES I DE NT
Ms. Guerrero brings a strong background in market research, economic development and mixed-use residential and commercial to BAE. She is familiar with econometric statistical modeling and specializes in detailed analysis for public policy and land use planning.

Chelsea provides market, feasibility, and fiscal impact analyses for BAE projects throughout California. She has prepared fiscal impact analyses, feasibility analyses, and market studies to support the evaluation of planned and proposed development projects, public policies, and future long-range planning efforts. Her work has helped to inform public policy and land use decisions in jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area, including the cities of Milpitas, Napa, San Ramon, San Rafael, Vallejo, Gilroy, and Menlo Park. She also played a key role supporting the formulation of recent economic development strategies in the cities of Milpitas, San Ramon, San Carlos, and Sunnyvale.

Prior to joining BAE, Chelsea worked at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on its Regional Prosperity Plan, a three-year regional planning initiative funded by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

SA X ELB Y AC OU S TICS (NOIS E)
Mr. Saxelby has been practicing acoustic and noise
control engineering for the past 18 years and is a
Board Certified member of the Institute of Noise
Control Engineering (INCE). He is an expert in the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to noise impacts and has been involved in the preparation of hundreds of noise studies, including CEQA Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND). He is also a recognized expert witness in issues relating to building acoustics and noise control and has given testimony on various legal projects including construction defect claims and CEQA litigation.

Agenda Item #9.1: