Sonoma City Council
December 6, 2023

City Council:

Sandra Lowe, Mayor
John Gurney, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Patricia Farrar-Rivas
Ron Wellander
This meeting of the City Council will be conducted in person, and telephonically through Zoom. The City Council will attend the meeting in person. The public is encouraged to attend either in person or remotely through Zoom.

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

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers, 177 First Street West
Wednesday, December 6, 2023
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131
6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and watches while the meeting is in session.

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

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

Page
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL (Ding, Farrar-Rivas, Gurney, Wellander, Lowe)

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

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS

3. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS

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

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

6. PRESENTATIONS

6.1: Introduction of New Employees

6.2: Presentation by Elise Gonzales, Food Security Network Weaver, Sonoma Valley Catalyst Fund on their Resource Guides for Food Security

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

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

7.2: Receive Minutes from the Regular Meeting of November 15, 2023 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive Minutes.

11.15.2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
4 - 6

7.3: Adopt a Resolution to Accept a Monetary Donation From Traintown to Cover Expenses Associated with a new Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) pedestrian crossings at Broadway at Clay Street (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution.

Agenda Report - Traintown Donation - Pdf
7 - 17

7.4: Adopt a Resolution Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (David Guhin, City Manager) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Opposition Resolution and Letter - Pdf
18 - 31

8. PUBLIC HEARING

8.1: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal by the Applicant of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for the Hotel Project Sonoma (Kristina Tierney, Associate Planner)
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on October 19, 2023 Approving the Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment, including Approving the Reduction of Parking Spaces for the Hotel Project Sonoma, Located at 117, 135, and 153 West Napa Street, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 018-251-067, 018-251-051, 018-251-068, And 018-251-017.” Agenda Report and Attachments - Pdf
Kenwood-Investmenets-Presentation-Handout-Provided-During-Council-Mtg 32 - 205

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

9.1: Joint Powers Agreement and City Policy for Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission (Jennifer M. Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION:
206 - 219

1. Approve City Council Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Powers Agreement between the County of Sonoma and the City of Sonoma continuing the Sonoma Valley Citizens (Community) Advisory Commission, for a period of five years from January 1, 2024, To December 31, 2028.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution amending Policy 2001-1.

Agenda Report - JPA SVCAC - Pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council:

Sandra Lowe, Mayor
John Gurney, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Patricia Farrar-Rivas
Ron Wellander

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Wednesday, November 15, 2023

6:00 PM Regular Meeting
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lowe called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS FOR ZOOM ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Public Comment Process for ZOOM Attendance at Meetings

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Gurney, Council Member Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Ding, and Mayor Lowe

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session held.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Vice Mayor Gurney, seconded by Council Member Wellander, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
John Henly provided public comment.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS
None.

3. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Ding attended the Veterans Memorial Ceremony on Saturday, November 11, 2023, along with City Manager Guhin and Vice Mayor Gurney Council Member Farrar-Rivas attended a Sonoma Clean Power meeting on November 2, 2023.

She also pointed out that on November 8, 2023, the Climate Action Commission approved the Climate Action Strategy plan for recommendation to City Council.

On November 4, 2023, Vice Mayor Gurney, along with Council Member Wellander and City Manager Guhin, attended the Veterans Cemetery Clean Up day. Vice Mayor Gurney also reported that the Sonoma Tourism Improvement District meeting scheduled for November 11, 2023, was canceled.

Council Member Wellander attended a Water Advisory Committee meeting on November 6, 2023, as well as a Sonoma County Continuum of Care meeting on November 15, 2023. Council Member Wellander also reported attending the second General Plan Update Kick Off Community Meeting on November 13, 2023.

Mayor Lowe attended Art Walk in Sonoma on November 2, 2023. On November 13, 2023, Mayor Lowe attended a Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting. Mayor Lowe also reported that the Sonoma County Mayor and Councilmembers Association Legislative Committee had the opportunity to meet with Senator Mike McGuire to discuss insurance.

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Guhin informed everyone that the annual Lighting of the Plaza will take place on Saturday, November 18, 2023, starting at 5pm. Mr. Guhin also provided a reminder that City Hall offices will be closed on November 23 and 24 for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. He also acknowledged Oriana Hart, Public Works Administrative and Project Manager, for her service as her last day with the City of Sonoma was today.

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.

6. PRESENTATIONS
Item 6.1: Proclamation Proclaiming November 12-18, 2023, as National Nurse Practitioner Week in the City of Sonoma
Agenda Item #7.2:

Item 6.2: Presentation by the Sonoma Conservatory of Dance by Patty O’Reilly, Executive and Artistic Director
Item 6.3: Presentation by the Himalayan Sherpa Club of Sonoma Regarding Summitting Mt K-2

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Vice Mayor Gurney, to approve the Consent Calendar with Item 7.5 being pulled for separate consideration. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided)
Item 7.2: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of October 2023 (Chuck McBride, Interim Finance Director)
Action: The expenditure report was received.

Item 7.3: Receive Minutes from the Regular Meeting of November 1, 2023 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
Action: Minutes were received.

Item 7.4: Adopt a Resolution Approving Temporary Use of City Streets by Motiv Servicing for the Charles M. Schultz Sonoma County Airport Napa to Sonoma Wine Country Rosé 5K on Saturday, July 20, 2024, and Half Marathon on Sunday, July 21, 2024 (Lisa Janson, Senior Management Analyst)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 70-2023.

Item 7.5: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Task Order in the Amount of $117,926.00 with GHD Inc. under their Master Service Agreement with the City for Design and Engineering Services for the Seventh Street West, W. Spain Street and Maple Street Rehabilitation Project and Various Streets Slurry Seal (Mike Berger, Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Action: Pulled for separate consideration. Adopted as Resolution 73-2023.

Motion by Council Member Wellander, seconded by Council Member Ding, to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Task Order in the Amount of $117,926.00 with GHD Inc. under their Master Service Agreement with the City for Design and Engineering Services for the Seventh Street West, W. Spain Street and Maple Street Rehabilitation Project and Various Streets Slurry Seal. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.6: Adopt a Resolution Taking an Official Position Supporting “THE IMPROVED AND

ENHANCED LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION, PARAMEDIC SERVICES AND
DISASTER RESPONSE INITIATIVE”, Measure on the March 5, 2024, Sonoma County Ballot (Steve Akre, Fire Chief)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 71-2023.

Item 7.7: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract in the Amount of $23,500.00 with Peterson Mechanical Inc. for HVAC Services at the City of Sonoma’s Fire Station No.1 (Mike Berger, Public Works Director/City Engineer) Action: Adopted as Resolution 72-2023.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
None.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Item 9.1: Resolution Appropriating $120,000 from Unallocated General Fund Reserves and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Expenditures for the Placement of 100 Additional Columbaria Units at Mountain and Veterans' Cemeteries, Approval of the Proposed 2023-24 Cemetery Price Lists and Authorization for the City Manager to Outsource Burial Contractor Services (David Guhin, City Manager) Action: Adopted as Resolution 74-2023.

Public Comment: Madolyn Agrimonti, Robert Demler, Fred Allebach and Gary Magnani.

Motion by Council Member Wellander, seconded by Council Member Ding, to Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $120,000 from Unallocated General Fund Reserves and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Expenditures for the Placement of 100 Additional Columbaria Units at Mountain and Veterans' Cemeteries, Approval of the Proposed 2023-24 Cemetery Price Lists and Authorization for the City Manager to Outsource Burial Contractor Services. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Lowe called for recess at 7:34PM; Council reconvened at 7:41PM.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Item 9.2: Traffic Safety Committee Recommendation of Installation of Speed Management Measures on East Napa Street at Fifth Street East (Mike Berger, Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Action: Council provided direction approving the Traffic Safety Committee’s recommendation of the installation of speed management measures on East Napa Street at Fifth Street East.

Council Member Farrar-Rivas disclosed that she had met with James Whittaker, a resident of East Napa Street, on September 27, 2023, as part of her Ex-Parte communications.

Public Comment: Fred Allebach, Richard Mabe, Brian Shien, Tom Conlin, Peter Fitzgerald and Chief Steve Akre.

Motion by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to approve the Traffic Safety Committee’s recommendation of installation of speed management measures on East Napa Street at Fifth Street East.

Vice Mayor Gurney made a substitute motion to approve one of the alternate speed table placement options, having one off-set speed table on the west side of the intersection and one on the east side of the intersection. There was no second, the motion failed.

Main motion made by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to approve the Traffic Safety Committee’s recommendation of installation of speed management measures on East Napa Street at Fifth Street East. Motion carried 4-1, with Mayor Lowe, Vice Mayor Gurney, Council Member Farrar-Rivas, and Council Member Ding voting YES, and Council Member Wellander voting NO.

With no objections from Council, Mayor Lowe confirmed the meeting will go past the 9PM hour.

Item 9.3: Implementation of Emergency Warming Center in Response to Extreme Weather Events Including:
• Operational Policy to Ensure Efficiency and Consistency, and a • Resolution Terminating the Agreement Between Sonoma Overnight Support to Run the City's Emergency Shelter, and
• Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement With a Third-- Party to Operate the Emergency Shelter When Triggered by the Extreme Weather Operational Policy, and
• Increase Emergency Funding for Extreme Weather Events (Lisa Janson, Senior Management Analyst)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 75-2023.

Council Member Ding provided a Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) conflict of interest disclosure, stating that he has no financial interest in Sonoma Overnight Support and, therefore, no conflict of interest. The FPPC has provided a written acknowledgment of this information to Council Member Ding.

Public Comment: Madolyn Agrimonti, Judith Walsh, Dr. Curran, and Kathy King.

Motion by Vice Mayor Gurney, seconded by Mayor Lowe, to Adopt a Resolution Terminating the Agreement Between Sonoma Overnight Support to Run the City’s Emergency Shelter and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with a Third-Party to Operate the Emergency Shelter when Triggered by the Extreme Weather Operational Policy and Increase Emergency Funding for Extreme Weather Events. Motion carried 4-1 with Mayor Lowe, Vice Mayor Gurney, Council Member Farrar-Rivas, and Council Member Wellander voting YES, and Council Member Ding voting NO.

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lowe adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Sonoma City Council on the 6th day of December 2023. ___________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.2:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 06 Dec 2023
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution to Accept a Monetary Donation From Traintown to Cover Expenses Associated with a New Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Pedestrian Crossing at Broadway at Clay Street
Summary
Traintown is an outdoor and rideable railroad and 10-acre amusement park located at 20264 Broadway, on the east side of Highway 12 between Napa Road and East Mac Arthur. Safety and pedestrian improvements on this section of Broadway have been a subject warranting attention in the recent past. The Public Works Department is dedicated to improving pedestrian safety through a range of ongoing and future initiatives, including the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB’s) pedestrian crossing on Broadway at Clay Street, increasing visibility and alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians. Mr. Robert Frank, on behalf of Traintown, approached the City of Sonoma and has offered to provide a donation to the City for approximately half the cost of the RRFB equipment at this location.

In September 2020, the City Council adopted, by resolution, the Memorials and Donated Improvements Acceptance Policy, which is attached as Exhibit A. The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines, standards, and procedures for the installation and care of memorials such as park benches or plaques, and donated park and facility improvements in the City of Sonoma. The policy was established to ensure that appropriate oversight is provided in preserving our City parks and facilities.

In accordance with the City's policy, Mr. Frank on behalf of Traintown, has completed the appropriate application (Exhibit B) and staff has vetted the request, which is before City Council for approval. This donation is categorized as a facility improvement and meets the parameters outlined within the attached policy.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a resolution accepting the cash donation to the City of Sonoma to cover approximately half the equipment cost of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) pedestrian safety crossing across Broadway/SR12 from Traintown at Clay Street.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
If the Council accepts the donation, approximately half the cost of the RRFB would be covered by the donation.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution Accepting Traintown Donation
Donation Application
Exhibit A - City of Sonoma Memorials and Donated Improvements Acceptance Policy Agenda Item #7.3:

RESOLUTION # _______ - 2023

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

MONETARY DONATION FROM TRAINTOWN TO COVER HALF THE EXPENSE ASSOCIATED

WITH THE NEW RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON BROADWAY/SR12 AT CLAY STREET.

WHEREAS, Traintown is an outdoor and rideable railroad and 10-acre amusement park located at 20264 Broadway, on the east side of Highway 12 between Napa Road and East Mac Arthur; and WHEREAS, safety and pedestrian improvements on this section of Broadway have been a subject warranting attention in the recent past; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department recently installed a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) pedestrian crossing on Broadway at Clay Street, increasing visibility and alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Frank, on behalf of Traintown, approached the City of Sonoma and has offered to provide a donation to the City for approximately half the cost of the RRFB equipment at this location.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sonoma adopted the revised Memorial and Donor Acceptance Policy contained in Exhibit A in September 2020; and WHEREAS, the revised policy established a uniform policy and set of procedures for the acceptance of capital gifts to the City, including memorials, recognition items, and other capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the policy provides a formal process for acceptance and documentation of donations including memorials and other capital gifts made to the City of Sonoma and confirm that the City has relevant and adequate resources to administer such donations; and WHEREAS, the policy also ensures that the placement of capital projects, memorials, plaques or other recognition items are suitable for the location proposed, in terms of overall number of such items, correlation with existing or future City plans or projects, and correspondence with existing or planned streetscapes; and
WHEREAS, the policy ensures that memorials or other capital gifts are appropriate for the City and can be maintained properly so as to provide a long-term asset to the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the request to ensure that it complies with the City of Sonoma’s Memorial and Donor Acceptance Policy to ensure that it is appropriate for the City and can be maintained properly so as to provide a long-term asset to the City, in this case the long-term enjoyment of the community and visitors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma accepts the financial donation contained in Exhibit A.

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of October 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Agenda Item #7.3:

_________________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.3:

EXHIBIT A – Donation Form
Agenda Item #7.3:

Agenda Item #7.3:

Exhibit A
City of Sonoma
Memorials and Donated Improvements Acceptance Policy
POLICYPURPOSE:To establish guidelines, standards and procedures for the installation and care of memorials such as park benches or plaques, and donated park and facility improvements in the City of Sonoma. This policy has been established to ensure that appropriate oversight is provided in preserving our City parks.

POLICYSTATEMENT: Public parks and recreation facilities are the property of the City and maintained for the benefit of all City residents. The City desires to encourage donations while at the same time managing aesthetic impacts, mitigating ongoing maintenance costs and balancing the overall value of public space. The placement of any memorial item or other recognition as the result of a donation or other contribution must be approved by the City and provide benefit to City residents and all users of the facilities while not negatively impacting City resources. Each donation is unique and the City Council has the authority to determine ifthe donation is in the City's interest.

I. PARAMETERS
A. Donations may be accepted from public and private sources for the purposes of enhancing City parks and facilities. Donations might be a financial contribution and/or a donation of a direct amenity/physical property.

The City and the community have a high interest in ensuring that park elements be of high quality related to style, appearance, durability, and ease of maintenance.

The City has an interest in ensuring the best appearance and aesthetic quality of their public facilities. Park and facility elements and/ortheir associated donation acknowledgements should reflect the character of the park or facility. Allpark or facility elements will be installed in such a manner that willnot substantially change the character or aesthetics of a park or facility and its intended use. Allcosts associated with the donation request, including asset materials, installation labor and materials, and administration and maintenance costs for useful life or designated period of time will be covered by the donor.

These donations may include, but are not limited to, park benches, plaques, donated amenities, and other types of park or facility accessories or enhancements. Acceptable donations are dependent upon the specific needs of the City of Sonoma.

Donations will be subject to the approval process outlined below.

PARKAND FACILITYIMPROVEMENT DONATIONS
A. Applications for a memorial park and facility improvement will be received and reviewed by the City Manager or his/herdesignee, with site selection review by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department may coordinate with other City departments as needed or designate other departments to oversee certain aspects of the donation.

Agenda Item #7.3:

B. For unique donations or contributions such as statues and pavilions, or funding for new or upgraded park amenities, the City Council will review and determine the level of interest.

Before proceeding, the City and the interested individual or organization willenter into a Donor Agreement to create clarity of expectations for costs, donation, maintenance, plaques, and other items. This Donor Agreement willbe reviewed and approved by the City Council as part of their action regarding the donation.

Guidelines established by this policy apply toall donations made after the effective date of this policy. Donations made prior to the adoption of this policy shall be subject to applicable sections of this policy.

Standards established by this policy apply to purchased equipment, installation techniques, donation acknowledgements, and long-term care of all donations made afterthe adoption of this policy.
lll. MEMORIAL BENCHDONATIONS
A. Approved Sites
The Public Works Department willdetermine the approved sites for all park bench donations. Some sites may be deemed inappropriate for memorial benches. The approval process and administrative procedures for obtaining a memorial bench and/orplaque will be established by the Public Works Department in accordance with this policy.

1. Plaza Park: Memorial benches and plaques are not permitted in Plaza Park.

2. City-Owned Bike Paths and Neighborhood Parks: The Public Works Department allows for the donation of funds for a memorial bench to be placed along City-owned bike paths, City—maintained bike paths, or other approved City-owned park or facility, subject to the conditions contained herein.

3. Montini Preserve:
a) A limited number of locations are available in the Montini Preserve along the trail or at the entrance for placement of a stone masonry memorial bench, consistent with the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Management Plan for the Montini Preserve. The bench design shall be consistent with similar benches located on the Overlook Trail.

Applications for a memorial bench on the Montini Preserve must be submitted in writing to the City Manager and will be considered in the order received until all available sites have been taken.

The term for donation of a memorial bench on the Montini Preserve will be ten years. At the end of the ten~year term, if current contact information is available, donors willbe given one opportunity to renew their donation for an additional ten~ year term. Ifthe donor cannot be reached or does not wish to renew the donation, the bench may be made available for others and the City will attempt to return the memorial plaque to the donor.

Allcosts for installation materials and labor and estimated maintenance costs, including any staff time for installation and design review and consultant costs for Agenda Item #7.3:

administration of the Montini Preserve bench program, will be included in the donated amount for the bench.

The City reserves the right to determine if certain bench locations are appropriate for more than one memorial plaque to provide for greater equity in distribution, and/orto provide the opportunity to lower the cost per individual donation.

4.Sonoma Overlook Trail:
a) Memorial benches currently exist at all approved locations along the Sonoma Overlook Trail.
b) Memorial benches along the Overlook Trail will be managed by the Overlook Trail Stewards and are not covered by this policy.

Approved Conditions

1.Thedonation term for a bench and/ora plaque is 10 years or the useful life of the bench, whichever comes first. This term applies to existing memorial bench donations as well as to future donations. At the end of the donation term, if current contact information is available the donor will be given the opportunity to renew their donation for one additional term. Ifthe City is unable to locate the current donor, or ifthe current donor chooses not to renew the donation, the bench or plaque may be removed to allow for other donations. The family may request to have the memorial plaque returned to them by contacting:

City of Sonoma
PublicWorks Department
No.1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA95476
To the extent practicable, the Donor may be contacted at the end of the donation term to ascertain whether the donor would like the plaque returned.

2.Al| benches willmeet the standards of the City for design, durability, and construction. Once the donation has been received and approved, the Department will purchase and install the bench (by contract or City staff). No custom benches willbe allowed.

3.Donated improvement amenities and/ortheir associated donation acknowledgements become City property. The City will provide for normal maintenance and repair of the bench during its donation term or useful life. if bench removal is required during the donation term, due to deterioration or severe vandalism, the City is not responsible for replacement of the bench. The plaque will either be installed on another bench or returned to the Donor if current contact information is available. Additionally, the City reserves the right to relocate the bench if unforeseen circumstances arise due to its location or setting.

4.Memorial plaques shall meet the following restrictions:
a) No listing life span (birth and death dates)
b) No profanity, obscenities, hate speech, or inappropriate references c) No symbols or pictures
d) English or Spanish language only, unless a verified translation is provided Agenda Item #7.3:

lV.
e) Allplaques shall be the City standard
f) No custom plaques

5.The City will procure and install a small metal plaque on a Memorial Bench to honor the individual memorialized. The plaque size, font, and design specifications as well as approval of the message, willbe at the discretion ofthe PublicWorks Director or his/herdesignee.

6.0nly individuals or pets may be honored with a memorial bench; organizations and groups willnot be considered.

7.The donation amount for each bench will be based on the type of bench and location. a) Bike Path and Neighborhood Park Benches --The donation amount per bench covers the cost of the bench, installation, administration and maintenance. Each standard bench can support three memorial plaques. Donors have the option of sharing in the cost of a bench by contributing a share of the bench donation amount, or they may donate for the entire bench with just one memorial plaque. Ifthe donor wishes to contribute a plaque on a shared bench, the City willwait until the full bench donation amount is received before purchasing and installing the bench. b) Montini Preserve Bench -— The donation amount per bench covers the cost of the bench, installation, administration and maintenance. Each bench can support one or more memorial plaques. Donors have the option of sharing in the cost ofa bench. ifthe donor wishes to contribute to a shared bench, the City willwait until there are the identified number of donors before purchasing and installing the bench and memorial plaques. C

8.The donation must be received in full before the City will initiate the bench and/orplaque ordering process.

OTHER UNIQUEDONATIONS
There may be additional possible donations other than those expressly listed or contained within this policy. The City willconsider those donations subject to a review by the appropriate City commissions or committees, and approval by the City Council.

A. Conditions
The City of Sonoma reserves the right to remove and/orrelocate donated park elements and their associated donation acknowledgements/memorial plaques if and when they interfere with site safety, maintenance, or construction activities. it shall be the responsibility of the donor to provide the City with current contact information for purposes of notification regarding their donation. The City will attempt to contact each identifiable donor notifying the donor of any action related to the disposition of the donation. In certain circumstances, such as safety or emergency situations, the notification may be made after Agenda Item #7.3:

the action is taken. In the event a donation must be permanently removed, the City willseek an alternative location consistent with this policy.

Approval Process for Unique Donations and Donor Agreement Applications for donation of capital projects willbe received by the City Manager or his/herdesignee. Ifthe City Manager deems the application appropriate for further consideration, he/shewill designate the appropriate staff person for site and project review.

City Council will provide the final approval or disapproval for such projects.

Allapplications will be subject to the regular permit requirements of the City of Sonoma unless waived by the City Council.

Allcosts, including any staff time for review and installation, will be included in the donor agreement amount.

Allsuch capital assets become the property of the City of Sonoma, unless otherwise designated. As such, these assets may be removed ifsaid asset is not included in future City plans or capital improvement projects.

Maintenance of such capital assets may become the responsibility of the City of Sonoma. A financial contribution for future maintenance may be required. in considering a request for the approval and acceptance of memorials and other capital gifts to the City, Council shall weigh the following policy considerations: a. Compatibility with City infrastructure, with existing or future projects, and with existing or planned streetscapes;
Maintenance needs for the gift being donated;
Contribution of the individual or organization to the well—beingof the City and the overall community;
Number and type of other memorials or other capital gifts in the immediate area or the community at large.

A written Donor Agreement will be required that formalizes the project sponsor's requirements and responsibilities.

During construction, the City willinspect the project to ensure that it is being constructed as per specifications. Upon completion of the project, the City will conduct a final inspection and provide a punch list to the project sponsor. After completion of punch list items, the project will be accepted by the City.

Agenda Item #7.3:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 06 Dec 2023
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
Summary

BACKGROUND
On Jan. 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. On Feb. 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative.

Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.

Fees and Taxes
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services.

Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
 Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
 Commercial franchise fees.
 Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI.  Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
 Document processing and duplication fees.
 Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees.  Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases in fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities.

Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge.

Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including counciladopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those Agenda Item #7.4:

adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.

Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.

Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.

Fines and Penalties
Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:

1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].

2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].

3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].

The initiative converts administratively imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.

DISCUSSION
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.

The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts.

The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.

Major Provisions of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Fees and Charges:
 Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Agenda Item #7.4:

 Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
 Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.  Fees and charges adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reacted within 12 months after the Act takes effect.

Taxes:
 Taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted within 12 months after the Act takes effect.  Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.

The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
 Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent.  Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service).  New state (and possibly local) taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period.  City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.  All state taxes require majority voter approval.

Fines and Penalties:

1. May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

Last week, the City Attorney informed Staff that the Supreme Court has asked for briefs on whether the California Business Roundtable measure should be removed from the November ballot. Staff will continue to watch this Act closely.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the resolution.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide. The direct impact to the City of Sonoma is unknown at this time.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Opposition Resolution
CBRT Fiscal Analysis
Letter of Opposition
Agenda Item #7.4:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _____ - 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1 THE TAXPAYER PROTECTON AND GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and
WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sonoma opposes Initiative 21-0042A1.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Sonoma will join the NO on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state. We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Lowe, Mayor
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.4:

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety.  About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.
1  Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2
subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
 Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative.  Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes.  A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 14, 2023
Agenda Item #7.4:

– 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue.  Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.

Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.

Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.

On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.

On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these 4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.

June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions & Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL Agenda Item #7.4:

– 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.

Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.

November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable housing none 57.3% PASS County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500 transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/vacant SFU xxx vacant property
xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf, $150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL Agenda Item #7.4:

– 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals

2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
Agenda Item #7.4:

– 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts
? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts
n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to $900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/ streets none 78.2% PASS Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to $600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
Agenda Item #7.4:

– 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to

1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS Agenda Item #7.4:

– 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.

There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).

1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual and reasonable test."  Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1, 5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space / trails none 76.4% PASS Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS Agenda Item #7.4:

– 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
 Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.

2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Business improvement district charges.

6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.

7. Document processing and duplication fees.

8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.

9. Fines, penalties.

10. Fees for parks and recreation services.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Agenda Item #7.4:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 06 Dec 2023
Department
Planning
Staff Contact
Kristina Tierney, Associate Planner
Agenda Item Title
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal by the Applicant of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for the Hotel Project Sonoma
Summary
Hotel Project Sonoma includes a Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for the demolition of 13,963 sf of existing structures for the construction of a 65,606 sf 62-guestroom hotel, 80-seat restaurant and bar, a spa with six treatment rooms, raised swimming pool veranda, 128 on-site parking spaces (consisting of a 52,110 sf 111-stall basement parking garage, 9 surface parking spaces, and 8 covered residential parking spaces), and a 21,221 sf 8-unit residential building.

The Planning Commission considered the Hotel Project Sonoma on October 19, 2023. At that hearing, the Planning Commission received a presentation by staff and the applicant as well as public comment. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (with Chair Barnett recused and not participating) to approve the project with modified conditions, certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted findings of facts and statement of overriding considerations, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and made General Plan consistency findings through the adoption of Resolution Nos. 9-2023 and 10-2023 attached hereto as Attachment 2.

On October 31, 2023, the applicant submitted a timely appeal. The applicant filed the appeal to request reconsideration of a waiver of the residential component and subsequently provided additional information both of which are attached as Attachment 3. Staff’s responses to the appeal are provided in the Analysis section below.

Residential Component
Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.10.020.B.3 states that new development projects in the Commercial zoning district on parcels over 0.5 acres must include a residential component.

Under the applicable version of this SMC Section, a residential component should normally comprise at least 50 percent of the total proposed “building area.” As a result, under SMC Section 19.10.020.B.3, the residential component for the proposed project should be at least 43,414 sf. As proposed, the residential building would total 21,221 sf, resulting in a residential component deficit of 22,193 sf. As outlined in the code below, the Planning Commission has the discretion to waive or reduce the residential component. The applicable version of SMC Section 19.10.020.B.3 states:
"… Circumstances in which the residential component may be reduced or waived include, but are not limited to, the following:

Agenda Item #8.1:

a. The replacement of a commercial use within an existing tenant space with another commercial use.
b. The presence of uses or conditions incompatible with residential development on or adjacent to the property for which a new development is proposed. c. Property characteristics, including size limitations and environmental characteristics, that constrain opportunities for residential development or make it infeasible. d. Limitations imposed by other regulatory requirements, such as the Growth Management Ordinance."
The project narrative states “[t]he Project requests this waiver based on circumstance 3 [c] above as the parcel size and height limitations do not provide adequate space for more residential development while still meeting the Project objectives.” The applicant proposed alternative measures to address the 22,193 square foot deficit residential component requirement through provision of units offsite and/or paying a fee.

Condition of Approval 8 (Residential Component), in Attachment 4, was recommended by staff to address the deficit. Staff believes the reduction of the residential component on site is supported by this condition of approval that will allow for additional affordable housing in the City.

On October 19, the Planning Commission amended this condition to require that the applicant pay five percent compounded interest during the five years.

Analysis
The following is an overview of the appellant’s request, along with staff’s responses to each:

1. Reduce the Commercial Impact Fee to $4 per square foot from $17 per square foot.

Staff’s Response
On March 2, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 12-2020 establishing affordable housing fees for new nonresidential development based on a nexus analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates and Karen Warner Associates. These fees are determined and paid by the developer and/or property owner upon the issuance of building permits. As such this request is not subject to the appeal as the appeal can only be for the Planning Commission decision at this time. The applicant can appeal or protest the fee at the time it is imposed. If the City Council would like to revisit the affordable housing fees for new nonresidential development, they can direct staff to bring forward a future item, separate from this project.

2. Grant a waiver of the residential component and eliminate the residential component in-lieu fee.

Staff’s Response
Condition of Approval 8 was provided by the applicant as proposed alternative measures to address the 22,193 square foot deficit residential component requirement through provision of units offsite and/or paying a fee. The condition of approval, as amended the by the Planning Agenda Item #8.1:

Commission on October 19, 2023, requires the applicant to prepare a Residential Component Plan subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, prior and as a condition precedent to issuance of an occupancy permit, outlining how the project proponent will provide 22,193 sf of residential units.

A Residential Component Fee shall be paid to the City equal to $2,219,300.00 which is derived by multiplying 22,193 square feet by $100 ($100 per square foot fee adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35-2023), which the City shall deposit into the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, said $2,219,300 liability shall be reduced by the number of square feet of floor area for housing converted, acquired, or purchased under subsections (a) – (c), below multiplied by $100, within 5 years of building occupancy. The Residential Component Fee shall be paid to the City to be placed in the Housing Trust Fund in equal one-fifths installments over 5 years from the date of approval of building occupancy and on each anniversary of the occupancy date for an additional 4 years. An escrow account will be established. The fee accrues interest of five percent, compounded annually, during the 5- year period. The Residential Component Plan may include any combination of the following measures:
a) Conversion of seven existing market rate apartments at 135 West Napa Street to deed restricted affordable housing units: one extremely low, two very low, two low, and two moderate income households. These units would convert as current tenants terminate their leases unless they qualify for an affordable unit. The units must remain affordable in perpetuity consistent with SMC Section 19.44.060 (Continued availability). A credit equal to the converted floor area, not to exceed 4,570 square feet, will be given for the conversion. b) The purchase of existing deed restricted affordable housing units in the City of Sonoma the affordability of which is scheduled to expire and will become market rate within this Housing Element 6th Cycle, namely, on or before January 31, 2031. The Applicant would be required to enter into new affordable housing agreement with the City that continue the affordable levels specified in the original affordable housing agreement with the City in compliance with SMC Section 19.44.060 (Continued availability), subject to approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. The units must remain affordable in perpetuity consistent with SMC Section 19.44.060 (Continued availability).
c) The purchase of current market rate apartments located within the City limits and converting them to deed restricted affordable housing units: 10 percent extremely low (ELI), 30 percent very-low (VLI), 30 percent low (LI), and 30 percent moderate income household. The first required unit shall be provided at the ELI household category, the second shall be VLI, third required unit shall be LI, and the fourth unit shall be moderate income. The units must remain affordable in perpetuity consistent with SMC Section 19.44.060 (Continued availability).

If the City Council wishes to waive the residential component deficit or eliminate/modify the Residential Component Fee as stated in Condition of Approval 8, above, City Council can recommend an amendment to the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to modify the resolution and condition of approval. (See Alternative Actions number 1 provided below.)

3. Consider eliminating the eight onsite units and approve the hotel only alternative.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Staff’s Response
At the meeting on October 19, 2023, the Planning Commission did discuss this alternative.

However, as this alternative was not the project as presented to the Planning Commission for its approval, the applicant would have needed to revise their project application and allow time for staff to review to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code. The Applicant decided at that time to proceed with the application as submitted to prevent any further project delay.

If the City Council wishes to approve the hotel only alternative, the City Council can approve the appeal and direct staff to return to City Council with the new project. Staff will need to evaluate the revised project to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code, Draft Environmental Impact Report, and provide new findings of approval for the project and Environmental Impact Report. (See Alternative Actions number 2 provided below.) The City Council can also remand the project back to the Planning Commission with specific direction on what the Planning Commission must consider. The Planning Commission can then take the final decision or City Council can direct them to provide recommendation to the City Council for final decision. (See Alternative Actions number 4 provided below.) Recommended Council Action
Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on October 19, 2023 Approving the Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment, including Approving the Reduction of Parking Spaces for the Hotel Project Sonoma, Located at 117, 135, and 153 West Napa Street, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 018-251-067, 018-251-051, 018-251-068, And 018-251- 017.”
Alternative Actions
1) Affirm the appeal in part to modify Condition of Approval number 8 to eliminate or amend the requirement of a Residential Component Fee and direct staff to modify the Resolution, with findings reached by the City Council to do so.
2) Affirm the appeal in part to approve the waiver of the residential component with or without a requirement for a Residential Component Fee, set aside the decision of the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a Resolution, with findings reached by the City Council to do so.
3) Request additional information from the appellant to substantiate and support arguments and continue the matter to a future hearing date.
4) Remand the project back to the Planning Commission, with specific direction on what the Planning Commission must consider. The Planning Commission may take final action, or the City Council may direct that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.

Financial Impact
N/A
Agenda Item #8.1:

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Appeal Resolution
Attachment 2 - PC Resolutions 9-2023 and 10-2023
Attachment 3 - Appeal Materials
Agenda Item #8.1:

1 CITY OF SONOMA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON OCTOBER 19, 2023 APPROVING THE USE PERMIT, EXCEPTION TO

DEVELOPMENT CODE LOADING STANDARD, REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL

COMPONENT, DESIGN REVIEW, DEMOLITION PERMIT, AND LOT LINE

ADJUSTMENT, INCLUDING APPROVING THE REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE FOR THE HOTEL PROJECT SONOMA, LOCATED AT 117, 135, AND 153 WEST NAPA STREET, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNs) 018-251-067, 018-251-051, 018-251-068, AND 018-251-017.

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012 Michael Ross, AIA submitted an application to the City of Sonoma for a Use Permit and Demolition Permit to redevelop 117, 135, and 153 West Napa Street for the Hotel Project Sonoma, (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project entails a 65,606 square foot 62-guestroom hotel, 80-seat restaurant and bar, a spa with 6 treatment rooms, raised swimming pool veranda, 128 onsite parking spaces (consisting of a 52,110 square foot 111-stall basement parking garage, 9 surface parking spaces, and 8 covered residential parking spaces), and 21,221 square foot 8- unit residential building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2023; and
WHEREAS, thePlanning Commission certified the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and made the Required Findings Including Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Hotel Project Sonoma via Resolution No. 9- 2023;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the Project on October 19, 2023 via Planning Commission Resolution No.10-2023 approving the project with conditions; WHEREAS, on October 31, 2023, Bill Hooper on behalf of Kenwood Investments, Applicant, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission and requesting the consideration of a waiver of the residential component; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2023, the applicant provided additional information to support their appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Appeal on December 6, 2023.

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

I. Record
A. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project and the Final EIR are based includes, but is not Agenda Item #8.1:

2 limited to:

1. June 2023 Recirculated Draft and October 2023 Final EIR;

2. The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council relating to the Final EIR or the Project;

3. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by the environmental consultant and sub consultants who prepared the Final EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the Planning Commission and City Council;

4. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Final EIR or the Project;

5. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period relating to the Final EIR, or to the Project;

6. All applications, letters, testimony and hearing presentations given by any of the Project sponsors or their consultants to the City in connection with the Project;

7. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by members of the public relating to the Final EIR or the Project;

8. The General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other City-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;

9. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and City Council including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;.

10. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and

11. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings as described in pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).

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

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

II. Decision
A. On the basis of the record before it, the City Council hereby DENIES the appeal filed by the Applicant and affirms the Planning Commission’s decision to APPROVE the Project for the following reasons:

1. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and CEQA Guidelines;
Agenda Item #8.1:

3 2. The appeal lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims made therein;

3. The request to reduce the commercial impact fee is not ripe as the City has yet to impose or provide notice of imposition of this fee;

4. The request to waive the residential component and eliminate the Residential Component Fee is denied because there is insufficient evidence that an additional reduction or waiver is warranted based on the Property characteristics and size limitations; and

5. The request to approve the hotel only alternative is denied because there is insufficient evidence that it will fulfill all project objectives.

B. It is not necessary to make any findings regarding the Exception, Design Review Permit, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment associated with the Project as the applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission’s decision on these entitlements; and
C. It is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final EIR, findings of facts and statement of overriding considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

III. Effective Date
Under SMC Section 19.84.040, this decision of the City Council is final and is effective on the date of adoption.

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this ___________________, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Kenwood Investments
144 West Napa Street
Sonoma, CA 95476
November 17, 2023
Mayor Sandra Lowe
Members of the City Council
City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Hotel Project Sonoma Dear Mayor and City Council:

On behalf of the Applicant, we are appealing the in-lieu housing fees assigned to the project Use Permit condition of approval for Hotel Project Sonoma. We are requesting a full waiver of the housing requirements based on site considerations and the significant financial impact associated with these fees on the project. While we provided alternatives to a complete waiver in our application, our preference was for a full waiver of this requirement.

When the project was proposed 12 years ago, the community was just coming out of a significant recession. Jobs and city tax revenue were the focus of the project proposal. During the history of the project review, substantial cost increases associated with escalating construction costs, multiple building code changes, interest rates and the fees related to housing have put the financial feasibility of the project at risk. The current estimated housing fees include the following.

Housing Related Fees
Commercial Impact Fee ($17 per square foot) $1,115,302
Housing In-Lieu Fee $2,219,300
Total Fees $3,334,602
Adoption of EIR Alternate 4 – Hotel Only Option
In addition to the fees, the Applicant proposed an 8-unit luxury condominium building located on the First Street West side of the project site. The condominium building was proposed in response to earlier Planning Commission comments that the project needed housing. As an alternative, the project Environmental Impact Report considered the impacts of the project without the housing. The EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced by eliminating the housing. We have prepared site plans (attached) indicating the EIR Alternate 4 Hotel Only alternative would create a superior, economically viable hotel development for the site. Adopting Alternate 4 would provide additional open space along First Street West and Improved off-street trash pickup and delivery facilities should the luxury condominium building be removed.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis
In 2018 the City of Sonoma hired an outside firm to do an analysis of the number of jobs created by nonresidential uses. The study concluded that office uses create more jobs per square foot than hotels.

Specifically, it was determined that an office development creates one job per 300 square feet while a hotel creates one job per 1,000 square feet. In the case of a 65,000 square foot hotel the study estimated that 65 jobs would be created while the same size office would create 216 jobs.

The City Council at the time did the opposite of the Nexus Study findings and established a fee that is now $17 per square foot for hotels while only charging $4 per square foot for offices.

Housing Element
The City’s recently updated Housing Element outlines the framework for meeting the future needs of housing in Sonoma. The document identifies vacant and underutilized sites that are available for housing. The list provides a realistic capacity for 564 new housing units reflecting an excess capacity of 253 units to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Sonoma Hotel Project site is not listed in the city’s housing site inventory. Of the 109 properties listed in this inventory, only 2 were zoned commercial. The plan clearly provides enough housing sites without using the limited commercial zoning available in Sonoma.

Tax Revenue for Sonoma
For the City of Sonoma, the substantial long term tax benefit of the project is at risk due to the residential requirements approved by the Planning Commission. Over the initial 30 Year operation of the hotel, it is estimated that the City will receive in excess $82 million from TOT, TID and its portion of sales and property taxes. The average annual taxes in the first 10 Years will exceed $1.5 million per year.

Sonoma Hotel Project
Forecast Tax Revenue (Cumulative)
10 Years 20 Years 30 Years
TOT Tax 13% of Lodging Revenue $14,046,298 $33,980,207 $60,769,715 TID Tax 2% of lodging revenue $ 2,160,969 $ 5,227,724 $ 9,349,187 Sales Tax Direct 1.5% of Food, Beverage and Spa $ 1,012,284 $ 2,379,109 $ 4,216,007 Sales Tax External 1.5% of spending outside hotel $ 82,787 $ 1,666,337 $ 2,980,053 Property Tax 18% of tax assessed by county $ 1,276,246 $ 2,831,982 $ 4,728,415 Total Taxes $18,578,583 $46,085,359 $82,043,377
Per Year Average $ 1,548,215 $ 3,840,447 $ 6,836,948
Agenda Item #8.1:

Request for Reconsideration
We respectfully request the City Council to reconsider the Planning Commission imposition of the fees and approve the project with the following changes:

1. Reduce the Commercial Impact Fee to $4 per square foot.

2. Grant a housing waiver and eliminate all In-Lieu fees.

3. Consider eliminating the condominiums and approve the hotel only consistent with Alternate 4 studied in the EIR.

The waiver of the housing requirement should be based on the site conditions of the project being incompatible and infeasible for a residential development. The project site is not located in a residential area and is surrounded by commercial uses. Further, having housing on the project site crowds the property and limits deliveries from First Street West to street parking.

We appreciate your consideration of our appeal.

Sincerely,
Bill Hooper
Kenwood Investments
Agenda Item #8.1:

DN
UP
-
-
A3.01- -AI
1 A3.02-AI
2 -

RESTAURANT
ENTRY
(E) LYNCH BUILDING
(E) SONOMA

INDEX-TRIBUNE

BUILDING
(E) FEED STORE
(N) MAIN HOTEL

BUILDING
(N) HOTEL

RESTAURANT

BUILDING
(N) SWIMMING

POOL DECK
HOTEL

COURTYARD
PLAZA

RAMP TO PARKING
(N) COURTYARD
HOTEL
ENTRY

MECHANICAL
WELL

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
-

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT

SPA PLAZA

KITCHEN AIR AND

EXHAUST EQUIPMENT
(E) KRUG EVENT CENTER

BEST WESTERN SONOMA VALLEY INN

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
(E) PARKING LOT (NIC)

WEST NAPA STREET

FIRST STREET WEST
(NIC)
(NIC)
(NIC)
(NIC)
(NIC)
MONITORED 12' W X 40' L
X 14' H LOADING SPACE.

STANDARD DELIVERY

PROTOCOLS WILL BE

THROUGH VAN DELIVERY
IN BASEMENT.

STANDARD

STANDARD

STANDARD

STANDARD

COMPACT

ADA VAN

STANDARD

COMPACT
1 VALET SPACE

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS TO

ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

NO PARKING, TEMPORARY

DELIVERY ZONE NO PARKING

NO PARKING ZONE

DECORATIVE
PAVING.

POOL
ROOF
DECK

LOADING SPACE

RAMP UP

VALET VALET

STAFF PARKING
(N) 1,687 SF UTILITY

BUILDING W/ EXTERIOR

ROOF TOP POOL DECK
Drawing No.

If this drawing is not 24" x 36", it is a reduced print - scale accordingly. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced in any form without permission from RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.

Drawn By
Date:

Scale:

Checked By
Sheet Title
Not For Construction
Project No.
1/16" = 1'-0"
10/18/2023 10:12:34 AM C:\Users\tharr\OneDrive\Documents\Sonoma Hotel Only ALT 4_gwenstanley.rvt A4.01
HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATE #4

PROPOSED SITE ROOF PLAN
09/20/2023

HOTEL PROJECT
SONOMA

HOTEL ONLY OPTION
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Project Number
Author Checker
Kenwood
Investments LLC
Sonoma, CA
N
S
W E

TRUE PROJECT NORTH
1/16" = 1'-0" 2

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

REVISIONS
No. Description Date
ALT #4
Use Permit Submittal 08/05/2021
Rev Use Permit Submittal 09/26/2022
Rev Use Permit Submittal 03/13/2023
Rev Use Permit Submittal 05/03/2023
Agenda Item #8.1:

S
P

EMPLOYEE

FACILITIES

SERVICE PATH OF TRAVEL

SERVICE CORRIDOR

WINE / FOOD

STORAGE

HOUSEKEEPING /

LAUNDRY

STORAGE

RAMP UP TO HOTEL PLAZA
TRASH
BIN
VAN
DELIVERY 2 SPACES

COILING
DOOR
GARAGE

MECHANICAL
P
S

WEST NAPA STREET

FIRST STREET WEST
TENANT

ELEVATOR
MECH./ ELEC.

ELEV
M
W

LOCKERS

LOCKERS

KITCHEN
DRY

STORAGE

TEL/COM
MPOE
MAIN

ELECTRICAL

ROOM (POE)

SERVICE CORRIDOR

STORM WATER

PUMP ROOM
ELEC,

TEL, DATA ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT

EMERGENCY

GENERATOR ROOM

SERVICE CORRIDOR

WALL-MOUNT BICYCLE PARKING

RAMP UP TO
1ST STREET WEST
RAMP FROM UNDERGROUND PARKING AUXILIARY 6 VALET

PARKING SPACE ON RAMP
V4
V5
V6
V8
V7
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13
V15
V16
V17
V18
V19
V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V29 V30 V31 V32 V33
V35
V20
V28 V34
TRASH
CARTS

RECYCLE

SORTING
V36
24' - 0"
24' - 0"
22' - 0"

DIRECT FIRE FIGHTER

ACCESS TO ROOF VIA THIS

STAIRWELL
4' - 0"
V14
22' - 0"
V3
V2
V1
1 2
3 4
5 26' - 2"

SUBSURFACE

STORMWATER RETENTION

STRUCTURES
BASEMENT WALL @ 0 LOT
LINE

TRENCH DRAIN AND SUMP

PUMP SYSTEM
57 HOTEL

BICYCLE

STORAGE
TRASH
BIN
26' - 2"
26' - 2"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 12' - 0" 9' - 0"

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

FROM BASEMENT

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

DIRECT FIRE FIGHTER

ACCESS TO ROOF VIA

THIS STAIRWELL
MECH
54 55
MECH

TO UTILITY BUILDING AND

POOL DECK
EIR ALTERNATE #4 - HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATE
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 MC 56 MC
32 64 63 62 61 60
58 59

ONSITE PARKING CALCULATION
Basement
Standard Spaces: 64
Valet Spaces: 36
Delivery Spaces: 2
Auxiliary Spaces: 6
Sub Total 108
1st Floor Surface Parking
Staff Spaces: 6
Staff Spaces: 1
Loading Spaces : 2
Lynch Valet Spaces: 8
Sub Total 16
Total onsite parking 125
Overflow Off Site Staff Parking 25
TOTAL PARKING 150 Spaces
PERSUENT TO CALGREEN THE FOLLOWING EV CHARGING OR SUPPLY SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED:
35% (3 SPACES) OF RESIDENT PARKING MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING RECEPTACLES. 10% (1 SPACE) OF RESIDENT PARKING MUST BE EQUIPED WITH LEVEN 2 EV SUPPLY EQUIPMENT. 35% (43 SPACE) OF HOTEL PARKING MUST BE EQUIPED WITH LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING RECPETACLES. 10% (13 SPACES) OF HOTEL PARKING MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH LEVEL 2 EV SUPPLY EQUIPMENT.

PERSUANT TO CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE HOTEL PARKING SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH: SPACE # 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE 144" WIDE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES (EVACS) PLUS AN ACCESS AISLE 62 2 STANDARD ACCESSIBLE 108" WIDE EVCS PLUS AN ACCESS AISLE 60 + 61 2 AMBULATORY 120" WIDE EVCS 63 + 64
LEVEL 2 EV SUPPLY OR CHARGING STATION

TOTAL SPACES
58 SPACES EV

SUPPLY OR

RECEPTACLES

INCLUSIVE OF HOTEL

COURTYARD SPACES
Drawing No.

If this drawing is not 24" x 36", it is a reduced print - scale accordingly. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced in any form without permission from RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.

Drawn By
Date:

Scale:

Checked By
Sheet Title
Not For Construction
Project No.

As indicated
10/18/2023 10:12:54 AM C:\Users\tharr\OneDrive\Documents\Sonoma Hotel Only ALT 4_gwenstanley.rvt A4.02
HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATE #4

BASEMENT PLAN
09/20/2023

HOTEL PROJECT
SONOMA

HOTEL ONLY OPTION
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Project Number
Author Checker
Kenwood
Investments LLC
Sonoma, CA
1/16" = 1'-0" 1

BASEMENT PLAN
N
S
W E

TRUE PROJECT NORTH

REVISIONS
No. Description Date
ALT #4
Use Permit Submittal 08/05/2021
Rev Use Permit Submittal 09/26/2022
Rev Use Permit Submittal 03/13/2023
Rev Use Permit Submittal 05/03/2023
Agenda Item #8.1:

UP
DN
UP
UP

ONSITE PARKING CALCULATION
Basement
Standard Spaces: 64
Valet Spaces: 36
Delivery Spaces: 2
Auxiliary Spaces: 6
Sub Total 108
1st Floor Surface Parking
Staff Spaces: 6
Staff Spaces: 1
Loading Spaces : 2
Lynch Valet Spaces: 8
Sub Total 16
Total onsite parking 125
Overflow Off Site Staff Parking 25
TOTAL PARKING 150 Spaces

RESTAURANT
BAR

KITCHEN
HOTEL
LOBBY
WOMEN
MEN

DISPLAY KITCHEN

MEETING
ROO
M
STAF
F WC

SERVICE CORRIDOR

STORM WATER RETENTION A AREA COURTYARD
GUEST

MEETING
ROOM
GUEST

MEETING
ROOM
WOMEN
MEN

COVERED
ENTRY
S

RAMP TO UNDERGROUND

PARKING

STAIR TO

BASEMEN
T
HOTEL

COURTYARD
PLAZA

RESTAURANT
EXIT

CORRIDOR
LOUNGE

FIREPLACE FIREPLACE

PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK WITH WARNING LIGHTS
6 SPACES
HOST

OFFICE /

BAGGAGE

SWIMMING
POOL
RAMP
S
P
SPA

TREATMENT

TREATMENT

TREATMENT

COUPLES

TREATMENT
STOR.

TREATMENT WAITING.

FITNESS
2 SPACES
1 VALET SPACE
STOR.

STOR.

WINE

DISPLAY
P
WOMEN
MEN
WOMEN
MEN

TREATMENT
TREATMENTSTOR.

RAMP EASEMENT FROM

LYNCH BUILDING

RECEPTION

CONCIERGE

SPA DESK
ELEC.

TEL/
DATA

TWO ACCESSIBLE GUEST ROOMS

STAIR STAIR
STAIR
STAIR

SPA PLAZA

TRANSFORMERS
POOL
EQUIP.

HOTEL
TRASH

RAMP FROM UNDERGROUND PARKING
AUXILIARY, SPEPCIAL EVENT, 6 VALET PARKING

SPACES ON THE RAMP

COMBINED PASSENGER /

FREIGHT ELEVATOR

HOTEL ENTRY SIGN
STAIR

DECK DECK DECK
+ 2' - 6"
STONE
WALL
24' - 0"

EXTERIOR SERVICE

YARD WITH HOTEL

FIRE RISER AND

RESTAURANT
GREASE

INTERCEPTOR

FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

SERVICE
ENTRY

TEMPORARY LOADING
SPACE

NO PARKING ZONES FOR

PEDESTRIAN VISUAL SAFETY
EV CHARGER TYP.
24' WIDE RAMP

READILY AVAILABLE

EMERGENCY ACCESS &

SERVICE CORRIDOR

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

FROM BASEMENT

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

FIRST STREET

PROVIDE LEVEL AREA

AT TOP OF RAMP

VEHICLE

APPROACHING

PEDESTRIAN

WARNING SYSTEM

GUEST SHORT TERM
BICYCLE PARKING.

R 35' - 0" FIRE FIGHTER EMERGENCY ACCESS AND SERVICE CORRIDOR R 35' - 0"

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

FROM BASEMENT

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL

DIRECT FIRE

FIGHTER ACCESS

FROM BASEMENT

TO ROOF VIA

STAIRWELL
DN

NO PARKING, TEMPORARY

DELIVERY ZONE NO PARKING

NO PARKING ZONE
+0" +56"
S
+0"

POOL BAR

RECEIVING
RAMP

LOADING
SPACE

LOADING

RAMP UP SPACE

VALET VALET

STAFF PARKING
POOL CABANAS TYP.

Storage

GUESTROOM CALCULATION
1st Floor
Standard Guest Room 1
ADA Guest Rooms: 2
Sub Total 3
2nd Floor
Standard Guest Rooms: 22
ADA Standard Room: 1
Suites: 4
Double Queen: 3
Sub Total 30
3rd Floor
Standard Guest Rooms: 22
ADA Suite: 1
Suites: 3
Double Queen: 3
Sub Total 29
TOTAL GUESTROOMS 62

RESTAURANT SEATS COUNT
INDOOR SEATS 80
OUTDOOR SEATS 20
TOTAL SEATS COUNT 100
Drawing No.

If this drawing is not 24" x 36", it is a reduced print - scale accordingly. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced in any form without permission from RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.

Drawn By
Date:

Scale:

Checked By
Sheet Title
Not For Construction
Project No.

As indicated
10/18/2023 10:13:24 AM C:\Users\tharr\OneDrive\Documents\Sonoma Hotel Only ALT 4_gwenstanley.rvt A4.03
HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATE #4

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
09/20/2023

HOTEL PROJECT
SONOMA

HOTEL ONLY OPTION
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Project Number
Author Checker
Kenwood
Investments LLC
Sonoma, CA
1/16" = 1'-0" 1

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
N
S
W E

TRUE PROJECT NORTH

REVISIONS
No. Description Date
ALT #4
Use Permit Submittal 08/05/2021
Rev Use Permit Submittal 09/26/2022
Rev Use Permit Submittal 03/13/2023
Rev Use Permit Submittal 05/03/2023
Agenda Item #8.1:

Drawing No.

If this drawing is not 24" x 36", it is a reduced print - scale accordingly. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced in any form without permission from RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.

Drawn By
Date:

Scale:

Checked By
Sheet Title
Not For Construction
Project No.
10/18/2023 10:13:45 AM C:\Users\tharr\OneDrive\Documents\Sonoma Hotel Only ALT 4_gwenstanley.rvt A4.04
HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATE #4

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH /
EAST
09/20/2023

HOTEL PROJECT
SONOMA

HOTEL ONLY OPTION
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Project Number
Author Checker
Kenwood
Investments LLC
Sonoma, CA

REVISIONS
No. Description Date
ALT #4
Use Permit Submittal 08/05/2021
Rev Use Permit Submittal 09/26/2022
Rev Use Permit Submittal 03/13/2023
Rev Use Permit Submittal 05/03/2023

FIRE FIGHTER ROOF ACCESS FIRE FIGHTER ROOF ACCESS

FIRE FIGHTER ROOF ACCESS

FIRE FIGHTER ROOF ACCESS

FIRE FIGHTER ROOF ACCESS
Agenda Item #8.1:

o_._
Agenda Item #8.1:

_
n_
m
Agenda Item #8.1: Page 199 of 219
mu
m
._
z
n_
_
Agenda Item #8.1:

mv
m
._
m
z
n_
Agenda Item #8.1:

mscmm
u
Agenda Item #8.1:

w
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1: Page 204 of 219
+
Agenda Item #8.1:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 06 Dec 2023
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development
Director
Agenda Item Title
Joint Powers Agreement and City Policy for Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission Summary
The County of Sonoma (County) and the City of Sonoma (City) first established the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission (SVCAC) in 1993 pursuant to Government Code section 65101 as a joint advisory agency to provide a regular forum for community participation in the formation of public policy, to consider local planning issues concerning the Sonoma Valley, to evaluate solutions to these issues, to advise elected officials and other decision makers, and to form a bridge for communication between the various governmental agencies and the general public. Most recently the Commission was extended for five additional years which expires at the end of 2023. If approved, the proposed action would extend the Commission for an additional five years, with its term expiring at the end of 2028.

In 2001, a Policy 2001-1 was approved by the City for "Referrals to the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission." This policy has not been updated since.

SVCAC JPA
The County of Sonoma and City of Sonoma share responsibility for local planning in the Sonoma Valley. The existing Joint Powers Agreement between the City and the County has facilitated community input and enhanced communication to benefit public interest and coordinate local planning activities. To ensure the continuation of these benefits, an extension of the SVCAC for another five years is recommended. See Attachment 2.

If approved, the SVCAC will continue to serve as a joint advisory agency to provide a regular forum for community participation in the formation of public policy, to consider local planning issues concerning the Sonoma Valley, to evaluate solutions to these issues, to advise elected officials and other decision makers, and to form a bridge for communication between the various governmental agencies and the public.

On December 5, 2023, the Board of Supervisors will consider the approval of the JPA and if approved, will also formally change the name of the Commission from the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission to the Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission. The proposed name change is intended to recognize that the work of the Commission is relevant to all residents of the Sonoma Valley regardless of citizenship status. The Rules and Procedures will also be amended to remove the requirement that appointees be registered voters, allowing Commissioners to serve regardless of citizenship status. See Attachment 2.

SVCAC City Referral Policy
Policy 2001-1 "Referrals to the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission" has not been updated since 2001. The policy states that the City is to refer projects subject to environmental review to the chair of the SVCAC who will then determine if it will be placed on the SVCAC Agenda Item #9.1:

Agenda. Based on new housing laws limiting number of meetings to five for affordable housing projects and standard environmental review practices, staff is recommending to amend the policy. Staff proposes that only long range planning projects and policy decisions that would have a regional impact, such as the General Plan, would be referred to the chair of the SVCAC.

In addition, during the public review period of the Environmental Review, the SVCAC will be included in the mailing list for the Notice of Availability, in which the County is already listed.

The SVCAC will provide comments on the Draft EIR like other interested parties, not a "recommendation of approval or denial" to the Planning Commission. See Attachment 3.

Recommended Council Action

1. Approve City Council Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Powers Agreement between the County of Sonoma and the City of Sonoma continuing the Sonoma Valley Citizens (Community) Advisory Commission, for a period of five years from January 1, 2024, To December 31, 2028.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution amending Policy 2001-1.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
There are no financial impacts to this action.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Attachment 1 Draft JPA Resolution
Attachment 2 Joint Powers Agreement
Attachment 3 SVCAC Policy Resolution
Agenda Item #9.1:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # - 2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING

THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT

WITH THE COUNTY OF SONOMA CHANGING THE NAME OF THE SONOMA VALLEY

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE SONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY

ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND CONTINUING THE SONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FROM JANUARY 1, 2024, TO DECEMBER 31, 2028
WHEREAS, the County of Sonoma (“the County”) and the City of Sonoma (“the City”) have established the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to Government Code section 65101 as a joint advisory agency to provide a regular forum for residents participation in the formation of public policy, to consider local planning issues concerning the Sonoma Valley, to evaluate solutions to these issues, to advise elected officials and other decision makers, and to form a bridge for communication between the various governmental agencies and the general public; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City mutually agree to change the name of the Commission to recognize that the work of the Commission is relevant to citizens and noncitizens alike, and the potential of noncitizens to apply for appointment to the Commission; and WHEREAS, the County and the City mutually desire to continue the Commission in existence for five (5) years from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute a Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Sonoma continuing the Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission for a period of five (5) years from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028.

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

1 1/01/24

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF

SONOMA AND THE CITY OF SONOMA CONTINUING THE

SONOMA VALLEY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION

AND AMENDING THE NAME TO THE

SONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMISSION
This Agreement is made by and between the County of Sonoma, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the City of Sonoma, a general law city (“City”), and is dated for convenience as of January 1, 2024.

RECITALS
Whereas, County and City share responsibility for local planning in the Sonoma Valley; and
Whereas, according to statewide growth projections, County and City are faced with the potential for unprecedented population growth and development; and Whereas, Sonoma Valley, with its beautiful landscape, historic buildings, and growing industries producing wine, dairy, and other agricultural products, is an ideal environment for local residents and businesses; and
Whereas, it is in the public interest that County and City coordinate their local planning activities; and
Whereas, this coordination is enhanced by better communication; and Whereas, Government Code section 65101 authorizes the establishment of joint advisory agencies through a plan or organization mutually agreeable to cooperating counties and cities; and
Whereas, County and City have established the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to Government Code section 65101 as a joint advisory agency to provide a regular forum for resident participation in the formation of public policy, to consider local planning issues concerning the Sonoma Valley, to evaluate solutions to these issues, to advise elected officials and other decision makers, and to form a bridge for communication between the various governmental agencies and the general public; and Whereas, County and City mutually desire to continue the Commission in existence for a period of five (5) years; and
Whereas, the County and City also mutually desire to change the name and Rules and Procedures of the Commission to allow the inclusion of noncitizens on the membership of the Commission who are otherwise qualified to serve.

Agenda Item #9.1:

2 1/01/24

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
Now, Therefore, Be It Agreed as follows:

1. By virtue of resolutions of County and City authorizing the execution of this Agreement, the Commission is hereby continued in existence.

2. The Commission shall be empowered from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028 (“the five-year term”), and shall be subject to review by County and City each year of its existence.

The Commission may, at the conclusion of the five-year term, be continued for a time certain upon mutual consent of County and City, subject to periodic review as previously defined.

3. County and City reserve the right to terminate this Agreement and the Commission at any time upon mutual agreement, or upon sixty (60) days notice from either party to the other.

4. The boundaries and area subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission are shown in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. The Commission shall consist of eleven (11) commissioners, two (2) alternate commissioners, two (2) emeritus (non-voting) commissioners, two (2) ex-officio (non-voting) members, and two (2) alternate ex-officio (non-voting) members. The commissioners, alternate commissioners, and emeritus commissioners shall be from the Subareas shown in Exhibit “A.” The ex-officio members and alternate ex-officio members shall be representatives from County and City. Representation shall be generally based upon the population distribution of the Sonoma Valley. It is understood that in addition to meeting the following geographical criteria, it is desirable that the commissioners, alternate commissioners, and emeritus commissioners represent a wide range of interest, varied experience and expertise, and include members of the general public to encourage a greater voice in local government decisions. Commissioners, alternate commissioners, emeritus commissioners, ex-officio members, and alternate ex-officio members shall be selected as follows:
(a) Representing County:
(1) El Verano West: three (3) commissioners from the area covered by the portions of Subareas 3, 4, and 10 that lie to the west of Sonoma Creek. (2) Springs East: two (2) commissioners from the area covered by the portions of Subareas 3 and 9 that lie to the east of Sonoma Creek.
(3) North Valley: two (2) commissioners from the area covered by Subareas 5, 6, 7, and 8. (4) South Valley: one (1) commissioner from the area covered by Subareas 11, 12, 13, and

14. (5) One (1) alternate commissioner from the area covered by Subareas 3 - 14, inclusive.

Agenda Item #9.1:

3 1/01/24
(6) One (1) emeritus commissioner from the area covered by Subareas 3 - 14, inclusive, who shall be a former commissioner or alternate commissioner. (7) One (1) ex-officio member and one (1) alternate ex-officio member from County’s Planning Agency, which is comprised of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustments, and Permit and Resource Management Department staff. (b) Representing City:
(1) City of Sonoma: three (3) commissioners and one (1) alternate commissioner from the area covered by Subareas 1 and 2, being the city of Sonoma and its primary sphere of influence. (2) One (1) emeritus commissioner from the area covered by Subareas 1 and 2, who shall be a former commissioner or alternate commissioner.
(3) One (1) ex-officio member and one (1) alternate ex-officio member from City’s Planning Agency, which is comprised of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Department staff.

6. One commissioner shall be designated and shall act as representative of public service agencies, such as water, fire, school, and other districts or entities.

7. The commissioners, alternate commissioner, emeritus commissioner, ex-officio member, and alternate ex-officio member representing County shall be appointed by County’s Board of Supervisors. The commissioners, alternate commissioner, emeritus commissioner, ex-officio member, and alternate ex-officio member representing City shall be appointed by City’s City Council.

8. The Commission shall review and make recommendations on policy matters affecting the Sonoma Valley and on development projects of valley-wide significance.

9. The Commission may also, from time to time, hold publicly noticed “town hall meetings” to inform local residents, provide a forum for local residents within the Sonoma Valley to raise and discuss local planning issues of importance, and to recommend long range policy direction for resolution of those issues.

10. The rules and procedures for governance of the Commission shall be as set forth in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The rules and procedures may be amended or modified upon mutual consent of County and City.

11. County and City, through their respective planning agencies, shall cooperate with the Commission to reach the goals of this Agreement.

In Witness Whereof, County and City have executed this Agreement as set forth below.

Agenda Item #9.1:

4 1/01/24
County:

County of Sonoma
By: ______________________________
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christina Rivera, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
City:

City of Sonoma
By: ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

Napa County
San Pablo
Bay
Marin County
Solano County
Solano County
?Ý
KÍ
AÜ
Aà
?`
Aà
Subarea 14
South Valley
Subarea 7
North Valley
Subarea 9
Springs East
Subarea 10
Rural West
Subarea 13
Rural Southeast
Subarea 11
Leveroni - Bonneau
Subarea 8
Sonoma Mountain - Enterprise
Subarea 3
Boyes - El Verano Subarea 4
Eldridge
Subarea 5
Glen Ellen
Subarea 12
Temelec
Subarea 6
Kenwood
Subarea 2
Sonoma USA
South Valley
North Valley
Springs East
El Verano West
City of Sonoma
Tracks
I St
Grove St
7th St E
Cavedale Rd
Trinity
Rd
Lichau Rd
Lynch Rd
Los A al mos Rd
Gehricke Rd
Blank Rd
Marsh
Trl
Montgomery Dr
B St
Hoen Ave
Norrbom Rd
Pythian Rd
Sonoma Ave
Sonoma Mountain Rd
Yulupa
Ave
Nelligan Rd
Ridge Trl
Manor Ln W
Carriger Rd
Noble Rd
Wilfred Ave
Skillman Ln
Hardin Ln
Scenic Ave
Davis Ln
Corby Ave
F St
Liberty Rd
Castle Rd
Channel Dr
Dustman Rd
E Railroad Ave
Cougar Ln
Mangel Ranch Rd
G St
Millbrae Ave
Henno
Rd
Lawndale Rd
Manor Ln
Scott Rd
1st St W
Hessel Rd
Frates Rd
6th St
Garfield Dr
Dunbar Rd
D ci kson Rd
Holly Ave
S
Ely
Rd
5th
St
Enterprise Rd
Timberline Dr
King
Rd
Oakmont Dr
Riverside
Dr
Hyde Rd
Felder Rd
Caulfield Ln
2nd St E
Helman Ln
Lovall Valley Rd
Spolini Rd
Canfield Rd
Watmaugh Rd
Vallejo St
Walker Ave
Redding Rd
Millerick Rd
Payran St
West St
West Ave
Yuba Dr
Crinella Dr
Solano Ave
Magnolia Ave
Horn Ave
Skaggs Island
Rd
4th St E
E Macarthur St
Rainsville Rd
Orchard Rd
Lawndale Trl
Erland
Rd
Olive St
Midway Dr
High Rd
Holst Rd
Goodwin Ave
Orange
Ave
Cannon Ln
Two Quarry Trl
Hillside
Craig Ave
Jewett Rd
Canyon Trl
Poehlman Rd
Primrose Ave
Petersen Rd
Keiser Ave
Rough
Go
Trl
3rd St
C St
W Railroad Ave
4th St
Dutton Ave
Olive
Ave
Channel Trl
Hunter Ln
S E St
Adrian
Dr
Canyon Rd
Redwood Dr
Southwest Blvd
Volkerts Rd
Bardy Rd
Derby
Ln
Browns Ln
Maria Dr
Taylor Ave
5th St E
Plum
Ranch
Rd
Bonness
Rd
Hudis St
Edith St
Sunland Ave
Hunter Creek Trl
Tokay St
Mission Blvd
Oak
Leaf Dr
Jamison
Rd
Nuns Canyon Rd
Pierson Rd
Bodway Pky
Cardoza Rd
Baywood Dr
Linwood
Ave
Fairway Dr
Tunzi Rd
Bristol Rd
Boyes Blvd
Cypress Ave
Ladera Rd
Old Lakeville Rd 3
Burbank Ave
Keokuk St
White Alder
Bonneau Rd
Maple Ave
Lancaster Dr
E D St
Tunzi Ln
Vigilante Rd
Commerce
Blvd
Fair Ave
Peru Rd
Langtry Rd
Escalero
Rd
Meadow
Willow Ave
Pars Ln
Moorland Ave
Dowd Dr
Hopper St
St Francis Dr
Duggans Rd
Schultz Trl
Phillips Ave
Emily Ave
Hamilton Rd
Lohrman Ln
2nd St
N ei mela Rd
Reclamation Rd
Madrone Rd
Butler Ave
Melita Rd
Rollo
Rd
H
awks Beard
Cherry St
Hoff Rd
State
Farm
Dr
Nicolini Rd
Bethards Dr
Burt St
Andrieux St
Orchard Trl
Elm Dr
E
Napa
St
Thornsberry
Rd
Creekside
Rd
Fair St
Stone
Bridge
Rd
Old Winery Rd
Dutch Ln
Grace Dr D
St
Mitchell Dr
S A St
Burton
Ave
Aurora Ln
Schultz Rd
Coblentz Rd
Brand Ln
Tarwater Rd
Corrick
Rd
Labath Ave
Tuff Ln
Arlington Ave
El
ysian Ave
Middle
Rincon
Rd
Monte Verde Dr
Mcfar al ne Rd
Denman Rd
Kawana Springs Rd
Sprauer Rd
Slate Dr
Frey Rd
Arlen Dr
Sperring Rd
Meadowridge
Dr
Guenza Rd
South Burma Trl
S
pring
Dr
Thompson Ln
Fedrick Ranch Rd
Alice Dr
14th St
1st St
Oak St
Alta Dr
W
P
Richardson Trl
W Summit Trl
Dupont Dr
Hill Rd
Gossage Ave
Lowell Ave
Turner Rd
Aston Ave
Minnesota Ave
Holt
Kawana
Ter
Acacia Way
Periera Rd
Alan Dr
Sutter St
Montecito Blvd
Kenilworth
Ave
Baker St
Rose Ave
Live Oak Trl
Dale Ave
A St
Colgan Creek Trl
Gambini Rd
Live Oak Dr
Kullberg Rd
Spring
Creek
Trl
Queens Ln
Knolls Dr
Gloria Dr
Curtis Dr
Benicia
Dr
Bloomfield Rd
Dutton Meadow
Wildwood Mountain Rd
Paula Ln
Boas Dr
Mcbrown Rd
Wood
Valley
Rd
Cloud
Ln
Los Olivos Ave
Ormsby
Ln
Kentucky
St
Moura Ln
Rainier Ave
Glenn Oaks Rd
Sunrise
Maple Glen Rd
Robinson Rd
Keiser Rd
Fairfield
Dr
Madrone Ave
Harris
Rd
Ielmorini Rd
W
School St
Cougar Mountain Dr
Windsor Dr
Eagle Ridge Rd
Riesling
Rd
Louis Trl
Dana St
Mossi Rd
Weiss Ln
Meadowlark Ln
Highland Ave
Wolf Run
Holst Ln
Grosse Ave
Wild
Oak Dr
Cherry Ave
Jacobsen Ln
Oasis Dr
Marty D
Aca
r
cia Ln
Daywalt Rd
Bailey Ave
S al ttery Rd
Everett Rd
Morelli Vis
Portal St
W Macarthur St
Sjoen Dr
Mission Dr
Ahern Ln
Balma Ln
E Watmaugh Rd
La Paz Ln
Hatpat Ln
Lomi at Ave
Dowdell Ave
Fowler Creek Rd
Allen St
Waldo
Ln
William Dr
Orr Ln
Acacia Ave
Mcnear Ave
Alta
Vista
Ave
St Jean Ct
Henning Rd
Mills Rd
Mountain Hawk
Gilchrist Rd
Maffei Rd
Mcminn Ave
Metz Ln
Chester Dr
Fern Ave
Hillsborough Dr
Elm Ave
Brooks Ave
Hale Rd
Santa Alicia Dr
C
reek Trl
Palm Ave
Patio Ct
Qu gi g Dr
Gordon Ln
Center Rd
Woodworth Rd
Alder Ave
Farmers Ln
Vista Ln
Mill St
Emery Rd
Matanzas
Creek
Ln
Gray Rd
Moller Ln
Sartori Dr
Lila Ln
Canyon Dr
Kenilworth Dr
W Agua Caliente Rd
Gilmore Ave
Pepperwood Dr
E Foothill Dr
Neotomas Ave
Newanga Ave
Lower Rd
Sunhawk Dr
Via
Roble
Orchard
Ln
Oregon St
Summerhill Ln
Lake Trl
Stonehedge Dr
Clay St
Eucalyptus Ave
Alta
Sonom
a
Rd
Lynn Dr
Ware Hill Rd
Herzog Dr
Cunningham
Rd
Marshall Ave
Weeks Rd
Sunnyslope Rd
Holland Dr
Lakeville
St
Anolik Ln
Birch Dr
Eleanor Ave
Val el y Oaks Dr
Standish Ave
Bain Ranch Rd
Laguna Dr
Rover Rd
Hayes Ln
Daniel Dr
Wilford
Ln
Donald St
Tolay Creek Rd
Lone Pine Rd
Stuart Dr
Summerfield
Rd
Vailetti Dr
Nevin Rd
Cader Ln
Round Oak Rd
Tranquility Ln
Juniper Ave
Wambold Ln
Orr Rd
Louise Dr
Brazil St
W Hearn Ave
Owls Nest Dr
Postnikoff Rd
Pepper Ln
Deer Creek Ln
Siesta Ln
Wyo
ming
Dr
Santa Barbara Dr
Grevillia Dr
Lincoln Ave
Stevenson Rd
Castle
Dr
Cleveland Ln
Peracca Rd
Juliet Dr
Kastania Rd
Elsa Dr
Wi sl on
S Moorland Ave
Happy
Ln
Victoria Dr
Schellville
Rd
Frazier Ave
Beachwood Dr
Westerbeke Ranch Rd
Serres Ln
Formschlag Ln
Shady Acres Ln
Toyon
Dolores
Dr
Parktrail Dr
Eliza Way
Parkhurst Dr
Carniglia Ln
Jack London
Dr
Edgewater Dr
Firethorn Dr
Sum
mit Trl
Mountain Meadow Ln
Burgess Dr
Great Heron Dr
Linnet Ln
Santa Cruz Way
Fredricks Rd
Circle
Dr
Willow Dr
Burnham
Ranch
Rd
Iron Ct
Winter Creek Ln
Enterprise Dr
Pearson Ave
E Redwood Dr
Champlin
Creek
Ln
Bionda Rd
Carissa Ave
Kroeger Rd
Keiser Ranch Rd
Century Ln
Park Ln
Odonnell Ln
Debbie
Hill Rd
Rainier Cir
Fir Dr
Hopi Trl
Braehurst Ln
Splude Rd
Ivy Ln
Sunnyslope Ave
Phillips Dr
N Central Ave
N Webster St
Wood
Sorrel Dr
Sullivan Way
Folger Rd
Bartleson Rd
16th St
Port Sonoma Marina Blvd
Ware Ave
Estrella Dr
Arlington Dr
Ely Blvd S
Petaluma Blvd S
Carr Ln
Bannon Ln
Golf Course Dr
Davis Cir
Pear Ln
Sunridge Dr
Mary Paige Ln
S Redwood Dr
London Way
E St
Twig Ave
Oak
Trail Dr
Jess ei Ln
Rogers Way
Center St
Vintage Ln
Campus Cir
Valley View Dr
Long Rd
Ellis St
Kenleigh Dr
Oak Springs Ln
Old Bennett Ridge Rd
Old Lakeville Rd 1
Sylvia Dr
Old Lakeville Rd 2
Susan Ln
Middlebrook Way
Gibson St
Contra
Costa
Dr
Ronne Dr
Cypress
Dr
Manchester Ave
Woodview Dr
Rancho Dr
Larkin Dr
Holly Ln
Hidden
Oaks
Rd
Rancho Bonita Way
Stony Glen Ln
Sunrise Pky
Valparaiso Ave
Cavanaugh Ln
Diane Way
Mcsween Ln
Somerville Rd
Veronda Ave
Pueblo Rd
Arrowhead Dr
Matsons Ln
Evelyn Ct
Peary Ave
Pine Ln
W Payran St
Isabel Dr
Hunter Lane Ext
Stevens Gate Rd
L bi by Ave
Shadyoak Dr
Brey Rd
Oakwood Dr
Weeks
Ranch
Rd
Stahl Rd
Jacqueline
Dr
Grove Ct
Big
Cedar Ln
Trinity Rd W
Rinaldo St
Blair Ave
Dutch Hill Dr
Cypress
Rd
Post St
Airport Rd
Lark Ave
Railroad Ave
Jensen Rd
Wagner Ln
Dance
Dr
Locust Ave
Martin Ave
Wiljan Ct
Bennett Valley Ln
Martin St
Lopes Rd
Toy
Ln
Weinman Rd
Pine
Ave
Bennett View
Dr
Westridge Dr
Herschel Rd
Hoyal Dr
6th St E
Chestnut Ave
Earle St
Dawn Hill Rd
Smith St
Bags Blvd
Plaza Dr
Palmer Ave
Upper Nelligan Ln
Eagle Dr
Andover Way
Gardner Ranch Rd
Goodman Ave
Katie
Ln
Melody
Dr
Margarita Way
Donna Ct
Colorado
Blvd
Berger Ln
Beffa
Rd W
12th St
Eastside Ave
Todd Rd
Soldier Ln
Solano Dr
Liscum St
Fremont Rd
Revie Rd
Hazel St
Rovina Ln
Z Rd
Edw ni Ke sl ey Way
Joaquin Dr
El Rancho Feliz Rd
Paulsen Ln
Verbena Dr
Crestridge Pl
Myer Rd
N
ovak Dr
Katopis Rd
Desnudos Way
Sunset Trl
Skycrest Dr
Robway
Ln
Jasmine Cir
Water Rd
Gary Ct
Lakeview
Dr
Lemire Ln
Quarry
Hill Rd
Clark Rd
Pressley Rd
Lakeside Dr
Bart Rd
Hillsdale
Dr
Peterson Rd
Thomas
Rd
Melcon Ln
Welzel Ln
Lamont Ct
Simone Rd
Cielo Cir
El Crystal Dr
Audrey Ln
Cliffwood Dr
Executive
Dr
Hatchery Rd
Ruth Ct
Gladstone Way
Del Mar Dr
Carrithers Rd
Batesole Dr
Treehaven Ln
Trombetta St
Trail Ridge Pl
Taylor Rd
Marna
Ln
La Cuesta
Dr
Herrerias Way
Kjell Ct
Griffin Wa
B
y
ellevue Ave
Wappo
Rd
Beaumont Way
Sestri Ln
Reservoir Rd
Anza Dr
Mabry Ln
Park Ct
Schellbach Rd
Forest Trl
Avalon Ave
Lawler Rd
Kenton Ct
George St
Fawn Ln
Southgate Dr
Viewcrest Dr
Giffen Ave
Wren Dr
Springhill Rd
Farmers Ln
Fairway Dr
5th St
Grove St
Juniper Ave
Langtry Rd
B
St
Cavedale Rd
Skaggs Island
Rd
Skaggs Island Rd
Taylor Ave
Hillside
Slattery Rd
Dutton Ave
Grove
St
Langtry Rd
Sunland Ave
Skaggs Island
Rd
Primrose Ave
Santa Rosa
Adobe Rd
Arnold
Dr
Stony Point Rd
Petaluma Hill Rd
Benn
ett Valley
Rd
Lakeville H
wy
Napa Rd
Todd Rd
8th St E
D St
Ramal Rd
Santa Rosa Ave
St Helena Rd
Llano Rd
Roblar Rd
Old Redwood Hwy
Ely
Rd
Skaggs Island Rd
Pepper Rd
Sono
m a Mountain Rd
4th St
P ressley Rd
Warm
Springs Rd
Bodega
Ave
Grange Rd
N
Mcdowell Blvd
Hearn Ave
Ely
Blvd S
5th St E
Leveroni Rd
Burndale Rd
Corona Rd
Denmark St
5th St W
Calistoga Rd
W
Sierra
Ave
Petaluma
Blvd S
E Napa St
Ludwig Ave
Petalu
ma Blvd N
Meacham Rd
Lone Pine Rd
Snyder Ln
Western Ave
Bellevue Ave
E Washington St
Roberts Rd
Rohnert Park Expy
Crane Canyon Rd
S
Mcdowell Blvd
E Cotati Ave
Brush Creek R d
Mountain View Ave
Lakeville St
Commerce
Blvd
Sonoma Mountain Pky
Sebastopol Rd
Casa Grande Rd
Petaluma Ave
E Todd Rd
Main St
Yolanda Ave
3rd St
Washington St
Ê 1 inch equals 0.76 miles Permit and Resource Management Department 2 5 5 0 V e n t u r a A v e n u e , S a n t a R o s a , C a l i f o r n i a 95403 707-565-1900 FAX 707-565-1103 0 0.751.52.25 County of Sonoma County of Sonoma
Miles
Note:1. Parcel Boundaries derived from 1:6000 lotline
maps and revised using Assessor Parcel Maps.Alignment inconsistencies occur due to reprojection.

2. Data is for planning purposes.3. Questions regarding this map and the data herein should be directed to PRMD (707) 565-1900.

4. Topography USGS 7.5 Quadrangle sheet.Map Scale and Reproduction methods limit precision in physical features displayed.This map is for illustrative purpose only, and is not suitable for parcel-specific decisionmaking. The parcels contained here-in are not intended to represent surveyed data.Site-specific studies are required to draw parcel-specific conclusions. Assessor'sparcel data are current as of July 1, 2013. For more current parcel data consultthe County of Sonoma Assessor's Office.No part of this map may be copied, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD), County of Sonoma, California.

Sonoma
Valley Community Advisory Commission Area
Author: PMRD Cartographer: D. Reinier Date: February 24, 2014 S:\GIS-DATA\PRMD_BASE\PRMD Department Projects\Comprhensive Planning\Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission\MXD's\Draft Revised Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission E-size.mxd Legend
Draft Revised SVCAC BoundaryDraft Revised SVCAC Planning Subareas Proposed SVCAC Representation Areas
City of SonomaEl Verano WestNorth ValleySouth ValleySprings EastCity Limits Exhibit A
Agenda Item #9.1:

1 1/01/24
EXHIBIT “B”

SONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMISSION

RULES AND PROCEDURES
I. Commissioners.

A. Appointment: Appointment of County’s eight commissioners, one alternate commissioner, one emeritus commissioner, one ex-officio member, and one alternate ex-officio member shall be made by County’s Board of Supervisors. Appointment of City’s three commissioners, one alternate commissioner, one emeritus commissioner, one ex-officio member, and one alternate ex-officio member shall be made by City’s City Council.

B. Qualifications: Each commissioner and alternate commissioner shall be a resident of the area represented by that commissioner or alternate commissioner.

C. Terms of Office: Commissioners and alternate commissioners shall serve fouryear terms at the pleasure of their appointing authority. No commissioner or alternate commissioner shall serve more than two terms unless their appointing authority approves an exception to allow the commissioner or alternate commissioner to serve an additional term or terms. In any case, County and City each reserve the right to remove a commissioner or alternate commissioner it appointed regardless of the term of appointment, with or without cause.

Emeritus commissioners, ex-officio members, and alternate ex-officio members shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority and may be removed at any time, with or without cause.

D. Duties of Commissioners:

1. To attend and participate in meetings of the Commission.

2. To study and analyze appropriate material submitted.

3. To participate in discussions and research and write necessary reports.

4. To serve on such subcommittees as may be designated by the Commission.

5. To aid the public in understanding and participating in local planning issues, and the processes of local government.

E. Vacancies: In event of termination, death, resignation, or inability to serve on the part of any commissioner or alternate commissioner, such condition shall be brought to the attention of the appointing authority. “Inability to serve” shall be determined by a majority vote of the Commission. If any commissioner shall miss two (2) consecutive regular meetings without a valid excuse, the appointing authority shall be notified and requested to appoint a more active replacement.

Agenda Item #9.1:

2 1/01/24
At any time that a vacancy occurs, either County or City, as the case may be, shall have sixty (60) days to fill the vacancy. Should either County or City fail to act in the time specified, the Commission shall have the authority to make the appointment in accordance with the prescribed membership.

F. Officers: At the first meeting in each calendar year, the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. The Chair shall perform the functions specified in these Rules and Procedures. When the Chair is absent, the Vice Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair.

If the Chair and the Vice Chair are both absent, the remaining members of the Commission shall select one of its members to act as Chair Pro Tem. The Secretary shall act as secretary to the Commission.

G. Office: The principal place of business of the Commission shall be determined by the Commission. At a minimum, there shall be a telephone number where information may be obtained by the public, and a place where the agenda may be publicly posted. This need not be the same place as where the Commission itself meets.

H. Compensation: Commissioners shall serve without compensation.

II. Meetings.

A. Frequency and Location: Meetings of the Commission shall be on an “as needed” basis as decided by the Commission. The time of the meetings shall be scheduled to maximize assistance to County’s Board of Supervisors and City’s City Council and their staffs. All meetings shall be held within the area shown in Exhibit “A” to the Joint Powers Agreement and shall be in a public building, accessible to the public, with facilities to accommodate interested members of the public.

B. Brown Act: All meetings and all deliberations of the Commission shall be open to the public and shall be governed by the Brown Act.

C. Rules of Procedure: All meetings of the Commission shall be conducted, insofar as practical, according to Roberts Rules of Order or other parliamentary authority adopted by the Commission.

D. Presiding Official: The Chair, or the Vice Chair in the Chair’s absence, shall preside over all meetings of the Commission. In case of absence of both the Chair and the Vice Chair, the Chair Pro Tem shall preside.

E. Agenda: The Chair shall be responsible for setting the agenda of each meeting of the Commission in collaboration with the Vice Chair and Secretary, and County and/or City staff.

F. Voting: Each member of the Commission is entitled to one vote. A member may abstain from voting in cases of conflict of interest, in which case he or she must state what the Agenda Item #9.1:

3 1/01/24
conflict is. No proxies shall be permitted. All votes shall be public and properly recorded. Exofficio members shall not be entitled to vote.

G. Minutes of Meeting: The minutes of each meeting of the Commission shall include a copy of the Agenda, the official public record of the meeting, and shall indicate any actions taken by the Commission. A copy of the minutes shall be sent to County and City.

H. Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chair or a majority of the Commission. No special meeting shall be held without compliance with the Brown Act.

I. Notice of Meetings: Notice of meetings of the Commission shall, at a minimum, comply with the Brown Act. The Commission shall give such additional notice as County’s Board of Supervisors or City’s City Council may request.

J. Quorum: Six voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum of the Commission.

K. Alternate Commissioner: County’s alternate commissioner shall serve only in the absence of one of County’s commissioners. Likewise, City’s alternate commissioner shall serve only in the absence of one of City’s commissioners. Each alternate commissioner who serves is entitled to one vote.

Agenda Item #9.1:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # - 2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AMENDING POLICY 2001-1 “REFERRALS TO THE CITY SONOMA VALLEY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION"
WHEREAS, the County of Sonoma (“County”) and the City of Sonoma (“City”) have established the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Government Code section 65101 as a joint advisory agency to provide a regular forum for residents participation in the formation of public policy, to consider local planning issues concerning the Sonoma Valley, to evaluate solutions to these issues, to advise elected officials and other decision makers, and to form a bridge for communication between the various governmental agencies and the general public; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City have extended the Commission and renamed it the Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission (“SVCAC”); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Policy 2001-1, effective September 19, 2001, to govern the City’s referrals of projects to the Commission for consideration (the “Policy”); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Policy to clarify when projects are referred to SVCAC and how SVCAC will be notified of projects during the environmental review process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends Policy 2001-1 as attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sandra Lowe, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

331107.1

EXHIBIT A
Policy Number 2001-1
Effective Date 9-19-2001
Amended 12-6-2023
Referrals to the Sonoma Valley Citizens Community Advisory Commission
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to define the circumstances in which The City of Sonoma refers Projects to the Sonoma Valley Citizens Community Advisory Commission (SVCAC) for comment.

II. POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the City of Sonoma to refers Projects that are determined by the Community Development Director to be of regional concern in Sonoma Valley subject to environmental review to the chairman of the SVCAC.

III. DEFINITIONS
A. “Environmental Review” means a process for analyzing potentially significant environmental impacts of projects that are not exempt from CEQA a negative declaration permit or an Environmental impact report.

B. “Project” means an application for a discretionary permit a proposed planning policy that is of regional concern (e.g., General Plan update) or a discretionary application of regional concern undergoing Environmental Review that is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council.

IV. PROVISIONS/PROCEDURES
A. Following a determination by the Community Development Director that a Project is subject to environmental review of regional concern, the City of Sonoma Planning staff shall deliver or have delivered provide a copy of the proposed policy, Project project application, the initial study, and any available supporting materials and environmental review documents to the Chairman of the SVCAC.

The SVCAC Chairman shall also receive notice for all discretionary applications undergoing environmental review and be provided an opportunity to comment during the public comment period.

B. The SVCAC chairman will determine, at his or her discretion, whether to place a project on the next available agenda of the SVCAC for comment.

C. If the item is brought to the SVCAC for comment, it shall be the responsibility of the SVCAC to prepare and deliver written comments to the City of Sonoma planning staff in a timely manner so that they may be incorporated into the applicable CEQA document and/or forwarded to the Planning Commission at the time of Project review.

Agenda Item #9.1:

331107.1
D. The Planning Commission shall consider the comments of the SVCAC in the course of its review of the project, but the comments shall not be considered binding and the Planning Commission shall act on the project application as it deems fit.

E. There is no obligation on the part of planning staff or the Project applicant to attend the SVCAC hearing on a Project referral.

F. Projects referred to the SVCAC for comment shall be reviewed by the SVCAC within 45 days. Otherwise, the SVCAC shall be deemed not to have commented.

G. This policy does not preclude the City Council or the planning staff from referring issues to the SVCAC for advice and comment that may not be subject to environmental review as defined in this policy.

V. RESPONSIBILITIES AND REVIEW
A. The City Council is responsible for reviewing this policy, although it may choose to solicit comments from the Planning Commission, the SVCAC, planning staff, and other interested party.

B. The City Council will review this policy from time-to-time, as it deems necessary.

VI. REFERENCES
n/a
Agenda Item #9.1: