Sonoma City Council
January 17, 2024

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice
Mayor
Jack Ding
Sandra Lowe
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, January 17, 2024
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 (Wellander, Ding, Lowe, Farrar-Rivas, Gurney)

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

3.1: 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

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: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of December 2023 (Chuck McBride, Interim Finance Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept report.

Agenda Report - Expenditure Report - December 2023 - Pdf 4 - 5

7.3: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Purchase of Laserfiche Cloud Enterprise Content Management System from MCCi Including a Budget Amendment in the Amount of $38,555 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Related Agreements (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Laserfiche Document Imaging and Archiving System - Pdf 6 - 44

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 (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the appeal in part to modify Condition of Approval 8 and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Affirming the Appeal in Part of 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 - Hotel Sonoma Appeal - Pdf
45 - 214

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

9.1: A Resolution Accepting the Climate Action Strategies (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Accepting the Climate Action Strategies and Finding that the Action is Not A Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Agenda Report - Community Action Strategies - Pdf
215 - 340

9.2: A Resolution Approving the City Council Commission & Committee Appointment Process and Introducing an Ordinance Amending SMC Section

2.40.010 - Attendance and Sections 2.48.020, 2.50.020, 2.60.020, and

10.12.080 - Composition (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance.
341 - 374

Agenda Report - Commission / Committee Policy & Ordinance - 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 usually 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.

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

City of Sonoma's Commission and Committee Roster: Commission & Committee Roster_Updated_Sept_27_2023 Appointments to Commission/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 that 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 Consideration: 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.

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jan 2024
Department
Finance
Staff Contact
Chuck McBride, Interim Finance Director
Agenda Item Title
Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of December 2023 Summary
The attached report shows disbursements for the month of December 2023. A detailed list of disbursements is available at the web site indicated at the bottom of the report.

Recommended Council Action
Accept report.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Monthly Payables Report, December 2023
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Expenditure Report Dec 2023
Agenda Item #7.2:

DISBURSEMENT REPORT December 2023
Year to Date Monthly Year to Date Annual Percent of
Fund Revenue Expenditure Expenditure Budget Budget
General Fund 30000 7,235,547 24,256,842 30%
City Council 41001 14,757 71,352 153,023 47%
City Clerk 41002 13,284 191,933 393,433 49%
City Manager 41003 88,525 661,149 1,314,858 50%
Finance 41004 57,018 371,100 801,131 46%
City Attorney 41005 37,433 119,844 337,914 35%
Police 42101 428,034 2,213,662 6,499,239 34%
Fire 42201 564,421 4,030,063 7,789,458 52%
Public Works - Admin 43020 24,778 267,302 536,512 50%
Public Works - Streets 43022 76,841 559,723 1,081,664 52% Public Works - Parks 43023 89,513 681,626 1,428,277 48% Planning 43030 85,821 724,141 1,270,847 57%
Building 43040 46,091 485,566 1,019,840 48%
Community Activities 43101 42,822 437,494 930,926 47%
Successor Agency 43199 5,332 49,540 205,251 24%
Non-Departmental 43200 50,012 357,744 771,335 46%
Emergency Response 43201 120 5,168 - 0%
Transfers - 142,690 833,749 17%
Total Gen Fund Exp 1,624,802 11,370,097 25,367,457 45%
Other Funds
Public Education & Gov 202 21,164 21,627 21,627 59,061 37% Abandoned Vehicle 240 - 1,494 8,615 - 0%
Streets/Transpor/Drain 301 16,353 121,355 2,212,472 3,470,610 64% Gas Tax 302 136,231 19,077 177,293 510,000 35%
SB-1Road Maint 303 89,426 - - 350,000 0%
Parks & Facilities 304 - 116,967 130,861 85,000 154%
Transportation Measure M 313 30,239 - 179 130,000 0%
314 - - - 50,000 0%
Parks Measure M 315 42,065 - - 157,000 0%
Prop 68 Parks 316 - - 181,541 185,015 98%
Successor Agency 391 - - 1,334,529 2,630,651 51%
CREBS 495 - - 41,749 41,749 100%
Cemeteries 501 81,446 10,494 166,310 509,532 33%
Cemetery Endowment 504 15,272 - - 50,000 0%
Water Utility 510 3,830,196 224,462 2,308,313 6,555,949 35% Water CIP 512 740 - 123,457 400,000 31%
Mgmt Information Srvcs 601 201,239 31,325 180,331 542,393 33% Vehicle Replacement 603 134,912 - 311,168 536,000 58%
Bulding Maintenance 610 126,825 - - 305,000 0%
Grants Restricted 630 1,253,719 - - - 0%
Housing Trust 732 146,353 - - - 0%
IGT 796 - - 151,013 440,000 34%
SVFRA Operations 798 42,593 364 3,066 - 0%
TOTAL 13,404,320 2,171,967 18,722,621 42,375,417 44%
Monthly disbursement detail reports can be found at www.sonomacity.org/financial-documents Agenda Item #7.2:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jan 2024
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Purchase of Laserfiche Cloud Enterprise Content Management System from MCCi Including a Budget Amendment in the Amount of $38,555 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Related Agreements Summary

The Public Records Act (Gov. Code 7920.000) was enacted to provide access to information that enables the public to monitor the functioning of their government. This right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person. As the Custodian of Records for the City, the City Clerk is responsible for ensuring that the records of the City are organized and accessible, retained and disposed of based on legal requirements and analysis of their function and value, and records of continuing value — or archives, also known as archival records—are preserved and accessible.

The City has adopted a Records Retention Schedule which is our guiding document for how records are managed. It ensures the City is in compliance with legal requirements and department needs. The schedule dictates how long each type of record is kept, in what format, and where. Meeting the timelines set forth in the schedule is critical as it could be the difference in legal and civil matters.

The City’s existing document management system is a legacy DocuWare system. These legacy document management platforms were originally designed to reduce dependence on paper filing processes by providing an electronic filing cabinet. They were not meant to manage records through their lifecycle (creation, use, retention, destruction), so do not allow for the assignment of retention. Currently, the City pays an annual cost to maintain the system.

Recognizing the need for a more robust compliance system, and as part of the City Clerk’s transparency and accessibility department goal, City Staff has been researching the best solutions and service providers for an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) System that would include a public portal.

City staff has identified Laserfiche Cloud as the preferred solution. Laserfiche is an allencompassing ECM system, allowing staff to manage record retention schedules, automate day-to-day business processes, and offer multiple other functionalities. It is a "Trusted System" and meets the requirements of the Trustworthy Electronic Document or Record Preservation Regulations and California Government Code. Laserfiche also gives members of the public the opportunity to view public records through a public portal and is a flexible system that allows integration into our existing software systems. In a recent press release, it was noted that Laserfiche now works with over 200 cities in California.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Per the City's Purchasing Policy, quotes were solicited from multiple vendors. Responsive quotes were submitted by MCCi, LLC (MCCi), Complete Paperless Solutions (CPS), and ECS Imaging, Inc.

To meet the City’s needs the quotes were reviewed for the following core services:
 Experience in Local Government
 Expertise in Laserfiche and a proven track record in successful implementations  Identified migration milestones & deliverables
 Robust records management
 Ability to integrate with existing City systems
 Public Portal with unlimited views that would allow members of the public the ability to search City records as needed
 Ongoing top tier training and support – in person training and self-led opportunities and resources
 Forms
 Workflow
After careful review, Staff recommends entering into an agreement with MCCi, LLC for Laserfiche Cloud licensing and professional services. The major difference between the three quotes was in the migration costs of our currently digitized records from DocuWare to Laserfiche. MCCi provided a Statement of Work (SOW), which detailed the project milestones and deliverables, including a breakdown on the number of documents and the process of migrating them. The two other quotes did not include an SOW and did not appear to reflect the most current document volume. One of them provided a Pre-Statement of Work, which was what was quoted and cited as “subject to change”. Necessary modules such as Workflow were included in MCCi’s quote, not listed as available add-ons.

MCCi has been in business for more than 20 years, focuses on government agencies, have multiple offerings, and are the largest provider of Laserfiche software in the world. They have implemented and supported over 1,000 public agencies including cities, counties, state agencies, and special districts.

Experts in Laserfiche: MCCi’s Professional Services team includes System Engineers, Project Managers, Developers, Business Analysts, and Trainers. These professionals are highly trained in implementation, business processes, project management, integrations, data migrations, and more. The City can leverage MCCi’s expertise and best practices to implement a well-thought-out enterprise solution based on our organization’s needs and business processes.

Transparent Record Management: MCCi will configure Records Management in our repository using Transparent Records Management (TRM). Using TRM, both records managers and general users can organize the same repository in the manner they each prefer, simultaneously. The process is “transparent” because it enables general users to see through the complex records management layout to their desired structure. Records management requirements do not interfere with day-to-day business needs, and records managers can retain control over the way information is categorized and filed outside of the view of everyday users of the system.

Dedicated Support: (This is an important service as the City of Sonoma does not have in-house IT services)
Agenda Item #7.3:

MCCi provides multiple options for technical support. Our annual renewal covers application break/fix support, version downloads, and continued educational resources. MCCi offers supplemental support packages to cover remote training, basic configuration services, and maintenance of existing business processes. Process Administration Support Services (PASS) provides a subject matter expert that is dedicated to our account. MCCi also offers its own Training Center for Laserfiche, which is a web-based platform available 24/7, and contains tutorials, videos, etc.

Originally it was planned to use this fiscal year’s budget for the Laserfiche Cloud licensing and implementation. The project team aimed to work with the chosen vendor to structure the repository, create document templates, and assign retention periods. Data migration costs were scheduled for the next fiscal year, with the goal of minimal disruption to daily record access.

However, an unforeseen circumstance arose, which made this unfeasible. The City’s current IT service provider mandated moving the DocuWare system to a new server for cyber-security insurance compliance, incurring an unbudgeted $10,000 upgrade cost.

In discussion with the City Manager and Community Development Director, it was felt that it would be more efficient to move forward with the full implementation and migration in this fiscal year, and not pay the additional $10,000 for a system that will be defunct in a few short months.

This leaves a shortfall in the budgeted amount of $38,555. Staff is requesting a budget amendment from the General Fund Reserves to fund the remainder of the project.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the resolution approving the purchase of Laserfiche Cloud Enterprise Content Management System from MCCi Including a Budget Amendment in the Amount of $45,000 and Authorize the City Manager to execute related agreements.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
$45,000 is currently budgeted in Account #100-43200-606-70606, the budget amendment would decrease the General Fund Reserve by $39,792.50.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution MCCi Laserfiche
City of Sonoma - MCCi Estimate
City of Sonoma - MCCi Statement of Work
Agenda Item #7.3:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION #____- 2024

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF LASERFICHE CLOUD ENTERPRISE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM MCCi, LLC (MCCi), INCLUDING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,555 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE RELATED AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Secretary of State has adopted Trustworthy Electronic Document or Record Preservation regulations, located in Chapter 15, Division 7, Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, which govern the recording, storing, and reproducing of Records in electronic media where the intent is to destroy the original hardcopy and maintain the electronic copy as the official record; and
WHEREAS, section 34090, et seq, of the Government Code of the State of California provides the parameters whereby records that have served their purpose and are no longer required may be destroyed, including the requirement that certain records be reproduced on a “Trusted System” as defined in California Government Code Section 12168.7, prior to destruction; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution #53-2023, which updated the City’s Records Retention Schedule. This establishes procedures for retaining City Records, and for disposing of these records when they are no longer needed for administrative, fiscal, historical, or legal purposes as long as we have a “trusted system”; and WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma currently utilizes a records management system to electronically store records generated as a result of City Council action, such as resolutions, ordinances, minutes, agenda, contracts, building plans, planning projects, permits, and other various records; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a more robust compliance system than the current solution, and based on its long history of innovation and successful use in government, Laserfiche was the most suitable; and
WHEREAS, Laserfiche will facilitate expanded online access to records through a public portal via the City’s website which will allow members of the public enhanced accessibility and transparency, while contributing to a reduction in Public Records Act requests; and WHEREAS, the City received proposals from MCCi, LLC, ECS Imaging, Inc, Complete Paperless Solutions (CPS), and RICOH; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with MCCi, LLC (MCCi) for a Cloudbased records management solution that will create better efficiencies, provide ease of uses for not only internal but external users, and increase access to and transparency of public records; and
WHEREAS, MCCi will deliver a comprehensive turnkey solution to the City, encompassing all necessary software and associated services for design, data migration, development, deployment, training, and continuous system support; and Agenda Item #7.3:

WHEREAS, the proposed system will have a one-time implementation cost of $83,555, with an on-going annual cost of $21,530.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma approves the following:

1. The purchase of Laserfiche Cloud Enterprise Content Management System from MCCi, LLC.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the related agreements.

3. Approves a budget amendment in the amount of $38,555 from the General Fund Reserve to Account #100-43200-606-70606.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma on this 17th day of January 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.3:

Estimate
City of Sonoma
Issued: December 8, 2023
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 2 of 21
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION OVERVIEW: LASERFICHE
MCCi is recommending the Laserfiche solution and MCCi Professional Services for your organization. With capabilities ranging from electronic records management to document routing, electronic forms, and integrations, Laserfiche is a powerful solution that enables the entire enterprise. Please keep in mind some of the features of Laserfiche:

USER-FRIENDLY
Laserfiche is very easy to learn, navigate, and use. With a folder structure similar to Windows Explorer, Laserfiche will seem familiar to your staff, giving them the confidence to begin scanning and retrieving documents almost immediately after installation.

COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY
Laserfiche Comprehensive Security allows you to control and administer the security of your documents. You determine which functions, such as scanning and printing, each staff member may use.

INTELLIGENT SEARCH
The Laserfiche Search Engine is a powerful tool to help users find the documents they need during their day-to-day processes, including full-text search, index search, and document and folder name. The Laserfiche full-text search unlocks the contents of your documents; if you need to find a word or phrase within a document, Laserfiche retrieves it immediately. An easy Google-style toolbar is available for searching as well.

INTEGRATION
Laserfiche is the central repository for records in your organization and allows you to integrate other main line-ofbusiness solutions easily. Whether you are looking for a way to integrate with a departmental solution, ERP solution, Microsoft Office application or SharePoint, etc., Laserfiche has options available to reduce duplicate data entry and provides seamless access to your records.

E-FORMS & BUSINESS PROCESS AUTOMATION
Laserfiche allows users to capture information while automating and transforming business processes. Users are finding efficiencies by reducing the time processes take and giving users access to information instantaneously through the implementation of Laserfiche Forms and Laserfiche Workflow, resulting in cost savings for the organization.

MOBILITY & WEB TOOLS
Mobile devices are used in organizations for day-to-day operations.

Laserfiche has options available to ensure you can access Laserfiche from these devices and perform related actions quickly on the go.

There are also options to give your outside citizens/clients access to records through the web to promote transparency and decrease records requests.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 3 of 21

LASERFICHE CLOUD
MCCi is recommending the Cloud platform for your organization. Laserfiche Cloud seamlessly combines traditional content services platform (CSP) functionality with powerful business process management, auditing tools, and security.

Unlike purchased perpetual licensing, Laserfiche Cloud lowers your initial licensing costs based on subscribing to the rights to use Laserfiche products and services instead of owning them. With included functional ranging from records management (DoD 5015.2 certified) to document routing, electronic forms, and batch processing tools, Laserfiche Subscription provides an easy-to-use, cost-effective platform for automating day-to-day business processes.

The Laserfiche Cloud license introduces a straightforward annual fee including software licenses, hosted storage, technical support, and software updates.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 4 of 21

LASERFICHE CLOUD LICENSING GUIDE
To determine which platform/licenses are applicable, please refer to the Pricing section.

LASERFICHE PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE
Starter Professional Business
App. Servers/Repositories 1 1 1

FULL USE ACCESS LICENSES
Starter Professional Business
Full Named Users Minimum of 1 Minimum of 5 Minimum of 25 100 GB Storage Per User Included
Additional Storage Available
Included
Additional Storage Available
Included
Additional Storage Available
Audit Trail Included (Starter) Included (Starter)
Advanced is Add-on Option Included (Advanced)
Direct Share Included Included Included
Automated/Encrypted Backups Included Included Included
Intrusion Detection Included Included Included
Automated Feature and
Security Updates Included Included Included
Import Agent w/Email Archiving Included Included Included Process Automation Not Available Included Included
Connector Not Available Included Included
Surveys Not Available Included Included
Records Management Not Available Add-on Option Included

LIMITED USE ACCESS LICENSES
Starter Professional Business
Participant Users Not Available Add-on Option, Minimum of 10 Add-on Option, Minimum of 10 Community Users Not Available Add-on Option Add-on Option Education Users Not Available Add-on Option Add-on Option

MODULE BASED LICENSES
Starter Professional Business
Quick Fields Complete with
Agent †† Add-on Option 10 Installations Included 10 Installations Included Invoice Smart Capture Not Available Add-on Option Add-on Option Workflow Bots Not Available 1 Included with Option to Add-on 1 Included with Option to Add-on Vault Not Available Add-on Option Add-on Option
ScanConnect Add-on Option Add-on Option Add-on Option
SDK Not Available Add-on Option Included
Public Portal (WebLink) † Not Available Options: 1,000 Views, Blocks of 10,000 Views Unlimited Views
Forms Portal † Not Available Options: 1,000 Submissions, Blocks of 10,000 Submissions Unlimited Submissions

INTEGRATIONS
Starter Professional Business
Microsoft 365 Integration with
Simultaneous Editing Included Included Included
Integration with SharePoint Included Included Included
Integration with Salesforce,
Microsoft Dynamics 365, and
Redtail CRMs
Not Available Included Included
Integration with DocuSign Add-on Option Add-on Option Included Integration with Ellucian Ethos Not Available Add-on Option Add-on Option Integration with LaserApp Add-on Option Add-on Option Add-on Option Laserfiche for Ricoh MFD Add-on Option Add-on Option Add-on Option Certified Integration with SAP
ArchiveLink Add-on Option Add-on Option Add-on Option
† Public Portal and Forms Portal are licensed per Laserfiche Application Server. †† Quick Fields is licensed per machine.
* A sandbox environment includes 10 users, Laserfiche Directory Server and any additional add-ons purchased, such as portals.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 5 of 21

LASERFICHE CLOUD DEFINITIONS
To determine which licenses are applicable, please refer to the Pricing section. Your specific implementation may not include all features below.

LASERFICHE CLOUD
Laserfiche Cloud is a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution, which provides a central digital repository accessible from anywhere. With Laserfiche cloud you can upload, view, and modify content within a streamlined fully responsive web interface. In addition to the central repository, below are some of the great features that come with Laserfiche Cloud.

The Laserfiche Cloud license introduces a straightforward annual fee including software licenses, hosted storage, technical support, and software updates. The licensing option provides a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution hosted on Amazon Web Services. Laserfiche offers three different tiers: Starter, Professional and Business. All Laserfiche Cloud tiers include:
▪ 100 GB Per User
▪ Web Client: Enables subscription users to access content through a web browser. ▪ Laserfiche Mobile: An app (Android and Apple) that enables you to capture, upload, and securely access and work with documents inside Laserfiche while on the go.
▪ Laserfiche Snapshot: "Print" electronic documents into your repository as TIFF images with this virtual printer.

Laserfiche Snapshot works as though you had printed the document and then scanned it back into Laserfiche but allows you to skip the step of making a physical printed copy. ▪ Direct Share: Allows you to share content from the Laserfiche repository with external users through the Web Client or Mobile App. When you send documents through direct share, the recipient will receive a unique and anonymized URL that they can use to access the files for a limited time. You can add a password and specify the number of days until the URL expires. The sender will receive notifications when the content is viewed, and a repository administrator can see the status of who shared it, with whom, and if/when it was accessed. ▪ Audit Trail: Track activities performed in a Laserfiche repository and generate reports. Auditing helps to show compliance with legal regulations and contributes to the security of the Laserfiche repository. ▪ Automated text extraction: Automatically extract specific text. ▪ Import Agent with Email Archive: A tool for automatically importing files into the Laserfiche repository from a Windows folder, and the Email Archive allows you to automatically archive emails to Laserfiche. Email Archive can extract and assign metadata to the emails saved in Laserfiche, as well as extract and save attachments and the email’s distribution list file.
▪ Industry-Leading Data Encryption: For data in transit over public networks, Laserfiche Cloud uses TLS encryption, and AES-256 encryption is utilized for data-at-rest, including backups. Documents are backed up 6xs a day with the most recent 3 backups available for a minimum of 14 days. ▪ Multi-factor authentication: Multi-factor authentication can be enabled for a Laserfiche Cloud user account. ▪ Single sign-on: Laserfiche Cloud supports single sign-on with Active Director Federation Services (AD FS) and Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML).
▪ Intrusion Detection: Laserfiche Cloud utilized host-based intrusion detection systems to reduce the risk of data theft by individuals or organizations attempting to gain unauthorized access. ▪ Microsoft Office Integration: Integration with Microsoft Office® Suite. Allows for direct content import as well as indexing capabilities. As a part of this integration, emails and attachments stored in Outlook can be imported to the repository with a single click and auto indexed with information such as sender, subject, time received, etc. ▪ Integration with SharePoint: The SharePoint Integration (SPI) is built on the power of Laserfiche Web Client, a Section 508-compliant thin client that reduces installation, support, and maintenance requirements. The integration requires an on-premises installation of SharePoint.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 6 of 21

LASERFICHE CLOUD BUSINESS
Please refer to the Pricing section to determine which package was quoted. This functionality provides many tools to automate business processes and reduce manual work:
▪ Process Automation: A unified feature set to digitize and automate business processes. These tasks include moving documents, extracting, and inputting data, setting deadlines and more. ▪ Business Process Designer: Diagram business processes through the process modeler, which is based on business process model and notation (BPMN) standards.
▪ Workflows: Build processes to extract data, route documents, automate activities, assign team and individual tasks, extract data, route documents, and more without requiring code. ▪ Business Processes & Forms: Forms allow process managers to create and publish web forms with an intuitive forms management system without requiring coding or scripting. ▪ Attractive forms can easily be created with preconfigured templates or can be customized with editable fonts, colors, uploaded images, and layouts.
▪ Drag-and-drop form elements include fields, check boxes, and radio buttons to collect the exact information needed in the precise format required.
▪ Payment collection allows payment to be collected with Braintree and Authorize.Net payment gateways. ▪ Automatically apply bulk annotations such as highlights, redactions, strikethroughs, and underlines across documents processed through workflows.
▪ Read barcodes on documents as part of automated workflows to better streamline document capture ▪ Starting Events: Define how and when processes start. ▪ Business Rules: Easily define and manage business policy logic such as decision tables and formulas, in a centralized place separately from process logic
▪ Data Management: Define data structures and store data independently of processes to provide a single source of truth for data
▪ Capture Profiles: Capture document information automatically using profiles. ▪ Reporting and Analytics: Use out-of-the-box reports or create custom reports on process data for insights to make informed decisions
▪ Connector: Provides a no-code means for integrating Laserfiche with line-of-business applications ▪ Surveys: Design custom surveys, polls, or registration forms to automatically collect information and view results without creating processes or designing reports.
▪ Records Management Edition: Process records and record folders according to a life cycle, through creation, retrieval, storage, and disposition.
▪ Quick Fields Complete with Agent: An advanced automated data capture solution. The complete suite of modules for Quick Fields are included along with Agent that allows scheduled automated processing sessions around the clock, without operator intervention.
▪ Workflow Bots: Use robotic process automation technology to let you easily configure software bots to automate repetitive, routine work between multiple systems.
▪ Laserfiche Integration with DocuSign: Initiate a signing process from within Laserfiche Cloud. Users may select the type of signing process they are initiating and attach documents that need to be a part of that process. Once the signing process is complete, documents are imported back into the Laserfiche Repository from DocuSign as new versions of the un-signed document. Information captured during the signing process may be mapped to Laserfiche metadata fields.
▪ Public Portal: With unlimited views, share documents with people outside the organization, providing read-only access to specific documents without signing in.
▪ Note: Only one security profile is included.
▪ Forms Portal: With unlimited submissions, allow non-authenticated users to view and submit public starting forms.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 7 of 21
▪ Integrations with CRMs: Laserfiche Cloud includes integrations with Microsoft Dynamics 365, Salesforce and Redtail CRMs.

LASERFICHE CLOUD BUSINESS ADD-ONS
▪ Additional Storage
▪ Participant Users: For employees in need of read-only repository access and the ability to participate in forms processes. Education Participants are available for educational institutions. ▪ Community Users: For non-employees and non-contractors. Provides read-only repository access and ability to participate in forms processes (i.e., Vendor Management, Residents). ▪ Smart Invoice Capture: Smart capture uses machine learning technology to automatically capture information from any invoice, specifically the invoice date, invoice number, purchase order number and total amount due. ▪ Laserfiche Vault: A solution package that supports financial services firms’ compliance with SEC Rule §17a-4 using services and cloud-based features that provide a secure and accurate system of records. ▪ Certified Integration with SAP ArchiveLink: Allows you to configure a Laserfiche repository as a content repository in SAP. Archive content from SAP in Laserfiche as well as search, retrieve, update, and delete archived content.
▪ Integration with LaserApp: This is a third-party application that helps Financial Services clients fill out and file forms. Using the Laserfiche integration with Laser App, you can then store those forms in Laserfiche, and extract information from your forms to populate Laserfiche metadata. ▪ Laserfiche for Ricoh MFD: A single integrated solution in which scanning, searching, browsing, and printing from the Laserfiche Server can be performed.
▪ Ellucian Banner Integration through Ethos: The integration supports pre-populating registrar forms created in Business Process and updating records in Banner with course or student personal information through Workflow.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 8 of 21

SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT PACKAGES
As Client’s first-tier solution provider, MCCi provides multiple options for technical support. Client’s annual renewal covers application break/fix support, version downloads, and continued educational resources. MCCi offers supplemental support packages to cover remote training, basic configuration services, and maintenance of existing business processes. MCCi’s Managed Support Services (MMSS) or Process Administration Support Services (MPASS & MPASS2) packages are strongly encouraged to be included with every renewal. Supplemental Support Packages are annual subscriptions and pricing is based on the package purchased and an advanced discounted block of hours, which expire on the same date as Client’s annual renewal. MMSS pricing for the advanced block of hours is based on MCCi’s Support Technician II hourly rate discounted by 10%. MPASS and MPASS2 pricing for the advanced block of hours is based on MCCi’s Application Support Analyst hourly rate discounted by 10%.

LASERFICHE
+ Client’s Support/Subscription Renewal includes these benefits, regardless of whether a supplemental package is purchased. * Excludes the development of new integrations, large-scale development projects, and SQL queries. Excludes maintenance of custom-built integrations, or any item not purchased from MCCi.
** Hours: MCCi allows clients to use their hours for a multitude of services, if a request will not start a service that cannot be completed with the MCCi’s
Managed
Support
Services
MCCi’s
Process
Administration
Support Services
Description MMSS MPASS MPASS2
Easy access to MCCi’s team of Certified Technicians for application break/fix support issues (i.e., error codes, bug fixes, etc.)+ Remote access support through web conferencing service + Access to product update version and hotfixes (Client Download)+ 24/7 access to the Laserfiche Support Site and Laserfiche Answers discussion forums+
Additional Remote Basic Training
Additional System Settings Consultation
Assistance with Implementation of Version Updates
Annual Review (upon Client’s request) of Administration Settings Priority Offering of Laserfiche CPPs & Laserfiche Empower Registration Scholarships
Configuration and maintenance of basic business processes and MCCi packaged solution utilizing Laserfiche Forms and Workflow Configuration of Laserfiche Quick Fields sessions
Basic Records Management Module Overview Training
Administration Configuration Services
Dedicated Certified Professional
Proactive recurring consultation calls upon the Client’s request Annual Review of business process configurations
Institutional Knowledge of Client’s Solution
Maintenance of MCCi/Client configured complex business processes Ability to schedule after-hours upgrades
Monday-Friday 8 am to 10 pm ET and Saturday-Sunday from 12 pm to 4 pm ET Basic JavaScript, CSS, and Calculations for Laserfiche Forms* Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 9 of 21
hours available. None of the packages listed above are intended to be utilized to configure a new complex business process. In those instances, a separate SOW is required.

CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES (All Packages)
▪ For self-hosted (applications hosted by Client) solutions: Configuring/maintaining backups and any general network, security, or operating system settings outside of Client’s solution. ▪ Managing application-level security.
▪ Managing and creating retention policies related to Records Management Module. ▪ Providing an IT contact (internal or third-party) for MCCi to work with as necessary. ▪ Providing remote access capabilities as needed. If the Client requests MCCi to have unattended access, the Client assumes all responsibility for the related session(s). The Client will work with MCCi to set up user profiles, user tags, etc. to allow desired security rights/access.
▪ Creating/providing process diagrams (and any other necessary paperwork/examples).

SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT PACKAGE DEFINITIONS

ADDITIONAL REMOTE TRAINING
Additional web-based training is conducted to train new users or as refresher training for existing users.

ADDITIONAL SYSTEM SETTINGS CONSULTATION
MCCi offers additional best practices consultation that includes recommendations for adding additional departments, additional types of indexing, etc.

REMOTE IMPLEMENTATION OF VERSION UPDATES
While Client’s renewal includes version updates, implementation of those updates is sometimes overlooked. With the addition of MMSS, MCCi is at Client’s service to directly assist with implementing software updates such as minor updates, quick fixes or point releases. Dependent on the complexity and the Client’s specific configurations, major software upgrades may or may not be covered and should be discussed with Client’s Account Management Team.

ANNUAL SYSTEM REVIEW & ANALYSIS
MCCi will access Client’s system to review how Client’s organization uses Client’s solution, to identify potential issues, and to make recommendations for better use of the system. This analysis may be performed annually and is an optional service that will be completed only if requested by the Client.

LASERFICHE CERTIFICATIONS
Priority offering of complimentary Laserfiche certifications, based on availability.

LASERFICHE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
Priority offering of complimentary Laserfiche Empower registration, based on availability.

CONFIGURATION AND MAINTENANCE OF BASIC BUSINESS PROCESS Utilizing Laserfiche Forms and Workflow, MCCi will assist with the configuration and maintenance of basic business processes. A basic business process requires minimal configuration and virtually no institutional knowledge of the Client’s business process, allowing an MCCi Application Support Analyst to assist with configuration, support, and maintenance of the process. Examples include Filing Workflows, simple Forms, or approval/notification workflows that have few routing steps, no integration, and little to no database lookups.

MAINTENANCE OF MCCi PACKAGED SOLUTION: MCCi will assist with maintenance with a solution MCCi has created for a market that has a specific business process automation use.

CONFIGURATION OF LASERFICHE QUICK FIELDS SESSIONS
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 10 of 21
Using Client’s current Quick Fields modules, MCCi will configure Quick Fields sessions, excluding custom scripting, custom calculations, etc.

BASIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT MODULE OVERVIEW TRAINING
MCCi will provide refresher overview training of the records management module. Initial training cannot be performed under this support level.

ADMINISTRATION CONFIGURATION SERVICES
MCCi will assist with administration configuration services, including setting up users, metadata, security, etc.

DEDICATED LASERFICHE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL
While on MCCi’s MMSS level, Client will have access to MCCi’s team of Certified Support Professionals; with MPASS and MPASS2, Client will have a representative dedicated to Client’s organization.

SCHEDULED RECURRING CONSULTATION CALLS
Upon Client’s request, Client’s MPASS representative will schedule recurring calls with Client to discuss Client’s current and upcoming projects. This helps us stay on the same page with Client and ensure tasks and project milestones are being completed.

ANNUAL REVIEW OF BUSINESS PROCESS CONFIGURATIONS
MCCi will review Client’s business processes to see how Client’s organization uses the solution, to identify potential issues, and to make recommendations for better use of the system. This analysis may be performed annually and is an optional service that will be completed only if requested by the Client.

INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF CLIENT SOLUTION
Turnover within Client’s organization can happen, and it is important to have a plan. Who will help Client’s new solution administrator get up to speed on Client’s processes and solutions in place? Leave that to us. MCCi documents Client’s specific organization’s usage and implemented business processes, integrations, etc., and can assist with the knowledge transfer to the new solution administrator if needed.

MAINTENANCE OF MCCI/CLIENT CONFIGURED COMPLEX BUSINESS PROCESSES The assigned representative can maintain MCCi or Client configured complex business processes. A complex business solution is a large business process with an extensive configuration that is mission-critical to the organization. For example, minor tweaks, updates due to upgrades, process improvements, etc. can be requested.

For creation of new complex Forms, Workflow, and Transparent Records Management configurations, please discuss a Business Process Configuration Service with Client’s Account Executive or Account Manager.

ABILITY TO SCHEDULE AFTER-HOURS UPGRADES
Avoid MCCi’s after-hours premium charge for upgrades. MPASS2 clients can schedule these anytime Monday-Friday from 8 am to 10 pm ET and Saturday and Sunday from 12 pm to 4 pm ET.

BASIC JAVASCRIPT, CSS AND CALCULATIONS FOR LASERFICHE FORMS Excludes complex scripting.

BASIC LASERFICHE WEBLINK/PUBLIC PORTAL CUSTOMIZATION
MCCi will help customize Client’s WebLink/Public Portal to meet Client’s needs.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 11 of 21
THE TRAINING CENTER FOR LASERFICHE*
MCCi’s Training Center for Laserfiche annual subscription provides an easy, cost-effective way for all users in Client’s organization to access training videos for Laserfiche and ABBYY.

BENEFITS
▪ 24/7 access to on-demand Laserfiche training videos and other resources ▪ Reduction in training expenses
▪ Caters to all skill levels from Basic Users to Advanced System Administrators ▪ Unlimited access for Client’s entire organization
▪ User determined schedule and pacing
▪ Reduction in internal support and increased user productivity ▪ Increased efficiency through improved internal usage/adoption ▪ Instant/budgeted training available in the case of employee turnover ▪ Enhance Client’s organization’s internal Laserfiche training program *The Training Center subscription gate is based on Laserfiche user counts [remainder of page left intentionally blank]
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 12 of 21

SERVICE PACKAGES

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
To determine which platform/licenses are applicable, please refer to the Pricing section. The following assumptions serve as the basis for the Service Package(s) reflected below. Any service or activity not described below is not included in the Scope of services to be provided. Variations to the following may impact the Service Package’s cost and/or schedule, justifying a Change Order.
▪ MCCi‘s completion of a Deliverable to Client shall constitute that MCCi has conducted its own review and believes it meets Client’s requirements. Client shall then have the right to conduct its own review of the Deliverable as Client deems necessary. If Client, in its reasonable discretion, determines that any submitted Deliverable does not meet the agreed upon expectations, Client shall have five (5) business days after MCCi’s submission to give written notice to MCCi specifying the deficiencies in reasonable detail. MCCi shall use reasonable efforts to promptly resolve any such deficiencies. Upon resolution of any such deficiencies, MCCi shall resubmit the Deliverable for review as set forth above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Client fails to reject any Deliverable within five (5) business days, such Deliverable shall be deemed accepted. ▪ If either party identifies a business issue during the project, MCCi and Client must jointly establish a plan to resolve the issues with potential impact analysis of timeline and budget within five (5) business days of identification. Any necessary business decision resulting from the identified business issues must be made by Client within five (5) business days from request.
▪ Client is responsible for ensuring that adequate hardware/infrastructure is in place and capable of handling the extra resources that may be required to support the services performed. ▪ Any additional software licensing needs related to this service/process configuration have not been considered or included as part of service packages. Client is responsible for ensuring that the required software licensing is available.
▪ If the Services require MCCi to access or use any third party software products provided or used, Client warrants that it shall have all rights and licenses of third parties necessary or appropriate for MCCi to access or use such third party products and agrees to produce evidence of such rights and licenses upon the reasonable request of MCCi and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend MCCi from and against any claims, actions, demands, lawsuits, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) to the extent arising from MCCi’s access to or use of such third party products. ▪ Client will maintain primary contacts and project staff for the duration of the project, as a change in staff may result in a Change Order for time spent by MCCi on retraining, reeducating, or changes in direction. ▪ Through the course of this project, MCCi may choose to utilize the third-party service Asana (http://www.asana.com) for project management and team collaboration. Documentation and correspondence exchanged between MCCi and Client may be stored in Asana. ▪ Client will ensure that all Client’s personnel who may be necessary or appropriate for the successful performance of the services will, on reasonable notice: (i) be available to assist MCCi’ personnel by answering business, technical and operational questions and providing requested documents, guidelines and procedures in a timely manner; (ii) participate in the services as reasonably necessary; and (iii) be available to assist MCCi with any other activities or tasks required to complete the services.
▪ All Services pricing assumes the Client will grant MCCi unattended access to the required infrastructure for the project. Unattended access requires the following
o Either a VPN connection with proper credentials or installation of on-demand remote access software utilized by MCCi.
o Connections that can be made by an assigned MCCi Project Team without intervention from the Client from the hours of 8:00 AM ET to 8:00 PM ET.
o A Windows Domain account assigned exclusively to the assigned MCCi Project Team that has administrative access to all infrastructure being serviced for purposes of the project. o A Windows Domain account, and complete access to that account including the password, for the service account to be used with any installed software products.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 13 of 21
Failure to provide this access will result in a Change Order increasing the cost to the Client and the timeline of the project.
▪ Projects enter “On-Hold” status when (i) Client requests a delay in starting a new project, or (ii) Client is unresponsive for more than 15 business days during an active project. On-Hold status will remain until a new project start date is mutually agreed upon, or until Closed. MCCi may elect to Close the project due to project remaining On-Hold for more than 35 business days.
▪ Projects that are Closed prior to completion, will be billed for any progress made to date and the MCCi project team will no longer be assigned to the project. Billing for progress made to date is based on the number of hours worked or the estimated percentage of the project that has been completed, whichever is greater. Subsequently, a new order is required to restart a Closed project, and to have new MCCi project resources assigned. ▪ Client will provide a single point of contact responsible for coordinating communications and scheduling amongst Client stakeholders.
▪ MCCi will conduct a project kickoff call with Client to set objectives and review systems/processes used. ▪ Google Chrome or Chrome Microsoft Edge is installed on all Laserfiche servers. ▪ TLS 1.2 is configured on all Laserfiche servers.
▪ Firewall ports will be opened for and unattended remote access on all necessary servers will be granted to MCCi. ▪ All services will be performed Monday – Friday, 8 am to 5 pm EST. ▪ MCCi will only provide recordings of trainings or meetings if requested in advance. Requested recordings will be available through the Training Center for Laserfiche.
▪ Client will acquire, install, and set up TLS certificates that meet application requirements. ▪ Purchase of Managed Cloud services may cover some of these assumptions/deliverables. ▪ Client will ensure previously agreed upon scheduled trainings are attended by their staff. For cancellations or rescheduling, the minimum notice period requirement to avoid penalties is 2 calendar weeks prior to the training date. Penalties: (i) Regardless of the notification time period, if the training was to be in person and MCCi has incurred non-refundable travel expenses, client will reimburse MCCi accordingly, and (ii) If client cancels or reschedules training within 7 calendar days and no less than 48 hours from the training date, the client will forfeit half of the allotted training time, or be assessed a fee equal to 50% of the training package purchased, or (ii) If the client cancels or reschedules the training within 48 hours of the training date, or is a no show on the training date, the training package purchased will be charged in full and forfeited by the client.

GENERAL TESTING DEFINITIONS
▪ Alpha Testing – Defined as internal acceptance testing performed by the project team prior to releasing the product or configuration to the Client
▪ Basic Deployment Testing – Defined as testing to ensure that the crucial functions of the system are operating properly and that the deployment is stable
▪ Beta Testing – Defined as the testing performed to verify functionality and fulfillment of user requirements ▪ User Acceptance Testing – Defined as testing performed by the Client’s users to verify and accept the implemented functionality or deployment

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS
▪ MCCi is not responsible for assigning an external URL for any web-based platform/software module. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating or maintaining backups, backup plans or recovery plans. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating training documentation. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for final testing including, but not limited to, configuration changes made by Client prior to system handoff.
▪ Except where specifically noted, no custom coding is included; configuration work is restricted to the capabilities associated with the out-of-the-box solution.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 14 of 21

LASERFICHE REPOSITORY CONFIGURATION
MCCi’s Laserfiche Repository Configuration Services are designed to assist the Client with establishing a basic repository structure. The goal is to start a foundation for the Client’s organization to build their Laserfiche repository from and help establish consistent standards the Client’s organizations can build on. MCCi’s team will work with Client’s Project Manager to discover the templates and structure that fits the Client needs.

CLIENT DELIVERABLES
▪ Define each user and group necessary to access Laserfiche ▪ Complete requirements gathering with MCCi Project Team to define document types, naming schemes, folder paths, and metadata

MCCI DELIVERABLES
▪ Provide requirements gathering
▪ Create up to two (2) folder structures that consist of three (3) tiered levels with no more than ten (10) folders in each level
▪ Create up to two (2) Laserfiche templates with up to seven (7) fields each ▪ Create up to two (2) Laserfiche User Groups
▪ Set entry access security for up to two folder levels with no more than ten (10) folders in each level, for up to two (2) user groups
▪ Conduct one (1) session (three (3) hours total) of remote “train the trainer” training on repository configuration overview.

EXCLUSIONS
MCCi is not responsible for the following:
▪ Configuring business routing logic
▪ Restructuring metadata
▪ Determining Records Management settings
▪ Cleaning up existing documents
▪ Configuring automated security
▪ Installing software
▪ Configuring workflows

LASERFICHE FILING WORKFLOW CONFIGURATION
MCCi’s Laserfiche Filing Workflow Configuration Services are designed to be highly collaborative. The goal is to provide a customized process that allows Client’s organization to archive specified records in a proper format and location that is consistent with Client’s organization’s standards. To execute, MCCi’s team of expert Project Managers and System Engineers will work with Client’s Project Manager to build a Filing Workflow in Client’s Laserfiche environment.

CLIENT DELIVERABLES
▪ Complete requirements gathering with MCCi Project Manager to define document types, naming schemes, folder paths, and metadata

MCCI DELIVERABLES
▪ Configure a Laserfiche Filing Workflow to file documents in the Laserfiche repository (not to exceed 15 document types)
▪ Rename documents and route to appropriate folder structure ▪ Create up to three (3) Laserfiche templates and up to seven (7) fields per template ▪ Provide requirements gathering
▪ Set root-level security
▪ Conduct half-day of remote “train the trainer” training on administering and executing the processes built by the MCCi project team
▪ Perform alpha and beta testing on the built processes. MCCi will transition project to Client UAT team once beta is complete and successful
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 15 of 21

EXCLUSIONS
MCCi is not responsible for the following:
▪ Configuring business routing logic
▪ Restructuring metadata
▪ Determining Records Management settings
▪ Cleaning up existing documents
▪ Configuring automated security
▪ Installing software

ASSUMPTIONS
▪ Workflow is already installed and configured.

LASERFICHE REPOSITORY ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING
MCCi’s Repository Administrator Training is available as a single half-day session or a full day (two half-day sessions). The goal is for your organization to have a trained Repository Administrator. The single half-day session focuses on ongoing management of the repository with a focus on user management, troubleshooting user permissions, monitoring, and auditing user activity, and managing metadata. The full day includes ongoing management as well as considerations for future growth, focusing on setting up new security permissions, repository planning, creation of new metadata types, and more. The complete list of training topics is listed below. ▪ User Management ▪ Metadata Management ▪ Audit Trail (if purchased) ▪ Core User Security ▪ Repository Architecture Overview ▪ Weblink Designer (if purchased)* ▪ Supplemental User
Security*
▪ Web and Windows Clients
Differences
▪ Technical Support Overview
▪ Monitoring User Activity ▪ General Repository Settings ▪ Recycle Bin Settings *Available for full day training only

CLIENT DELIVERABLES
▪ Have a license available for each attendee participating in the training ▪ Provide the requisite IT resources

MCCI DELIVERABLES
▪ Provide Repository Administration training according to the level of package purchased ▪ Provide training for up to six (6) users per session
Description Basic Full
Product Training
Laserfiche Web Management
Laserfiche Administration Console
Audit Trail (if purchased)
Laserfiche Web Management
Laserfiche Administration Console
Weblink Designer (if purchased)
Audit Trail (if purchased)
Instructor-Led Sessions 1 session remote (3 hours total) or half day onsite 2 sessions remote (6 hours total) or 1 day onsite Great For Ongoing Management of the Repository Ongoing Management of the Repository Future Growth of the Repository

USER TRAINING
MCCI’s New User Training is a great introduction to the Laserfiche repository, which is accessed through an application called the Laserfiche Client. Attendees will become familiar with how to import new content, to search and retrieve existing content, and to export. Your organization can choose whether training is conducted on the web-based or on the Windows desktop Client.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 16 of 21
BASIC
Your organization can work closely with the product trainer to identify user functions, customizing the training agenda on what attendees need to know for how they will use the repository. The trainer can emphasize certain topics and can eliminate or briefly describe others.
▪ Import Options ▪ Metadata Reports ▪ Annotations Tools ▪ Laserfiche Scanning ▪ Dashboard (Laserfiche Cloud) ▪ Templates & Fields ▪ Search and Retrieval ▪ Export Options ▪ OCR and Generating Text

ADVANCED
MCCI’s Advanced User Training is a continued examination of features available in the Laserfiche Client. Your organization can work closely with the product trainer to emphasize certain topics and can eliminate or briefly describe others.
▪ Laserfiche Snapshot ▪ Version Control ▪ User Options
▪ Microsoft Office Integration
▪ Advanced Search Syntax
▪ Tags
▪ Custom Quick Search
▪ Repository Design
Considerations

CLIENT DELIVERABLES
▪ Have a license available for each attendee participating in the training ▪ Provide the requisite IT resources

MCCI DELIVERABLES
▪ Provide Laserfiche User training according to the level of package purchased ▪ Provide training for up to six (6) users per session
Description Basic Full Advanced
Product Training Laserfiche Client Laserfiche Client Laserfiche Client Instructor-Led Sessions 1 session remote (3 hours total) or half day onsite
2 sessions remote (6 hours total)
or 1 day onsite
1 session remote (3 hours
total) or half day onsite
Great For Onboarding a Single Department
New Users to Laserfiche
Train the Trainer
Learning & Development
Department
Seasoned Laserfiche Users

IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT PACKAGE
MCCi will manage the work, communication, and documentation MCCi deems necessary for successful project delivery.

MCCI DELIVERABLES
▪ Manage Client communication
▪ Produce project documentation
▪ Oversee risk/issue management
▪ Oversee meeting scheduling
▪ Ensure deliverables are met
▪ Budgeting and Resource Management
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 17 of 21

ESTIMATE
3717 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32311
850.701.0725
850.564.7496 fax
Client Name: City of Sonoma Quote Date: December 8, 2023 Estimate Number: 29669
Estimate Type: Net New
Product Description: Qty. Unit Cost
Annual
Total

LASERFICHE CLOUD ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION - BASIC
 LF Cloud Municipality Site License (< 15k Population) 1 $15,450.00 $15,450.00  Laserfiche Cloud Records Management Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Quick Fields Complete with Agent Subscription (10- Pack)
1 Included* Included*
 Laserfiche Cloud Workflow Bots Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Direct Share, Up to 200MB 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Advanced Audit Trail Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Unlimited Public Portal 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Forms Portal Subscription
(Unlimited Submissions Per Month)
1 Included* Included*
 Laserfiche Cloud SDK Subscription 1 Included* Included* Laserfiche Annual Recurring Subscription Subtotal $15,450.00 MCCi SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT SERVICES SUBSCRIPTION
 MCCi Process Administration Support Services for Laserfiche 1 $3,780.00 $3,780.00 Client needs are estimated based on the current components provided herein: up to 20 hours that will expire at the end of your renewal term.
 Training Center for Laserfiche Site License, Population Less than 15,000
1 $2,300.00 $2,300.00
MCCi Supplemental Support Services Annual Recurring Subscription Subtotal $6,080.00 GRAND TOTAL - RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT/SUBSCRIPTION $21,530.00  MCCi One-Time Discount - Training Center ($2,300.00)
TOTAL LASERFICHE PROJECT COST $19,230.00
*Products shown as “Included” will be implemented and configured ONLY if the applicable MCCi Service Package(s) is included on the order, or product(s) can be implemented and configured at a later date with the purchase of the applicable service package(s).

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 18 of 21
NOTE: The information presented in this document is based on the results of MCCi and Client’s collaborative preliminary discovery thus far and merely serves as an estimate to be used for planning purposes. As planning and discovery continue, the project scope and costs may change to meet the specific needs of the Client. MCCi will present a formal detailed pricing proposal and project scope for approval prior to the start of any project. This is not a formal quote. Additional services will likely need to be included based on required discovery session.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 19 of 21
ESTIMATE – SERVICE PACKAGES
3717 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32311
850.701.0725
850.564.7496 fax
Client Name: City of Sonoma Quote Date: December 8, 2023 Estimate Number: 29669
Estimate Type: Services
Service Description: Qty. Unit Cost Total
MCCi SERVICE PACKAGES
 Laserfiche Repository Configuration 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00  Laserfiche Filing Workflow Configuration 1 $8,100.00 $8,100.00  Laserfiche Repository Administrator Training - Basic (Remote) 1 $1,250.00 $1,250.00  Laserfiche User Training - Basic (Remote) 1 $1,250.00 $1,250.00  Implementation Management 1 $6,975.00 $6,975.00
Service Packages Subtotal 1 $22,075.00
GRAND TOTAL - ONE-TIME SERVICES $22,075.00
TOTAL LASERFICHE PROJECT COST $22,075.00
*Products shown as “Included” will be implemented and configured ONLY if the applicable MCCi Service Package(s) is included on the order, or product(s) can be implemented and configured at a later date with the purchase of the applicable service package(s).

NOTE: The information presented in this document is based on the results of MCCi and Client’s collaborative preliminary discovery thus far and merely serves as an estimate to be used for planning purposes. As planning and discovery continue, the project scope and costs may change to meet the specific needs of the Client. MCCi will present a formal detailed pricing proposal and project scope for approval prior to the start of any project. This is not a formal quote. Additional services will likely need to be included based on required discovery session.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 20 of 21
PRORATED ESTIMATE (6 MONTHS)
3717 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32311
850.701.0725
850.564.7496 fax
Client Name: City of Sonoma Quote Date: December 8, 2023 Estimate Number: 29669
Estimate Type: Net New
Product Description: Qty. Unit Cost
Annual
Total

LASERFICHE CLOUD ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION - BASIC
 LF Cloud Municipality Site License (< 15k Population) 1 $15,450.00 $15,450.00  Laserfiche Cloud Records Management Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Quick Fields Complete with Agent Subscription (10- Pack)
1 Included* Included*
 Laserfiche Cloud Workflow Bots Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Direct Share, Up to 200MB 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Advanced Audit Trail Subscription 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Unlimited Public Portal 1 Included* Included*  Laserfiche Cloud Forms Portal Subscription
(Unlimited Submissions Per Month)
1 Included* Included*
 Laserfiche Cloud SDK Subscription 1 Included* Included* Laserfiche Annual Recurring Subscription Subtotal $15,450.00 MCCi SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT SERVICES SUBSCRIPTION
 MCCi Process Administration Support Services for Laserfiche 1 $3,780.00 $3,780.00 Client needs are estimated based on the current components provided herein: up to 20 hours that will expire at the end of your renewal term.
 Training Center for Laserfiche Site License, Population Less than 15,000
1 $2,300.00 $2,300.00
MCCi Supplemental Support Services Annual Recurring Subscription Subtotal $6,080.00 GRAND TOTAL - RECURRING ANNUAL SUPPORT/SUBSCRIPTION $21,530.00  Laserfiche Cloud Recurring Annual Subscription Proration for 6 Months ($7,725.00)  Supplemental Proration for 6 Months
Proration of Supplemental Support will provide the client with 10 fewer hours. The client will have 10 hours of supplemental support to use prior to their renewal. ($3,040.00)
TOTAL LASERFICHE PROJECT COST $10,765.00
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 21 of 21
This estimate is prorated for 6 months and is contingent upon the purchase and completion of the first full year of the client’s renewal.
*Products shown as “Included” will be implemented and configured ONLY if the applicable MCCi Service Package(s) is included on the order, or product(s) can be implemented and configured at a later date with the purchase of the applicable service package(s).

NOTE: The information presented in this document is based on the results of MCCi and Client’s collaborative preliminary discovery thus far and merely serves as an estimate to be used for planning purposes. As planning and discovery continue, the project scope and costs may change to meet the specific needs of the Client. MCCi will present a formal detailed pricing proposal and project scope for approval prior to the start of any project. This is not a formal quote. Additional services will likely need to be included based on required discovery session.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Estimate
City of Sonoma
Issued: January 11, 2024
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 2 of 13

ESTIMATE
3717 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32311
850.701.0725
850.564.7496 fax
Client Name: City of Sonoma Quote Date: January 11,2024 Client Address: No 1, The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476
Estimate Number: 30045
Estimate Type: Services
Service Description: Qty. Unit Cost Total
MCCi PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - STATEMENT OF WORK
 Data Migration – Docuware to LF Cloud
Please see detailed Exhibit A: Statement of Work (SOW). 1 $47,250.00 $47,250.00
Professional Services Subtotal 1 $47,250.00
 One-Time Services Discount 1 ($5,000.00)
GRAND TOTAL - ONE-TIME SERVICES $42,250.00
TOTAL LASERFICHE PROJECT COST $42,250.00
NOTE: The information presented in this document is based on the results of MCCi and Client’s collaborative preliminary discovery thus far and merely serves as an estimate to be used for planning purposes. As planning and discovery continue, the project scope and costs may change to meet the specific needs of the Client. MCCi will present a formal detailed pricing proposal and project scope for approval prior to the start of any project. This is not a formal quote. Additional services will likely need to be included based on required discovery session.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 3 of 13
Exhibit A:

Statement of Work
City of Sonoma
Data Migration – Docuware to LF Cloud
Issued: January 11, 2024
Valid for 30 days
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 4 of 13
STATEMENT OF WORK (“SOW”)
This Statement of Work (including appendices hereto, the (“SOW”) is part of Client’s Master Agreement with MCCi (the “Master Agreement”) and will serve as an Exhibit to the Order. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this SOW and the Master Agreement, the provisions of the Master Agreement shall apply unless the discrepancy is specifically called out within this SOW in which case this SOW shall control solely with respect to such conflict or inconsistency. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Master Agreement. In consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, MCCi and Client agree as follows:

BACKGROUND
Client is looking to migrate approximately 600,000 documents from their existing Docuware system to their Laserfiche Cloud repository. MCCi will migrate the Docuware documents to the Laserfiche Cloud repository, contingent upon the client receiving a full data export from Docuware and providing access to MCCi.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
▪ Project Kickoff and Staging
▪ Discovery/Requirements Gathering
▪ Data Migration - In House Migration
▪ Data Migration - QA
▪ Data Migration - Upload to LF Cloud
▪ Alpha Testing/User Acceptance Testing
▪ Solution Acceptance and Project Closeout
[remainder of page left intentionally blank]
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 5 of 13

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME PROJECT MANAGER MCCi SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT Laserfiche Cloud Implementation
with Data Migration
TBD Adrienne Hussey
MCCi SOW PREPARATION INFORMATION

NAME TITLE EMAIL PHONE NUMBER
Brian Sabin Senior Solutions
Architect [email protected] (850) 701-0725

CLIENT DECISION MAKER

NAME TITLE EMAIL PHONE NUMBER
Rebekah Barr City Clerk [email protected] (707) 933-2216

CLIENT PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

NAME TITLE EMAIL PHONE NUMBER
Rebekah Barr City Clerk [email protected] (707) 933-2216 [remainder of page left intentionally blank]
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 6 of 13

MILESTONES & DELIVERABLES

MILESTONE DELIVERABLES
1: Project Kickoff and
Staging
Project Kickoff: MCCi team will coordinate and conduct 30-minute meeting with Client project stakeholders to review project objectives, assumptions, deliverable(s); and discuss procedures, plans, collaboration platform, roles, timeline, etc.

Remote Access Set Up for MCCi Project Team: Client IT contact will work with MCCi Project Manager to establish the appropriate remote server access needed for the project and according to Client’s internal security protocols.

Creation of Asana Project: MCCI Project Manager will create and manage project timelines, milestones, deliverables, communication, etc. through Asana and provide access to Client’s project team.
2: Discovery/
Requirements
Gathering
MCCi will complete requirements gathering with client stakeholders to determine the metadata and filing requirements for the files to be migrated to Laserfiche from Docuware.
3: Data Migration - In
House Migration
MCCi will analyze source data, tailor migration tools, and migrate the source files to Laserfiche format.

CLIENT DELIVERABLES
▪ Acquire full data export from Docuware vendor
MCCi DELIVERABLES
▪ Document Type Metadata Analysis
▪ Folder/filename structure review and sample generation ▪ Conversion and adjustments of document types:
▪ Docuware, approx. 541,000 documents, approx. 140GB

ASSUMPTIONS
▪ Client will work with Docuware Vendor to acquire a full data export. ▪ All documents migrated from Docuware will be given the same metadata template. 4: Data Migration -
Quality Assurance
MCCi DELIVERABLES
▪ MCCi will perform QA checks on migrated files and make corrections or notes as needed.
5: Data Migration -
Upload to Cloud
MCCi DELIVERABLES
▪ MCCi will upload migrated documents to client's Cloud repository to a static archive location in Laserfiche.

EXCLUSIONS
▪ Migrated documents will not be processed by Workflow for any additional postmigration routing. 6: Alpha Testing/User
Acceptance Testing
MCCi will complete Alpha testing of the delivered solutions to ensure they function based upon the outlined design. Client Testing Team will execute User Acceptance Testing (UAT). Client is responsible for fully testing configurations prior to going live.

Client will have 2 weeks (10 business days) to complete UAT. 7: Solution Acceptance
and Project Closeout
Client will go fully live with the solution. A formal wrap-up call will be held to transition Client to their MCCi Account Management and Support team.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 7 of 13

EXCLUDED

GENERAL
▪ MCCi is not responsible for assigning an external URL for any web-based platform/software module. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating or maintaining a backup and recovery plans. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating training documentation. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for final testing including, but not limited to configuration changes made by Client’s team prior to system Handoff.
▪ Except where specifically noted, no custom coding is included; configuration work is restricted to the capabilities associated with the out-of-the-box solution. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for anything not expressly included in this SOW.

DATA MIGRATION
▪ MCCi is not responsible for the accuracy of existing indexing data and/or image quality, such as errors on the media, image file corruption, data file corruption, orphaned records, encrypted data, non-supported proprietary formats, or other errors that are not controllable by MCCi. ▪ Due to the vast differences in how document management systems handle sticky notes, redactions and annotations, data migration services do not include migration of sticky notes or any other redactions and annotations from the legacy system to Laserfiche, unless otherwise stated in this SOW. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for maintaining a copy of the original data, or a copy of the converted data. ▪ OCR is not included. Client will be able to OCR the records internally once the migration process is complete. ▪ Documents from the legacy system will be migrated into Laserfiche. No conversion of data types or removal of document wrappers will be completed during the migration process unless specifically stated in this SOW. Files that are encrypted will not be migrated.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 8 of 13

SOW ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions serve as the basis for this SOW. Any service or activity not described in this SOW is not included in the Scope of services to be provided. Variations to the following may impact the SOW’s cost and/or schedule justifying a Change Order (defined below).

DELIVERABLE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
MCCi‘s completion of a Deliverable to Client shall constitute that MCCi has conducted its own review and believes it meets Client’s requirements. Client shall then have the right to conduct its own review of the Deliverable as Client deems necessary. If Client, in its reasonable discretion, determines that any submitted Deliverable does not meet the agreed upon expectations, Client shall have five (5) business days after MCCi’s submission to give written notice to MCCi specifying the deficiencies in reasonable detail. MCCi shall use reasonable efforts to promptly resolve any such deficiencies. Upon resolution of any such deficiencies, MCCi shall resubmit the Deliverable for review as set forth above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Client fails to reject any Deliverable within five (5) business days, such Deliverable shall be deemed accepted.

GENERAL
▪ Client agrees that the work schedule described herein represents MCCi’s current best estimate and is subject to possible change due to circumstances beyond MCCi’s direct control and/or new or additional information discovered during the course of the project. Further, Client understands and acknowledges that MCCi’s ability to meet such work schedule is dependent upon, among other things, the accuracy of the assumptions and representations made by Client, the timeliness of Client business decisions, and the performance of Client and Client’s vendor personnel in meeting their obligations for this project and in accordance with this SOW. ▪ If either party identifies a business issue during the project, MCCi and Client must jointly establish a plan to resolve the issues with a potential impact analysis of timeline and budget within five (5) business days of identification.
▪ Any necessary business decision resulting from the identified business issues must be made by Client within five (5) business days from request.
▪ Client shall provide MCCi accurate data throughout the requirements gathering process. ▪ Client is responsible to ensure that adequate hardware/infrastructure is in place and capable of handling the extra resources that may be required to support the Business Process Configuration, related software, etc. ▪ Any additional software licensing needs related to this service/process configuration have not been considered or included as part of this SOW. Client is responsible for ensuring that the required software licensing is available.
▪ If the Services require MCCi to access or use any third party software products provided or used, Client warrants that it shall have all rights and licenses of third parties necessary or appropriate for MCCi to access or use such third party products and agrees to produce evidence of such rights and licenses upon the reasonable request of MCCi and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend MCCi from and against any claims, actions, demands, lawsuits, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) to the extent arising from MCCi’s access to or use of such third party products. ▪ Client will maintain primary contacts and project staff for the duration of the project, as a change in staff may result in a Change Order for time spent by MCCi on retraining, reeducating, or changes in direction. ▪ Through the course of this project, MCCi may choose to utilize the third-party service Asana (http://www.asana.com) for project management and team collaboration. Documentation and correspondence exchanged between MCCi and Client may be stored in Asana. ▪ Client will ensure that all Client’s personnel who may be necessary or appropriate for the successful performance of the Services will, on reasonable notice: (i) be available to assist MCCi’ personnel by answering business, technical and operational questions and providing requested documents, guidelines and procedures in a timely manner; (ii) participate in the Services as reasonably necessary for performance under this SOW; Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 9 of 13
and (iii) be available to assist MCCi with any other activities or tasks required to complete the Services in accordance with this SOW.
▪ The Post-Implementation Configuration Assistance is intended to incur no more than 10 hours over the 30-day period. This assistance is intended to aid in transitioning Client to MCCi Support. ▪ All Services pricing assumes the Client will grant MCCi unattended access to the required infrastructure for the project. Unattended access requires the following: (i) Either a VPN connection with proper credentials or installation of on-demand remote access software utilized by MCCi. (ii) Connections that can be made by an assigned MCCi Project Team without intervention from the Client from the hours of 8:00 AM ET to 8:00 PM ET. (iii) A Windows Domain account assigned exclusively to the assigned MCCi Project Team that has administrative access to all infrastructure being serviced for purposes of the project. (iv) A Windows Domain account, and complete access to that account including the password, for the service account to be used with any installed software products. Failure to provide this access will result in a Change Order increasing the cost to Client and timeline of the project.
▪ Projects enter “On-Hold” status when (i) Client requests a delay in starting a new project, or (ii) Client is unresponsive for more than 15 business days during an active project. On-Hold status will remain until a new project start date is mutually agreed upon, or until Closed. MCCi may elect to Close the project due to project remaining On-Hold for more than 35 business days.
▪ Projects that are Closed prior to completion, will be billed for any progress made to date and the MCCi project team will no longer be assigned to the project. Billing for progress made to date is based on the number of hours worked or the estimated percentage of the project that has been completed, whichever is greater.

Subsequently, a new order is required to restart a Closed project, and to have new MCCi project resources assigned.
▪ Client will provide a single point of contact responsible for coordinating communications and scheduling amongst Client stakeholders.
▪ MCCi will conduct a project kickoff call with Client to set objectives and review systems/processes used. ▪ Google Chrome or Chrome Microsoft Edge is installed on all Laserfiche servers. ▪ TLS 1.2 is configured on all Laserfiche servers.
▪ Firewall ports will be opened for and unattended remote access on all necessary servers will be granted to MCCi.
▪ All services will be performed Monday – Friday, 8 am to 5 pm EST. ▪ MCCi will only provide recordings of trainings or meetings if requested in advance. Requested recordings will be available through the Training Center for Laserfiche. ▪ Client will acquire, install, and setup TLS certificates that meet application requirements. ▪ Purchase of Managed Cloud services may cover some of these assumptions/deliverables. ▪ Client will ensure previously agreed upon scheduled trainings are attended by their staff. For cancellations or rescheduling, the minimum notice period requirement to avoid penalties is 2 calendar weeks prior to the training date. Penalties: (i) Regardless of the notification time period, if the training was to be in person and MCCi has incurred non-refundable travel expenses, client will reimburse MCCi accordingly, and (ii) If client cancels or reschedules training within 7 calendar days and no less than 48 hours from the training date, the client will forfeit half of the allotted training time, or be assessed a fee equal to 50% of the training package purchased, or (iii) If the client cancels or reschedules the training within 48 hours of the training date, or is a no show on the training date, the training package purchased will be charged in full and forfeited by the client.

GENERAL TESTING DEFINITIONS
▪ Alpha Testing – Defined as internal acceptance testing performed by the project team prior to releasing the product or configuration to the Client
▪ Basic Deployment Testing – Defined as testing to ensure that the crucial functions of the system are operating properly, and that the deployment is stable
▪ Beta Testing – Defined as the testing performed to verify functionality and fulfillment of user requirements ▪ User Acceptance Testing – Defined as testing performed by the Client’s users to verify and accept the implemented functionality or deployment
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 10 of 13

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS
▪ MCCi is not responsible for assigning an external URL for any web-based platform/software module. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating or maintaining backups, backup plans or recovery plans. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for creating training documentation. ▪ MCCi is not responsible for final testing including, but not limited to, configuration changes made by Client prior to system handoff.
▪ Except where specifically noted, no custom coding is included; configuration work is restricted to the capabilities associated with the out-of-the-box solution.

LIMITED LIABILITY
If the Master Agreement is silent on each Parties’ limited liability, liability is limited to the amount of dollars received by MCCi directly associated with this Order.

DEVELOPMENT
The MCCi Common Web Service for Laserfiche API (CWSAPI), if provided, is delivered “as-is.” MCCi may advise how to make functional calls to the web service. New functions or changes to existing functions are not included in the scope of this project. Use of the CWSAPI requires appropriate Laserfiche user licensing through named users or a Laserfiche keyed integrator license.

DATA MIGRATION
▪ Migrations will be performed via direct hard-drive to hard-drive or server to server connection for optimal performance results. Migrations performed by any indirect transfer method are anticipated to take significantly longer (speed and duration variation cannot be estimated as part of a Level 1 scoping effort). ▪ Users will not add new records to the existing system once migrations commence. ▪ Users will not work with existing records in the existing system once migrations commence. ▪ Records to be migrated during the execution of differential migration(s), if included in this SOW, will be made available and immediately identifiable by Client’s development team and project teams. It is assumed that an extraction query for the identified modify date will be available for use by MCCi’s development team to execute migration efforts in the same manner as the original full data migration(s). ▪ Integrations designed to display records (including public records) may not be functional or fully available during the process of the full data migration effort, as records will exist in only one of two systems at full capacity until all migration efforts are completed and validated. ▪ Data migrations will not include any custom software development. ▪ Security design and implementation is subject to full data accessibility between the Laserfiche system and desired active directory (AD) groups and administration, as well as other network infrastructure limitations and capabilities.
▪ Client will provide necessary hardware to store/process migration data. ▪ If indexing is desired and not currently contained within the electronic data migrated, Client is required to provide MCCi with a database (in a format accepted by MCCi and approved in this scope) of indexing information which would be used to auto populate template fields. Additionally, the index data must be associated with the documents via unique identifiers or pointers. ▪ Due to the vast differences in how document management systems handle security and file access, the migrated data will not retain any of the previous system security from the former document management system. Client is responsible for applying the necessary security and access control to the migrated data in Laserfiche. Prior to providing end user access, Client is responsible to verify that all migrated data has had the proper security applied, including view/write access and redactions (if utilized), which is consistent with Client’s existing Laserfiche security policy.
▪ After completion of the project, MCCi will purge all data and records received and hosted associated with migration services outlined in this SOW.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 11 of 13

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

PROJECT MANAGER
Responsible for planning, organizing, managing, controlling, and facilitating communicating all phases of the project.

Will work with project resources to ensure accurate scoping and timely delivery of project.

SYSTEMS ENGINEER
Responsible for integrating project technical aspects and making information relatable to non-technical personnel.

Will work through each phase of the given system and process, from plan along with expansion to validation and operation, on measurable risk assessment, regularly concentrating on performance, testing, scheduling, and budgets.

DEVELOPER
Responsible for the design, development, coding, testing, and debugging of applications.&nbsp;<div><br></div> [remainder of page left intentionally blank]
Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 12 of 13

BILLING SCHEDULE

FIXED FEE BILLING SCHEDULE
MCCi will bill Client based on the schedule defined below and will bill for actual out of pocket expenses incurred on a monthly basis.

Upon Client Acceptance of the Following Deliverables
and/or Completion of the Milestone Invoice Amount
Kick Off & Achievement of Milestones 1 & 2 $2,025.00
Achievement of Milestone 3 $24,812.50
Achievement of Milestone 4 $11,700.00
Project Close & Achievement of Milestones 5, 6, & 7 – Final Acceptance $3,712.50 Total: $42,250.00
If Client cancels this SOW between completed milestones in accordance with the Master Agreement, MCCi may invoice Client for a prorated share of the uncompleted milestone(s) for services actually performed through the date of such termination.

Agenda Item #7.3:

| Estimate Page 13 of 13

PROCESS & ESCALATION

CHANGE ORDER PROCESS
A Change Order is defined as a modification to the original contract price to complete Deliverables outlined in the SOW or a revised SOW to describe work required to fulfil the SOW. As this project progresses, it may be necessary to amend this SOW. Client understands that any change to this initial SOW will affect the fee and may extend the project completion date. If changes are required, Client will send a written request to MCCi outlining the requested change(s).

MCCi will assess the change(s) and provide Client with a formal Change Order request. This Change Order will include the details of the scope change, as well as any additional cost that may be necessary in order to implement the same.

It may be necessary to halt work on this project while Client reviews the Change Order request. After reviewing and approving the Change Order request, Client must return a signed copy to MCCi before work may proceed on the project.

ISSUE ESCALATION
Client may use the following contact information for resolution and escalation of any unresolved issues and tasks.

MCCi will acknowledge escalations in writing and include steps toward resolution.

NAME RESPONSIBILITY/ROLE CONTACT NUMBER EMAIL
Victor D’Aurio Chief Operating Officer 850-701-0725 ext. 1604 [email protected] Agenda Item #7.3:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jan 2024
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development
Director
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
On December 6, 2023, the City Council considered 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. The proposed project includes 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. 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.

The appeal was considered by City Council at the December 6, 2023 City Council meeting. At that hearing, City Council received a presentation by staff and the applicant as well as public comment and voted 5-0 to continue the item to January 17, 2024 and provided the following direction to staff:

1. Return to City Council at a later date to reconsider the Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee

2. Reconsider Condition of Approval 8 (Residential Component Plan) related to the Residential Component Fee on a price per square foot basis, the timeframe for payment, and interest requirements.

Following Council direction, staff met with the applicant to discuss proposed modifications to Condition of Approval 8 (Residential Component Plan) that will meet City goals and also allow the project to move forward. Staff recommends that that Condition of Approval 8 be amended Agenda Item #8.1:

to reflect the payment of the Residential Component Fee over 5 years at $50 per square foot with no interest charged recognizing fee was not in place when the application was accepted as complete, and adding an option for the offsite construction of residential development within the city limits to provide the applicant with additional flexibility. This would lessen the impact on the project’s feasibility, thereby allow for project benefits for the City including but not limited to the creation of housing, including affordable housing, increased economic and fiscal benefits to the City through generation of additional transient occupancy taxes and economic development, as well as the project’s General Plan consistency and provision of commercial uses within the Downtown District.

Recommended Council Action
Affirm the appeal in part to modify Condition of Approval 8 and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Affirming the Appeal in Part of 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
Request additional information from the appellant to substantiate and support arguments and continue the matter to a future hearing date.

Financial Impact
N/A
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - PC Resolutions 9-2023 and 10-2023
Attachment 3 - Appeal Materials
Alignment with Council Goals:

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

CC:
n/a
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

1 CITY OF SONOMA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA
AFFIRMING IN PART AN APPEAL OF 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. At that hearing, City Council received a presentation by staff and the applicant as well as public comment and voted 5-0 to continue the item to January 17, 2024 and provided direction to staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held the continued hearing on January 17, 2023.

Agenda Item #8.1:

2 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 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
Agenda Item #8.1:

3 A. On the basis of the record before it, the City Council hereby AFFIRMS IN PART 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;

2. 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;

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

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

5. The request to reduce the Residential Component Fee is approved. The applicant provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Residential Component fee of $100 per sf, combined with five percent interest would have a material adverse impact on the project’s feasibility, thereby risking the substantial benefits the project would have for the City including but not limited to the creation of housing, including affordable housing, increased economic and fiscal benefits to the City through generation of additional transient occupancy taxes and economic development, as well as the project’s General Plan consistency and provision of commercial uses within the Downtown District. Condition of Approval 8 is amended to require the payment of an in lieu fee of $50 per square foot over the five years from occupancy and other amendments as provided in the attached Conditions, as the project would generate ongoing revenue to the City of Sonoma Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

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. The Planning Commission’s Resolution of October 19, 2023 approving the Exception, Design Review Permit, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment associated with the Project are not affected by this Resolution and remain in full force in effect.

C. The Use Permit findings are amended to reflect the change in the Residential Component Fee from $100 per sf to $50 per sf, the exclusion of interest of the unpaid balance, and the inclusion of an off-site construction alternative as set forth below in section III. The City Council approves these findings and the corresponding amendments to Condition of Approval 8 provided by this Resolution based on substantial evidence in the record before it and based on the discretion provided under Sonoma Municipal Code section

19.10.020(B)(3) as that section read when this project was accepted as complete, prior to the adoption of the $100 per sf Residential Component Fee.

D. 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 Agenda Item #8.1:

4 Program. The Planning Commission’s Resolution of October 19, 2023 certifying the Final EIR, adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and making the required findings including statement of overriding considerations for the Hotel Project Sonoma are not affected by this Resolution and remain in full force in effect.

III. Use Permit Findings
In accordance with Section 19.54.040.E of the Sonoma Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has determined that the Hotel Project Sonoma, as revised by the Project narrative (dated September 27, 2023) and Project plans (dated September 20, 2023) and as conditioned herein, is consistent with the findings required for Use Permit approval, provided the applicant complies with and implements the MMRP. The City hereby makes the following findings based on the facts contained in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to those set forth below.

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any specific plan; The development and use of the property as a hotel, restaurant, spa, and eight-unit residential building is consistent with the City of Sonoma 2020 General Plan. The Project site is designated “Commercial” by the General Plan. The purpose of the Commercial designation is to:
“provide areas for retail, hotel, service, medical and office development, in association with apartments and mixed-used development and necessary public improvements”.

A consistency analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the Project is included in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The proposed Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. There is no Specific Plan applicable to the Project site.

2. The proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations of this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions); Sonoma Municipal Code Compliance: The Project is located in the Commercial zoning district. Hotels, restaurants, spas, and multifamily residential land uses are identified as conditionally allowed uses in the Commercial zoning district as set forth in Sonoma Municipal Code (SMC) Section 19.10.050. The proposed uses are allowed with a Use Permit within the zoning district and as conditioned, the Project would comply with applicable standards contained in the SMC. The Project complies with the development standards applicable to new development in the Downtown District as follows:

Table 1. Development Standards
Agenda Item #8.1:

5 Development
Feature
Development Code
Allowance
(SMC Chapter 19.34,
Table 3.7)
Project
Building Setbacks None Required 0-150 feet
Floor Area Ratio 2.0 1.58
Site Coverage 100% 74.2%
Maximum Roof
Height
35 feet 35 feet
Additional height of
roof mounted
equipment
40 feet 40 feet
Open Space 10% of site minimum 46%
Parking: The Project proposes 128 on-site and up to 25 off-site parking spaces, totaling 153 spaces, for the proposed project and existing uses in the Index Tribune and Lynch Buildings. The applicant is requesting an adjustment in parking requirements per SMC Section 19.48.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements).

Parking requirements for commercial and residential mixed uses located in a commercial zone may be reduced upon determination by the Planning Commission that a reduction is justified. Based upon the parking demand study provided by WTrans, the amount of off-street parking is justified as the proposed uses are located on the same property and the number of parking spaces on-site and off-site will meet the peak demand. The off-site location is located across the street and under the same ownership as the subject property. A condition of approval has been included requiring a detailed Parking Management Plan, which will address shared parking, employee parking, valet parking, peak season, and offsite parking. A reciprocal parking easement will be required for 117, 135 and 153 West Napa Street and an irrevocable Offer of Dedication subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director for a parking access easement at 136 West Napa Street for the 25 staff overflow parking spaces to be available across the street, which is owned by the Applicant’s affiliate, is also included in the Parking Management Plan.

Residential Component: As proposed and as permitted under this Resolution, the Project entails a 65,606 square foot hotel, restaurant, and spa building and a 21,221 square foot 8-unit residential building, resulting in a proposed residential component totaling 86,826 square feet “total building area”. Under SMC Section 19.10.020(B)(3), the applicant is required to provide a residential component normally comprising 50% of the “total proposed building area,” here, 43,414 square feet of residential units.

Given that the applicant is proposing to construct 21,221 square feet of residential uses, there remains 22,193 square feet of residential component unaddressed.

Consequently, the applicant is requesting a reduction of this requirement.

Agenda Item #8.1:

6 Residential Component Waiver: SMC Section 19.10.020.B.3, outlines the circumstances under which the residential component may be reduced or waived include, but are not limited to, the following:
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 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 proposes alternative measures to address the 22,193 square foot residential component deficit through the provision of units offsite and/or paying a fee. A condition of approval 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 a building permit, outlining how the project proponent will provide 22,192 sf of residential development.

A Residential Component Fee shall be paid to the City equal to $1,109,650.00 $2,219,300.00 which is derived by multiplying 22,193 square feet by $50 $100 (which is less than the $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 $1,109,650 $2,219,300 liability shall be reduced by the number of square feet of floor area for housing converted, acquired, or purchased or constructed under subsections (a) – (cd), below multiplied by $50 $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 unpaid portion of the Residential Component Fee shall accrue interest at a rate of five percent per annum, which amount shall be paid annually and allocated to the Housing Trust Fund. The fee does not accrue interest 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 housing units affordable to households in the extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income categories. One unit shall be extremely low, two units very low, two units low, and two units affordable to moderate Agenda Item #8.1:

7 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 as follows: 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).
d) The construction of for rent multi-family housing that includes required deed restricted affordable residential units in the City with a minimum affordability in accordance with Chapter 19.44.020 Inclusionary units. The units must remain affordable in perpetuity consistent with SMC Section 19.44.060 (Continued availability). A Building Permit shall be obtained prior to the fifth year from the date of approval of building occupancy of the Hotel Project to qualify for a reduction of the required Residential Component Fee.

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.

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; and Location: The Project site is zoned Commercial, is located within the Downtown District Planning Area, and in close proximity to the Sonoma Plaza, a variety of hotels, restaurants, businesses, and public transit. The Commercial zoning district identifies hotels and restaurants as allowable uses, subject to Use Permit review Agenda Item #8.1:

8 and approval. The General Plan acknowledges that such uses add to the economic vitality of the downtown and enhance pedestrian activity. The Project would promote these benefits identified in the General Plan due to the proximity of the project site to activities and attractions in the Downtown District, such as the Plaza and the Sonoma State Historic Park. The Project would add a hotel in Downtown Sonoma which would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Size: The Project complies with Development Code standards regulating building height, site coverage, and Floor Area Ratio and is compatible with existing development in terms of size massing and design.

Design: The Project complies with Development Code, standards concerning building height, setbacks, coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, which have as their purpose ensuring that new development fits appropriately within its surroundings.

The Project also complies with Downtown District Design Guidelines, and Infill in the Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

Operating Characteristics: To ensure that the operating characteristics of the Project would be compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the site, the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program require the following:
a) Detailed Parking Management and Delivery plans
b) Stormwater retention.
c) Compliance with the Noise Ordinance with respect to activities, building design and equipment.
d) Fair share contribution to the pedestrian improvements of the intersection of First Street West/West Napa Street identified in the General Plan to enhance pedestrian safety and reduce crossing distances.
e) The development and implementation of a (1) trip reduction plan, (2) parking management plan to address valet parking, shared parking for the Lynch building and Sonoma Index-Tribune building, employee parking (including incentives for ride-sharing, bicycle and pedestrian and transit use), the provision of bicycles for use by guests, and (3) delivery plan to address hours of delivery and loading zone deliveries to the hotel and restaurant. f) The development and implementation of a construction management plan addressing construction traffic, noise, and dust control. g) The Project has not been approved as a Special Events venue.

4. The proposed use will not impair the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located.

Agenda Item #8.1:

9 The proposed uses would not impair the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located. The Project site is in the Commercial zoning district in the Downtown Planning Area, which supports a mix of historic buildings and new development. The Project site abuts the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District but is not located within the District. The Project was evaluated for compatibility with the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District in the RDEIR, which determined that that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the Sonoma Plaza National Historic District, as identified in the Historic Reports prepared and provided with the Final EIR, incorporated by this reference. The Project also complies with Downtown District Design Guidelines, and Infill in the Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Therefore, the Project would not impair the historic character of its surroundings.

IV. 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 ___________________, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION# 9-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF SONOMA, CERTIFYINGA FINALENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE

MITIGATIONMONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND MAKINGTHE

REQUIRED FINDINGS INCLUDINGSTATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONSFOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT SONOMA LOCATED AT 117, 135, AND 153 WEST NAPA STREET.

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012 Michael Ross, AIAsubmitted an application to the City of Sonoma for a Use Permit and DemolitionPermit to redevelop 117, 135, and 153 West Napa Street for the Hotel Project Sonoma, (“Project”);and WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma (“City”)determined that the Project requires review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)(Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and an Environmental Impact Report (“E|R”)was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051, the City of Sonoma is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed Project;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was released for public and public agency review and comment on June 15, 2015, and a public scoping meeting to receive comments on topics and issue to be evaluated in the Draft EIR was held by the City on June 25, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice ofAvailability forthe Draft EIR on January 26, 2016, which started a 45-day public review period, ending on March 10, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review (State Clearinghouse No. 2015032041); and WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma Planning Commission held a public meeting on February 25, 2016 to receive public comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2017 to review the EIR and at that meeting certified the Final EIR; and Commission to certify the EIR on April 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and continued the item to the July 19, 2017 meeting; and Page 1 Agenda Item #8.1:

WHEREAS, on July 14, 2017, the Applicant submitted a letter asking that the EIR be recirculated to include a residential alternative and revised traffic information; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2017, the City Council voted to uphold the appeal; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution #43—2017 directing revisions to the EIR and for the document to be recirculated; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Availability for the revised Draft EIR on July 2018, which started a 45-day public review period, ending on September 13, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised Draft EIR on September 4, 2018; and
WHEREAS, in fall 2018 a revised Final ElR was prepared that responded to comments, however, the City determined that a Recirculated EIR was required; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and narrative that amended the project to include an 8-unit residential building; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was released for public and public agency review and comment on August 3, 2021, and a public scoping meeting to receive comments on topics and issue to be evaluated in the Recirculated Draft ElR was held by the City on Thursday, August 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) on June 23, 2023, which started a 45-day public review period, ending on August 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the RDEIR was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review (State Clearinghouse No. 2015032041); and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2023, the City held a Public Meeting to receive comments on the Recirculated Draft Environmental impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDElR”)and Final EIR (“Final EIR) were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the City has independently reviewed and analyzed the RDEIR and Final EIR, and these documents reflect the independentjudgment of the City; and approval of the proposed Project. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City willserve as the MMRP Coordinator; and Page 2 Agenda Item #8.1:

WHEREAS, in determining whether the proposed Project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091; and
WHEREAS, the impacts ofthe proposed Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification ofthe Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the comments received on the RDEIR and the responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add new information regarding environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that would require recirculation of the RDEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final ElR; and WHEREAS, the responses to comments on the RDElR, which is contained in the attached Final EIR, clarify and amplify the environmental analyses therein; and WHEREAS, the City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the proposed project prior to certification of the Final ElR, nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the RDEIR and/or the Final EIR are, and have been, available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian of record for such documents or other materials; and WHEREAS, the Response to Comments was provided to public agencies 10 days prior to the October 19, 2023 Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, the RDEIR and Final EIR make up the whole of the EIR document, have been incorporated into the conditions of project approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 19, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project, including certifying the Final EIR, and approving the Use Permit, Exception to Development Code Loading Standard, Reduction of Residential Component, Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment make up the whole of the EIR document, the oral staff report on the Project, all public testimony received, both orally and in writing and the Record as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE BE ITRESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and declares as follows: Section 1. Record Page 3 Agenda Item #8.1:

A. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project and the ElR are based includes, but is not limited to:

1. June 2023 RDElR 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 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;

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 as it has existed at all relevant times 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 including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to developmentwithin the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;

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

11.A|| other documents comprising the record of proceedings as described in 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. Allthe 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.

C. The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of documents and other materials are located at Sonoma City Hall, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(2); Guidelines, § 15091(e).) Section 2. Errata Following publication of the RDEIR, text revisions were made and incorporated into the document, as set forth in the October 2023 Final ElR. None of the revisions constitute Page 4 Agenda Item #8.1:

significant new information and therefore, it is not necessary to re—circulatethe RDEIR (Public Resources Code section 21166; CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 (b) recirculation of the revised ElR is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. No new significant impacts were identified which would warrant recirculation ofthe RDEIR as further discussed in Section 7 below.

Section 3 Certification
The Planning Commission certifies the Final ElR and finds the following:

A. The Final ElR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

B. The Final ElR was presented to the Planning Commission, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final ElR prior to taking action on the Project.

C. The Final EIR reflects the independentjudgement and analysis ofthe City.

Section 4. Sjgnificant Impacts
Through the analysis provided in the Final EIR, it was determined that the project would result in 10 potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The following significant impacts, after implementation of applicable mitigation measures would still result in significant unavoidable impacts to:

A. Cumulative GHG emissions
B. Temporary, short—termexposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise C. The VMTgenerated by the Project would be potentially significant.

Once significant impacts have been identified, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 require that certain findings be made before project approval to justify the unavoidable impacts. The City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, which allows a lead agency to cite a project’s general economic, social or other benefits as justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The CEQA provisions require the agency to provide in writing the specific reasons to support its action to approve the project with a Statement of Overriding Consideration, indicating that the project’s benefits must outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. The overriding consideration must be supported by substantial evidence.
statement provides the City’s views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving a Project despite its environmental impact. Although the Project would have a significant and unavoidable vehicle mile traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction noise impacts, it would also result in a number of public benefits associated with the development of the project site as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Page 5 Agenda Item #8.1:

Section 5. Alternatives
The Final EIR contains five project alternatives, which were evaluated by the City during project development and in the Final EIR.

No Project Alternative
Hotel/Residential (50%—50%)Alternative
Hotel/Residential (75%-25%) Alternative
Hotel Only Alternative
Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative
The Planning Commission Based on impacts identified in the RDElR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible based on the findings set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Planning Commission hereby adopts the MMRP set forth in the Final EIR and attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and directs the Community Development Director to oversee the implementation of the MMRP.

Section 7. Other Findings and information
A. The Planning Commission finds that there has been no significant new information that has been added to the Final EIR after public notice was given of the availability of the RDEIR that would change the conclusions of the Final EIR. No new information shows that:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
impacts of the Project, but the Project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or 4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. B. The Planning Commission recognizes that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes to the RDElR. A few comments on the Page 6 Agenda Item #8.1:

RDElR either expressly or implicitly suggested changes to the proposed mitigation measures identified in the RDEIR, as well as additional mitigation measures. As explained in the Final EIR, some of the suggestions were found to be appropriate and feasible and were adopted in the Final EIR.Where changes have been made to mitigation measures, these changes do not change the significance of any conclusions presented.

C. CEQA case law emphasizes that “[t]he CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737 [internal quotes omitted]; see also River Valley Preservation Project v.

Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11.) “‘CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. Itmust be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibilityto respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.’ [Citation.] ln short, a project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 33rd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) Here, the changes made to mitigation measures are exactly the kind of project improvements that the case law recognizes as legitimate and proper.

D. The changes to the mitigation measures described in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final ElR supplement or clarify the existing language. Thus, none of these changes involves “significant new information” triggering recirculation because the changes to the mitigation measures did not result in any new significant environmental effects, any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects, or othenivise trigger recirculation. Instead, the modifications were either environmentally benign or environmentally neutral, and thus represent the kinds of changes that commonly occur as the environmental review process works towards its conclusion. Under these circumstances, the Planning Commission finds that recirculation of the ElR is not required.

Section 8. CEQA Findings
The Planning Commission hereby adopts the California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and Section 9. Notice of Determination The Planning Commission hereby directs the Community Development Director to file a Notice of Determination within five (5) days after approval of the Project. Page 7 Agenda Item #8.1:

The foregoing Resolution is hereby passed and adopted by the Planning Commi ssion
on
October 19, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Cornrns. Darnbach. O'Gorrnan—Jenkins, O'Neill. Vvirick, Vice Chair Barbo se Noes: Comm. Vvillers

Absent: E.-’\¢;.a1-?r’
Recuse:

Vice Chair Barbose
Attest ~./Li
Matthew Courpet
Exhibit "A"
Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Exhibit "B“
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Agenda Item #8.1:

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITYACT FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HOTEL

PROJECT SONOMA

1. Introduction
The purpose of these findings is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The City of Sonoma (City), as lead agency has prepared an Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the Hotel Project Sonoma (proposed project or project) (State Clearinghouse No. 2015062041).

Refer to Chapter 3 of the RDEIR, “Project Description,” for more detail.

California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000, et seq.) require an EIR where a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment. Prior to approval of the project, the ElR must be certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. When an ElR is certified which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, for each identified significant impact:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final environmental impact report.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 states that, after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a significant substantially lessen the impact. However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts, if there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in a “statement of overriding considerations” as a part of the record. 1 Agenda Item #8.1:

The requirements of CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 are all addressed herein. This document summarizes the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed project.

2. Project Objectives
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the ElR must identify the objectives sought by the project. The stated objectives of the project applicant are to:
o Develop a hotel at an economically viable scale with a restaurant and bar, pool veranda, spa, and residential dwelling units in Downtown Sonoma. o Stimulate the local economy through hospitality uses, retail sales, and job creation. - Provide aesthetically pleasing architecture to complement the existing character of the City of Sonoma. - Promote economic vitality for the City through new Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generated by the hotel and capital investment on what is currently an underutilized site. o Promote sustainability by designing and constructing a hotel that meets State of California CalGreen Requirements.
o Add a residential presence in the town center through mixed—use development that combines housing with non~residential uses. - Provide full- and part-time local employment opportunities in the hotel and restaurant industry.
0 Encourage quality, variety, and innovation in new development. 0 Establish Sonoma as a place where bicycling is safe and convenient. o Minimize vehicle trips while ensuring safe and convenient access to nearby activities and maintaining the City of Sonoma’s small-town character.

3. Procedural Findings
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an ElR on June 15, 2015. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15023 and 15087(f), the State Clearinghouse in the Governor's Office of Planning Research (OPR) was responsible for disturbing environmental documents to State agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution of the appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse.

The State Clearinghouse was obligated to make and did make that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. Appendix A of the 2016 Draft ElR includes comments received on the NOP.

The 2016 Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on January 26, 2016 and concluding on March 10, 2016, during which agencies and organizations submitted to the comments, and minor changes to the text of the 2016 Draft ElR. The 2016 Final ElR was certified by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2017. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council, which held public hearings on June 22, 2017, July 19, 2017 and August 14, 2017. The Project Applicant, in a letter to the City dated July 14,2017, requested that the document be recirculated. At the August 14, 2017 hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution #43—2017 (Appendix S of the 2017 revised Draft ElR), which upheld the appeal and Agenda Item #8.1:

directed that the 2016 Draft EIR be revised. The 2017 revised Draft EIR, prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, was recirculated for a 45-day public review period beginning on July 20, 2018 and concluding on September 13, 2018, during which agencies and organizations submitted public comments and input. A public hearing on the 2017 revised Draft ElR was held by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2018.

A revised Final EIR was prepared and was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and was made available to public agencies commenting on the ElR more than 10—days prior to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2019. The revised Final ElR consisted ofthe2017 revised Draft ElR; Comments and Responses to Comments on the 2017 revised Draft EIR; Errata to the 2017 revised Draft EIR; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The City elected to recirculate the environmental document to address changes to the proposed project — particularly a residential component that was not included as a part of the previously proposed project. The City released a revised NOP for public and public agency review and comment on August 3, 2021 and a public scoping meeting to receive comments on topics and issue to be evaluated in the Recirculated Draft EIR was held by the City on Thursday, August 12, 2021. The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDElR) was recirculated for a 45- day public review period beginning on June 23, 2023 and concluding on August 7, 2023, during which agencies and organizations submitted public comments and input. RDEIR reviewers were notified that the RDElR supersedes all prior environmental documents that were previously prepared, and that the City will only consider comments that are submitted on the RDEIR as part of the Final Recirculated EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[t][1]).

A Final EIR (FElR) was prepared and was submitted to public agencies commenting on the RDEIR more than 10 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting of October 19”‘,2023. The FElR consists of the RDElR; Comments and Responses to Comments on the RDElR; Errata to the RDEIR; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

4. Record of Proceedings
in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings forthe City Council's decision on the project includes the following documents, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings:
» The NOP, comments received on the NOP and all other public notices issued by the City Council in relation to the RDEIR (e.g., Notice of Availability); » The RDEIR and all appendices to the RDElR and technical materials cited in the RDEIR; » All presentation materials related to the project;» Allcomments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the RDElR;» Allstudies conducted for the project and contained or referenced in the RDEIR or the FElR; Agenda Item #8.1:

» All public reports and documents related to the project prepared for the City Council and other agencies;
» All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the project, the RDElR, and the FEIR; » The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program forthe project; and » Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available upon request for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public, at the Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall, City of Sonoma, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476 from Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am — Noon and 1:00 pm — 5:00 pm. The custodian of these documents is Kristina Tierney, AlCP,’Associate Planner.

5. Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which ElRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an ElR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions.

The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FElR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091[a][1]). For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. in contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).

Agenda Item #8.1:

The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][3]). “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417).

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a lead agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project ifthe agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. in the process of considering the project ElR for certification, the City has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances. To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a |ess~than—significant level with the adopted mitigation, the City has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the proposed project. Those findings are reflected herein in Section 5, “Findings Required under CEQA,” and in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” below.

5.1 Summary of Findings
The RDEIR identified a number of '|ess—than~significant impacts associated with the proposed project that do not require mitigation. The RDEIR also identified significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the proposed project. Most ofthese significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. A few effects cannot be, and thus are determined to be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” however, the City has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project.

The findings of the City with respect to the project's significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the RDEIR, FEIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to regurgitate the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the RDEIR and FEIR. Please refer to the RDEIR and the FEIR for more detail — both documents are on file with the City of Sonoma at the Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall, City of Sonoma, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476 from Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am —- Noon and 1:00 pm —sonoma/. The entirety of the FEIR, including the RDElR, is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety and the conclusions of the FEIR are summarized in this document. The Summary of Findings provides a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the ElR and adopted by the City, and states the findings of the City regarding the significance of each impact after 5 Agenda Item #8.1:

imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. Afull explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the RDEIR and FEIR and the associated administrative record (described herein).

The City hereby ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these findings, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the RDEIR and FEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

In adopting these Findings, the City finds that the EIRwas presented to the decision-making body, that the City reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving the proposed project, and that the EIR reflects the independentjudgment and analysis of the City.

5.2 Findings Regarding EIR Errata and EIR
Recirculation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIRwhen “significant new information” is added to the EIR, after the lead agency gives public notice of the availability of the EIR, but before certification. “|nformation” may include project changes, changes to the environmental setting, or additional data or other information. The CEQA Guidelines do not consider new information to be significant unless the lead agency changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate the impact that the agency or project proponent has declined to implement.

Section 15088.5 states “significant new information” requiring recirculation may include:

1. A new significant environmental impact that had not previously been disclosed in the RDEIR would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure;

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that had already been identified unless mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the proponents willnot adopt it; or

4. The RDEIRwas so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

5.2.1 Revision to the EIR and Errata to FEIR
In response to comments from the public and other public agencies on the RDEIR, the City has incorporated minor changes into the FEIR, which are described in Chapter 3, “Errata,” ofthe FEIR.

Energy,” (4) Section 4.10, “Land Use and Planning,” (5) Chapter 5, “Alternatives,” and (6) Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Considerations.” Changes to the Executive Summary include a revision to an entry in Table ES—1:Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures under the “Mitigation Measures” column for Impact 4.7~ 1. The revision corrects the numbering in a referenced mitigation measure and this change has Agenda Item #8.1:

no bearing on the analysis presented in the RDEIR. Similarly, the change in Section 4.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” was to correct the same numbering reference.

In Chapter 3, “Project Description,” minor revisions to Section 3.1.1 clarify the provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that would apply to the proposed project with respect to a residential component for commercially zoned properties (RDEIR, page 3-7). This change does not affect any of the impact analysis, as the proposed project is not changing — only the application of the City’s code to the proposed project. The revisions do not require any additional mitigation or any additional alternatives.

As detailed in Chapter 3 of the FElR, “Errata,” the revisions to Section 4.10 of the RDEIR are not related to adverse physical impacts of the project as proposed, but instead clarify provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that would apply to the proposed project.

Changes to Chapter 5, “Alternatives,” include a revision to an entry in Table 5-1: Comparison of impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Project to revise the impact to Utilities and Services underA|ternative 2 from “Similar” to “Reduced.” This change does not affect the Environmentally Superior Alternative or the adequacy of the Alternatives chapter of the RDElR. Changes to Alternative 2 clarify provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that would apply to the proposed project. Additional minor revisions to the Alternatives chapter account for the fact that a smaller underground parking component would be required for both Alternative 3 and Alternative 5, and these alternatives scenarios would not likely be able to accommodate all required parking in surface spaces (see FElR, pages 3-6 through 3-13). Additional changes to clarify provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that would apply to the proposed project can be found on Page 5- 15 under Alternative 2, Page 5-22 underAlternative 3, Page 5-29 underA|ternative 4, and Page 5-35 under Alternative 5. One minor change to RDEIR page 5-33 acknowledges that, under Alternative 5, there could be additional space devoted to on-site loading. Changes to the text under Utilities and Service Systems for Alternative 2 include minor updates to the impact conclusion. None of the changes to the Alternatives chapter has any bearing on the adequacy of the Alternatives chapter for evaluating the relative environmental effects of the alternatives in detail.

Changes to Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Considerations” are minor, editorial revisions, including changing the abbreviation for toxic air contaminants from “TOC”to “TAC”on page 6-8; adding the word “be” to the last sentence on page 6-9 so that the sentence reads, “...impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than cumulatively considerable;” and changing “fire protection” to ‘‘lawenforcement” on page 6-13.

None of the revisions to the RDEIR change the analysis or conclusions presented in the RDElR.

No significant new information has been added to the EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the RDElR. No aspect ofthe environmental setting has changed in a way that would lead to any new environmental impacts or impacts that would be more severe than reported in the RDEIR. No feasible mitigation has been recommended that has failed be included in the EIR.

Recirculation of the ElR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required.

EIR Pursuant to Section 15128 ofthe CEQA Guidelines, environmental issues that were considered and “scoped out” include Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Recreation, , Agenda Item #8.1:

Wildfire, and Population and Housing. These environmental issues were addressed in Section

4.1 of the RDEIR.
a. The site does not contain land designated for agriculture or Prime Farmland, and no parcels in proximity to the site support farmland or other agriculture uses or resources or forestry uses, therefore, development of the project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources.
b. No mineral resources are located on the project site; therefore, development of the Project would have no impact on mineral resources.
c. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss from wildland fires, since it is located in an urban area, outside a designated wildland fire area.
d. Development of the project would not result in substantial population growth or displace existing housing, therefore, development of the project would have no impact on population and housing.

5.4 Findings Regarding Less ThanSignificant
Impacts (No Mitigation Required)
The City of Sonoma hereby finds that direct and cumulative environmental impacts in the following areas would be less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), written findings by the public agency are only required for each of the signi?cant effects identified in the RDEIR. These Findings are based on the analyses conducted for the project as described in Chapter 4 of the RDEIR, which are incorporated by reference herein to these Findings.

The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared the RDEIR and found no significant impacts would occur in the following areas, with no mitigation required:

1. Aesthetics. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the RDElR, the visual compatibility of the project was evaluated in terms of: (1) Development Code consistency with regulations that address scale, massing, and height; (2) consistency with applicable design guidelines; and (3) project-specific site planning and design, with an emphasis on compatibility with the character of the area. The project site is not located in an area designated as a scenic vista, or on a scenic road or highway.

Development of the project site would not significantly change the visual character of the area.

The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning code standards for the site that relate to aesthetics.
a. Consistency with Development Regulations: Applicable standards, as set forth in Code that relate to the visual character of proposed development As discussed under “Consistency with Development Code Standards”, the project substantially complies with these standards. b. Consistency with Design Guidelines: The project site is in the Historic Overlay Zone and therefore the guidelines set forth in Section 19.42 of the Sonoma Municipal Code (Historic Preservation and Infillin the Historic Overlay District) are applicable. The project design is compatible with Sonoma’s vernacular style and character by incorporating three primary Sonoma architectural patterns, including 8 Agenda Item #8.1:

the use of gabled thick—walledbuildings parallel to the street, the creation of exterior timber arcades at the sidewalk, and overhanging sheltered roofs.

Proposed colors and exterior building materials are similar to those used in the Downtown area and due to the architectural features and proposed colors and materials, the building would blend visually with the general surroundings.

2. Air Quality: As discussed in Section 4.3 of the RDEIR, the project would generate emissions during construction and operation. However, the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-recommended thresholds of significance, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. In addition, the proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction or operation. The proposed project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from C0 emission or exposure to objectionable odors.

3. Biologic Resources: As discussed in Section 4.4 of the RDEIR, the project site contains limited potential for biologic resources. The project site has been previously developed and contains a commercial building fronting West Napa Street, which is currently used as a retail shop; a metal building, which was previously used for newspaper production by the Sonoma lndexTribune; and a shed along the southern edge of the project site. in addition, the site is adjacent to the Lynch Building and the Sonoma lndex-Tribune Building.

Attics and other spaces within these buildings have the potential to contain bat roosting habitat.

In addition to the structures onsite, there are several trees on~site and directly adjacent to the project site with the potential to contain suitable bat roosting habitat. During the dusk bat emergence survey on August 10, 2015, no bats were observed or detected at the Lynch Building or the Chateau Sonoma Building. Moreover, no bats were observed emerging from the Lynch Building. Given the results of the investigations and the length of time in which these buildings have stood, coupled with the lack of evidence that bats have ever used the project site for roosting; the biologists determined that there is no reasonable expectation that bats will move onto the site to roost prior to the start of project activities unless there are physical changes in these buildings that would improve accessibility to bats or change their thermal characteristics. Therefore, the project would have no biological impacts.

No habitat conservation plans are applicable to the project site. Tree removal would be required to meet the City’s tree replacement requirements.

4. Cultural Resources: As discussed in Section 4.5 of the RDEIR, the project site is within the vicinity of the Sonoma Plaza National Historic Landmark, the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District, and is within the City of Sonoma Historic Overlay Zone. However, the project would not materially impair the historical significance of any historical resources listed in Table

5. Geology and Soils: As discussed in Section 4.6 of the RDElR, the project site is located in a seismically active region. However, compliance with the City’s Building Code requirements, which require that new structures be designed and constructed to meet maximum seismic safety requirements, would ensure that impacts are less than significant. The project site is not located in an area subject to erosion, or on a geologic unit or soil that is considered unstable or subject to landslides. No septic systems would be located on the project site.

Agenda Item #8.1:

6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: As discussed in Section 4.7 of the RDElR, implementation of the proposed project would result in energy consumption for the duration of the project’s construction and operational phases. However, construction activities under the proposed project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including applicable federal, state, and local laws. in addition, due to the project’s design features, on—siteproduction of renewable energy to reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources, compliance with energy efficiency standards that exceed CALGreen requirements, and project siting within the City’s Downtown area as a mixed—use infill development, the project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: As set forth in Section 4.8 of the RDElR, the project includes the redevelopment of a previously developed site. A Phase l Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site (117 & 135 West Napa Street) on March 24, 2015. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.41,42. The project site has been thoroughly investigated with respect to potential contamination with hazardous materials. These investigations identified requirements for subsequent testing, study, and remediation, all of which were implemented. The project would comply with the provisions of the California Hazardous Materials Regulations and other federal, State, and local regulations and requirements. In addition, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial health risks within 0.25 miles of a school, and would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The project is not within an airport land use plan, orwithin the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.

8. Hydrology and Water Quality: As set forth in Section 4.9 of the RDElR, the project includes the redevelopment of a previously developed site that is largely paved. The proposed project would not convert an open space area to new impervious surfaces. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies.

9. Land Use: As discussed in Section 4.10 of the RDElR, the project site is on a previously developed site. it would not physically divide an established community, or conflict with a land use plan or policy. The project requires a Use Permit for the hotel, restaurant, spa, and multifamily residential development. The Planning Commission has the discretion to waive or reduce the residential component in some circumstances. Compliance with the section of the Municipal Code requiring a residential component will be determined as part of the Use Permit process.

Specific impacts and project consistency issues associated with other resource and issue areas are addressed in each topic area section of the RDEIR.These topic area sections (e.g., air quality, biological and cultural resources, noise, and transportation) analyze other relevant physical environmental effects that could result from implementation of the proposed project, and identify would not conflict with adopted City General Plan policies, land use designations, or City zoning in any way that would lead to any adverse physical environmental impacts beyond those identified and addressed in the environmental topic area sections of this RDElR. 10. Noise and Vibration: Traffic noise modeling was conducted using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model to calculate traffic noise levels along affected roadways. As discussed in Section 4.11 ofthe RDElR, the project would increase traffic volumes due to the increase in traffic 10 Agenda Item #8.1:

volumes on the local roadway network during construction and operation of the project. However, the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project area associated with traffic during construction or operation.

11. Public Services: As discussed in Section 4.12 of the RDEIR, the project would not result in a need for new or physically altered fire protection or police facilities. The project would not generate large numbers of students and would not impact local schools. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant.

12. Transportation: As discussed in 4.13 of the RDEIR, to evaluate the potential impacts of the project with respect to transportation, a transportation impact study was prepared (Appendix G of the RDElR). The development of the project would not interfere with the future installation of any bicycle facilities, as called for the City of Sonoma Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. in compliance with City General Plan policy and standard conditions of approval, the project will incorporate bicycle facilities, including secured bicycle parking. Transit facilities serving the project are adequately accessible, and the project includes adequate onsite parking spaces to meet both the proposed uses. in addition, the project would not impact school traffic.

The project—related impacts to existing queuing capacity issues, bicycles, pedestrian crossings, and driveways associated with the project would not be expected to introduce any new safety concerns. in addition, the project would be required, based on existing code requirements, to be designed to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access.

13. Utilities and Service Systems: As discussed in Section 4.14 ofthe RDElR, the project would not result in a need for construction of new water or solid waste management systems or substantial alterations to existing utilities resulting in physical impacts.

5.5 Findings Regarding Significant Environmental
Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than
Significant
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that the following potentially significant impacts would be less than significant after implementation of the specified mitigation measures. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Chapter4 ofthe FEIR, incorporated by reference herein, and as more fully described below.

The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared the RDElR and found that the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of mitigation measures with regard to:

Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.3~2 on page 4.3-30 of the RDEIR, which will substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental 11 Agenda Item #8.1:

impacts.

Facts in Suggort of Finding: As discussed in Section 4.3 of the RDElR, the project would comply with the BAAQMD’s screening criteria, which recommends incorporation of specific best management practices to reduce air quality emissions.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 has been proposed in the RDEIR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions (2023 RDEIR pages 4326 through 4.327). These mitigation measures include: watering twice daily, covering soil and loose material, cleaning roadways from dirt tracks, reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, paving roadways as soon as possible after grading, reducing idling times of construction equipment, maintaining equipment consistent with manufacturers specifications, and posting of signs with contact information to report violations.

Therefore, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, the impact would be less than significant.

B. Cultural Resources.

Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.5~1a and

4.5—1bfound on pages 4.5-14 and 4.5-15, Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 found on page 4.5—21,and Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 found on page 4.5—22 of the RDElR will substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts.

Facts in Suggort of Finding: Section 4.5 of the RDElR evaluates the project with respect to historical and archeological resources. A significant impact would occur ifthe project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

Subsurface Archaeological Resources. Since the site has been developed in the past, ground disturbing activities are likely to have already disturbed or resulted in the discovery of any archeological resources that may exist on the site. Moreover, development of the project would be subject to policies and procedures set forth by the City’s General Plan, in the Community Development Element, including Implementation Measure 5.8.2 which calls for the City to refer development proposals to the California Archaeological Inventory at Sonoma State University to ensure that important archeological sites are identified and protected.

In addition, a records search was conducted by ALTA on May 19, 2022 to determine the potential for the presence of archaeological resources that may be present at the project site or within a O.25—mi|e radius. Based on the results of records searches, and the locations of known prehistoric Mitigation Measures 4.5—1aand 4.5-1b have been proposed in the RDElR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with disturbance of archaeological resources that may be present at the site (RDElR page 45-14 through page 4.5~ 12). These mitigation measures include: a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program training by a Graton Rancheria—approved archeologist; and completion of a cultural survey, halting work 12 Agenda Item #8.1:

and consulting a qualified archaeologist if prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered, and evaluation of materials to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.

Human Remains. A significant impact would also occur ifthe project would have the potential to disturb human remains. The project site has been developed in the past, and ground—disturbing activities have likely already disturbed or resulted in the discovery of any buried human remains that may have existed on the site; however, as discussed in Section 4.5 of the RDElR, if human remains are present on—site and discovered through excavation, there could be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures 4.5-3 and 4.5~4 have been proposed in the RDEIR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with the discovery of human remains and tribal cultural resources. The project is required follow the procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097. The project requires a tribal cultural resources survey after completion of demolition activities, along with limited subsurface explorations. A Tribal Monitor will be invited to inspect the project site. IfTribal Cultural Resources are discovered during post-demolition activities, all work within 50 feet of the resource shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This work shall also include the Federated lndians of Graton Rancheria (the Tribe) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for review and comment. if Tribal Cultural Resources are present, representatives from the City, the Tribe, and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. lf avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) may be instituted, along with other potential measures determined by the City in consultation with the Tribe.

Therefore, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a, 4.5—1b,4.5-3, and 4.5-4, these impacts would be less than significant.

C. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 on page 46-10 of the RDEIR willsubstantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: Section 4.6 of the RDElR evaluates the project with respect to resources (RDEIR, page 4.6-9). Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 is required for the proposed project, and would reduce this potential for accidental damage or destruction to a less—than~significant level. This mitigation requires a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to train all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities so that they may recognize the appearance of and understand procedures to be put in place should fossils be encountered. lffossils are encountered, work must stop in the 13 Agenda Item #8.1:

area adjacent to the find, and a qualified paleontologist must evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan. In the event that resources were discovered, fossil specimens would be recovered and recorded and would undergo appropriate curation and therefore, the implementation of this mitigation measure, which has been incorporated into the conditions of approval/mitigation monitoring program, would reduce the potential impact to unique paleontological resources to a less—than—significantlevel.

Therefore, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-4, the impact would be less than significant.

D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a on page

4.8~11 and Mitigation Measure 4.8—4bon page 4.8-11 of the RDElR willsubstantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts.

Facts in Support of Finding: Section 4.8 of the RDElR evaluates the project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 4.8 of the RDEIR, the project site is on the Cortese list as a result of multiple leaking USTs from a former Chevron service station.

The hazardous materials case was closed in 2014, assuming continuation of the existing land uses and no new excavation or earthmoving activities. Priorto case closure, the Sonoma County Department of Health Services required that a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan be prepared and placed on ?le to govern construction—related excavation and earthmoving activities associated with any future reuse of the site. This Soil and Groundwater Management Plan was prepared by AECOM in 2014.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a has been proposed in the RDElR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with contaminated soil and groundwater (RDEIR, page 4.8~11). This mitigation measure includes: notification to Chevron Environmental Management Company, collection of samples of the stained or odiferous soils and/or groundwater and review of the profiling results, and stockpiling of all excavated soil from the area.
in addition, Mitigation Measure 4.8~4b has been proposed in the RDElR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with asbestos—containing materials and lead—based paint (RDEIR, page 4.8-11 through 4.8-12). This mitigation measure includes compliance with BAAQMD Rules 11—2—303through 11—2—305and implementation of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirements. of approval/mitigation and hazardous materials to a less—than—significantlevel. Therefore, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-4a and 4.8—4b,these impacts would be less than significant.

Agenda Item #8.1:

E. Noise and Vibration
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 on page

4.11-31 of the RDElR and Mitigation Measure 4.11-5 on page 4.11—35 of the RDEIR, will substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impact(s).

Facts in Support of Finding: Section 4.11 of the RDEIR evaluates the project with respect to noise. Construction vibration was estimated using Federal Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment methodology. The RDEIR details potential impacts of the proposed project related to construction-related vibration — both with respect to human annoyance from vibration and also with respect to potential architectural damage. Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 prohibits the use of vibratory rollers, requires the use of small- to medium-sized bulldozers that would produce less vibration than using large bulldozers, requires pre-construction inspection of adjacent structures, and requires work to stop and preventative measures implemented if there is any damage.

Following the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-3, this impact would be less than significant.

Commercial operational noise is generated from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and loading dock activity. The nearest commercial uses are located immediately adjacent to the project site. Noise from commercial uses would be audible at the project site due to the close proximity of the commercial uses.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-5 has been proposed in the RDEIR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to reduce potential exposure of sensitive receptors to nontransportation source—generated noise (RDElR page 4.11—35).Measures include shielding of air conditioning units, testing and maintenance of generators, noise control devices, utilization of proper landscape maintenance equipment, and limited landscape maintenance hours.

Therefore, changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-5, this impact would be less than significant.

F. Utilities and Service Systems
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.14-3 on page

4.14-13 on the RDEIR, willsubstantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts related to sewer capacity.

Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in Section 4.14 of the RDEIR, a Sanitary Sewer require more wastewater treatment and disposal as compared to existing conditions. The Sanitary Sewer Analysis analyzed two scenarios to determine the potential impacts to the existing sanitary sewer system; the existing conditions scenario, and the “with project” scenario. The RDEIR found that under both existing conditions, and with the additional wastewater Agenda Item #8.1:

generated by the proposed project, surcharging would occur in the sewer main line in SR 12 (West Napa Street).

Mitigation Measure 4.14-3 has been proposed in the RDEIR and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project to reduce potential impacts to the sewer collection system (RDEIR page

4.14—13). Measures include coordination with Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District and Sonoma Water and documentation demonstrating that adequate wastewater conveyance capacity for the proposed project is available.

Therefore, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.14-3, impacts would be less than significant.

5.6 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not
Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would reduce the environmental impact to a |ess—than—significant level.

The City finds that the project's environmental, economic, social, and other benefits outweigh and override the significant adverse impact related to change in the environment. The City hereby elects to approve the project due to overriding considerations as set forth in Section 7 of this document, “Statement of Overriding Considerations.”
A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.7—1aon page

4.7~21, Mitigation Measures 4.7—1b,4.7—1c,4.7—1d,and 4.7~1e on page 4.7-22, and Mitigation Measure 4.7-1f on pages 4.7-22 through 4.724 of the RDEIR, would lessen the potentially significant environmental impact(s) related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, impact(s) would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Facts in Support of Finding: Section 4.7 of the RDEIR evaluates the project with respect to GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.

Appendix C of the RDElR provides the modeling details, assumptions, inputs, and outputs. of the project’s incremental, numerically positive contribution to the cumulative condition. in addition, the project has the potential to result in long—termemissions associated with operations that are not consistent with BAAQMD’s recommended design features and transportation performance standards. Mitigation Measures 4.7—1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e would reduce emissions associated with natural gas use, transportation, and electricity consumption associated with proposed project, and support alignment with the BAAMQD—recommended proposed project 16 Agenda Item #8.1:

design features and transportation performance standards, and would ensure that the proposed project contributes its fair—share of emissions reductions toward the State GHG reduction mandates and the State’s goal of statewide carbon neutrality. Mitigation Measure 4.7—1ffurther reduces the proposed project’s impacts related to the generation ofGHG emissions, as it requires the purchase and retirement of GHG emissions credits based on protocols approved by CARB, consistent with Section 95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

As discussed in Section 4.7 of the RDEIR, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a through 1f, the generation of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would not result in a substantial contribution to the significant impact of climate change or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reduction GHG emissions.

However, the City cannot guarantee the availability of emissions credits meeting the standards outlined in Mitigation Measures 4.7-1f. For this reason, the RDEIR concludes that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation is available. Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

B. Noise and Vibration
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 on pages

4.11-25 through 4.11-27, would lessen the potentially significant environmental impact(s) related to construction noise. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Facts in Support of Finding: Section 4.11 of the RDEIR evaluates the project with respect to noise. Construction noise was predicted by using the Federal Highway Construction Noise Model.

On—sitenoise monitoring was used to determine potential locations of sensitive receptors and potential noise—and vibration-generating uses in the proposed project area. Noise-sensitive uses and noise sources near the proposed project area were identified based on existing documentation (e.g., equipment noise levels and attenuation rates) and site reconnaissance.

Activities typically associated with new development, including demolition, grading, excavation, paving, material deliveries, and building construction, would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityduring construction. Although these impacts are temporary in nature, construction noise impacts typically occur when construction activities take place during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours) when construction activities occur immediately adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. of approval for the project to address the impacts associated with noise impacts during construction (RDElR pages 4.11-25 through 4.11-27). Measures include limiting the hours and days of construction, proper equipment maintenance, utilization of quiet equipment, location of equipment, prohibition of idling, utilizing sound barriers, limiting construction traffic to dedicated roadways, notifications, signage, and a pre-construction meeting.

Agenda Item #8.1:

The RDElR conservatively concludes that construction of the proposed project would temporarily generate noise above existing ambient levels that would remain perceptible at nearby properties with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11—1. The City has determined that impacts would be significant and also unavoidable, and there is no additional feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less~than~significant level. Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

C. Transportation
Finding: Based on the Record, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, including the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.13—2a on pages 4.13~19 through 4.13—21willsubstantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impact. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make additional mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

Facts in Sugport of Finding: As discussed in 4.13 of the RDElR, to evaluate the potential impacts of the project with respect to transportation, a transportation impact study was prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer found in Appendix G of the RDElR. The analysis was further supplemented by a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers dated October 2019. The studies address: (1) traffic mitigation related to reducing VMT and; (2) and analysis of online data to determine average VMT at nearby hotels.

The RDEIR presents a comprehensive analysis of VMT attributable to the hotelcomponent, including the spa and restaurant, as well as the residential component of the project. Guidance from OPR states that, when assessing VMT impacts under CEQA, lead agencies may evaluate each component of mixed—use projects separately, which was the approach adopted for the analysis of the proposed project. The analysis of travel demand associated with the proposed project was broken down below by the hotel component and the residential component.

The RDEIR concluded that the residential component of the proposed project would represent a less-than-significant impact; however, since the hotel component of the proposed project cannot demonstrate based on its location that daily VMT would be 15 percent less than the citywide average per employee, the VMT impact of the non~residential component of the proposed project is considered significant.

OPR’s recommended statewide goal is a 15-percent reduction in VMT. Since consideration ofthe land use context supported the built~environment reduction of 7.5 percent, additional VMT reduction strategies would be required to achieve an additional 7.5 percent reduction.

Mitigation Measure 4.13-2a has been proposed in the RDElR and incorporated into the conditions impact (RDEIR pages 4.13-19 through 4.13~20). Mitigation Measure 4.13~2a includes both visitor~ focused VMT mitigation measures and employee~focused VMT mitigation measures. Visitor- focused VMT mitigation measures include a private airport shuttle, rental car service, parking fees for the hotel, transportation information for hotel guests, and a bike share program for hotel guests. in addition, employee—focused VMT mitigation measures include alternative transportation incentives for hotel employees, such as subsidized transit passes or parking cashAgenda Item #8.1:

out incentives; ridesharing information for hotel employees; an emergency ride home program; designation ofa transportation coordinatorto market, oversee, and provide relevant transportation information; and bicycle trip-end facilities. As shown in Table 4.13-3 (RDEIR page 4.13~21), Mitigation Measure 4.13—2awould reduce the hotel component’s VMTimpact by 12.1 percent.

The project site supports the intent of SB 743 by enabling walking or bicycling access to a wide range of destinations and supporting reduced project VMT. However, the City does not currently have available the type of high—frequency transit service that would be a central component of a robust trip reduction program that would often be available in a more urbanized area. in addition, reduction of hotel guest VMT is particularly challenging to implement since neither the City nor the project applicant can directly control the mode nor travel choices of future hotel guests. As such, it is uncertain whether a 7.5—percentVMTreduction could be achieved to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. For this reason, the RDEIR conservatively concludes that the project’s VMT impact-would be significant and also unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation is available. Please see Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

5.7 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts
The RDEIR comprehensively addresses cumulative impacts. Please see RDElR, pages 6~2 through 6-16 for details.

With respect to aesthetics, the project is designed and would be required to comply with standards designed to avoid and glare effects and therefore would not have any cumulatively considerable light or glare impact. With respect to visual impacts, the proposed project site itself is already developed, and the proposed redevelopment would be visually similar to and consistent with existing architectural styles of nearby buildings. While the project would change the visual character of the proposed site, because the proposed project would not include demolition of any historic structures and is required to comply with _CityMunicipal Code requirements related to design standards, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative aesthetics impact.

With respect to air quality, the Bay Area AirQuality Management Districtthresholds of significance for construction and operational phases of a project are established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a level of emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions are below these thresholds and therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact. With regard to toxic air contaminant emissions, the project does not propose sources of toxic air contaminant emissions that would affect the operational phase of the project and there are not known projects that could have overlapping construction with the proposed project and would involve enough the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the impact is less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to biological resources effects, the project site does not contain bat nesting or roosting individuals or colonies, and since the project would not include nighttime work, individual bats that may forage in the area would not be disturbed. The proposed project would not have a 19 Agenda Item #8.1:

cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to effects on special—status species. Wildlife species that are common in developed, urban habitats would continue to move through the area, both during and after construction, at both the project site and the locations of the other projects considered in this cumulative analysis. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to wildlife movement and migratory corridors. The City has reviewed a certified Arborist’s Report prepared for the proposed project and has determined that specific Conditions of Approval will be imposed as part of the project to ensure consistency with the City’s Tree Ordinance. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to adopted tree preservation ordinances.

With respect to cultural and tribal cultural resources, as detailed in Section 4.5 of this RDEIR, the project site is within the vicinity of the Sonoma Plaza National Historic Landmark, the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District, and is within the City of Sonoma Historic Overlay Zone.

While there are historical resources in close proximity to the project site, because of the scale, location, and design, the proposed project would not impair the integrity of setting, feeling, or association of the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District, would not alter the setting of historic resources a way that would materially impair their historical significance and would not alter any individual historical resource in the vicinity of the project site. The impact is less than cumulatively considerable. Since the project site has been previously developed and is almost completely covered with impervious surfaces, ground-disturbing activities associated with the prior construction likely already disturbed or resulted in the discovery of any archeological resources that may have existed on the site. Because Mitigation Measures 4.5-‘!a and -1b would protect any archaeological resources that may be present at the project site, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on archaeological resources. No Tribal Cultural Resources were identified within the project site as a result of the records search, literature review, Native American consultation, or archaeological field survey and therefore, the project would not have any cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources.

With respect to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, the California Building Standards Code requires measures to reduce damage from seismic effects and other geologic conditions and therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking and unstable soils. Permit conditions would be imposed to reduce potential erosion impacts and therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to construction~ related soil erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-4, which requires education of construction workers about fossils prior to the start of earthmoving activities, and halting construction activities if fossil evidence is encountered and consulting with a qualified paleontological resources. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, as detailed in Section 4.7 of this RDEIR, GHG emissions have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change. It is unlikely that a single project willcontribute significantly to climate change, but cumulative emissions from many projects could affect global 20 Agenda Item #8.1:

GHG concentrations and the climate system. impacts within Section 4.7 of this RDEIR are analyzed within the context of the project’s potential contribution to the cumulatively significant impact of climate change. The impact is cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, as detailed in Section 4.7 of this RDEIR.

With respect to energy, the proposed project is an infillproject that would not require construction to extend or expand the capacity of infrastructure in order to serve proposed development. The space heating and cooling, lighting, and other operational—related energy uses for the proposed project’s buildings would be more efficient than existing on—sitebuildings that are proposed for demolition. The proposed building electrical power supply would be augmented by a rooftop photovoltaic (solar) generation system, increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. While construction and operation of the project would require energy, considering the location, nature, and design of the proposed project, there would be no cumulatively considerable contribution to any impact related to the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of fuel or other energy sources.

With respect to hazards and hazardous materials, the potential for hazardous materials issues to occur is specific to each project site and is dependent on the nature of prior activities both onand off—site;therefore, hazardous materials issues generally do not combine to form cumulative impacts. The proposed project and the related cumulative projects would all require the routine use, disposal, and transport of minor amounts of hazardous materials during project construction (e.g., fuels, oils, solvents, and architectural coatings) and project operation (cleaning products, pesticides, fertilizers, pool chemicals, and paints). And the cumulative projects and the proposed project are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations fortransport, use, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, which would address impacts associated with both construction— and operation-related handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project’s impact from routine use, disposal, transport, and potential for accidental spills of hazardous materials is less than cumulatively considerable. Given the small size of the proposed project, it was determined that construction~generated toxic air contaminants would not represent a hazard at a distance of 0.2 mile from the project site where the St. Francis Solano Catholic School is located. Therefore, a cumulatively significant impact would not occur, and the project’s impact related to use or emissions of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school would be less than cumulatively considerable. The project site is on the Cortese list as a result of soil and groundwater contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage tanks, which were removed, along with soil and groundwater remediation. Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan will protect human health and the environment in the case of excavation at the project site, along with requirements for removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and |ead—based paint. Any other project sites considered in this cumulative analysis that may be contaminated with hazardous materials would be evaluated and remediated on a case-by—case basis. The project’s impact related to exposure to hazardous proposed project, would be subject to the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan (of which the City is a participant), which addresses the County and incorporated Cities’ evacuation plans and planned responses to emergency situations. Development of the other project sites, and redevelopment of the project site, are all subject to design review by the City, including the Sonoma Valley Fire District, for review of appropriate ingress and egress, and are required to comply with City Standard Plans relating to appropriate driveway design to accommodate 21 Agenda Item #8.1:

emergency vehicles and emergency evacuation thoroughfares. The project provides multiple points of emergency access and does not impede access to any ofthe cumulative projects or any other properties. Therefore, the project’s impact related to interference with emergency evacuation plans would be less than cumulatively considerable. For the proposed project, all construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project site, and nearby roadway lane closures would not be required. Therefore, the project’s impact related to interference with emergency response vehicles would be less than cumulatively considerable.

With respect to hydrology and water quality, the project site after the proposed lot line adjustment would be approximately 1.24 acres of land area in the developed Downtown area of Sonoma almost completely covered with impervious surfaces consisting of existing buildings and paved parking lots. The proposed redevelopment at the project site would result in a similar amount of impervious surface as compared to existing conditions, and therefore would not increase stormwater runoff or result in reduced groundwater recharge. The existing on—sitestormwater drainage system would be reconfigured to serve the proposed redevelopment, and would include biofiltration planters and a rainwater catchment system. The project site is not in a flood zone, and because the amount of impervious surfaces would not increase, the proposed project would not increase the potential for on—siteor off—siteflooding. Project—re|ated construction activities must comply with the SWRCB’s NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires development of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPS specifically designed to reduce erosion and prevent pollutant transport, thereby protecting water quality. All of the other projects considered in this cumulative analysis are also required to comply with the SWRCB’s NDPES Construction General Plan and to design and operate individual projects in compliance NPDES MS4 permit requirements. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than cumulatively considerable.

With respect to land use and planning, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community or contribute to any cumulative division of a community. Specific impacts and project consistency issues associated with other resource and issue areas are addressed in each topic area section of this RDEIR, as appropriate. The project would not have any cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant adverse physical cumulative environmental impact related to land use and planning.

With respect to noise and vibration, most of the potential for noise impacts are site~ and areaspecific, not cumulative, with the potential exception of traffic—relatednoise. There are no known adjacent construction projects planned that would occur concurrently with the project in close proximity that, combined with project construction. Because there are no substantial sized vacant, developable lots, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable projects proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project site, overall cumulative noise impacts with respect to future, nearby projects in addition to existing weekday and weekend conditions, would result in traffic noise level increases up to one decibel, compared to noise levels without the project. Long~term noise levels from project~generated traffic sources would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels under existing or future conditions. The impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

Agenda Item #8.1:

With respect to public services, the proposed project, in combination with other development would incrementally increase the demand forfire protection services. Fire facilities and equipment necessary to serve development is funded through payment of development impact fees. Local and state code requirements would reduce the potential for incidents that would require additional calls for service for the proposed project and cumulative projects. The proposed project in conjunction with other planned and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity would not necessitate the expansion of fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives and the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to fire protection services. The proposed project, in combination with other development would incrementally increase the demand for law enforcement services, which are funded by property taxes, development impact fees, and potentially other mechanisms. The proposed project would not require new facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to law enforcement services. The residential component of the proposed project, in combination with other residential development would incrementally increase the demand for school services. Given the scale of the residential portion of the project, the proposed project would not require the construction of new school facilities to serve demand, and would not contribute substantially to any such cumulative impact.

With respect to transportation, the project does not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system — either in project level or a cumulative sense. Conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies are a possible indicator of an adverse physical impact, but not an environmental impact. Similarly, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. As detailed in Section 4.13 of this RDElR, the project is in a VMT—efficientlocation. The hotel portion ofthe project willredistribute existing visitor trips to Sonoma by providing additional lodging options in a location where complementary uses and destinations are nearby. Hotel guests choosing to stay at the proposed project would be expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than guests staying at lodgings in less central locations, such as the three local hotels used for VMT data collection, resulting in reduced visitor VMT.

While the project location and design would serve to limitVMTgeneration, and while mitigation imposed in Section 4.13 of this RDElR would substantially reduce VMT, the City cannot demonstrate at this time that the non-residential portion of the project would be at least 15 percent more efficient than the citywide average per employee. There is no additional feasible mitigation.

This cumulatively considerable impact is significant and unavoidable.

With respect to utilities and service systems, the proposed project does not require the construction of new or extension of existing off—siteinfrastructure to meet the project’s utility needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no cumulative impact. The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the City would have enough water supply to meet existing and 40 percent excess supply in year five of a multiple dry year period. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to the provision of water supply. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve anticipated growth and the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to increased need for wastewater treatment plant capacity. With respect to the sewer conveyance system, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14—3would reduce the project’s impact related 23 Agenda Item #8.1:

to capacity of the existing sewer conveyance system to a less—than~significant level. if the other projects considered in this cumulative analysis were found to create surcharging or an overage in the existing sewer conveyance capacity, those projects would be individually responsible for payment of fees to either fund construction of new sewer conveyance lines or fund conservation measures to reduce wastewater generation, which would avoid a significant cumulative impact.

Solid waste generated by the proposed project would represent only 0.03 percent of the average daily tonnage accommodated by the Central Disposal Site. The landfill has capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed project, as well as the other projects considered in this cumulative analysis. The project's impact related to generation of solid waste and compliance with solid waste reduction statutes and regulations would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Please refer to Chapter 6 “Other CEQA Considerations” of the RDEIR for a comprehensive discussion of cumulative impacts.

5.8 Findings Regarding Mitigation Monitoring
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the proposed project (see Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. [a][1];CEQA Guidelines section 15097). The extent any of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies, the City finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their responsibility and jurisdiction. The City will use the MMRP to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance penod.

Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that implementation of the mitigation measures specified in the FEIR would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from the implementation ofthe project. These mitigation measures have been required in or incorporated into the project. in accordance with Section 15091(d), and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require a public agency to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring required changes or conditions of approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects, the MMRP provided inthe FElR is hereby adopted as the MMRP for this preferred project. Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 7, even with implementation of the mitigations as presented in the RDEIR and the MMRP, impacts related to GHG emissions, construction noise, and VMT, both at the project level and cumulatively, would remain significant and unavoidable.

6. Findings Regarding Alternatives
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” Although an EIR must evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 177 Cal. Ap. 4th at p. 981, 999). The failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives determined to be important by decision—makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to Agenda Item #8.1:

promote policy objectives of concern to such decision makers, are grounds for finding an alternative to be infeasible. Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially less any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision—makers may reject the alternative for such reasons.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a), the alternatives to be discussed in an ElR should be able to “feasibly attain most ofthe basic objectives ofthe project [.]”For this reason, the Project Objectives described in Section 2 of these Findings provided the framework for defining possible alternatives.

6.1 Alternatives Considered But Ultimately Rejected
Off-Site Alternative. Under the Off-Site Alternative, the project would be constructed at an offsite location. However, the off~site alternative was considered to be infeasible due to the lack of available sites in the Downtown area that could both accommodate the proposed facilities and meet the Project Objectives. Furthermore, developing the proposed project in a different location would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project.

6.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIR
Alternatives were selected that would reduce the project’s significant impacts while still meeting most of the Project Objectives. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, and in light of the Project Objectives, the following alternatives to the project were identified:

No Project Alternative
Hotel/Residential (50%-50%) Alternative
Hotel/Residential (75%—25%)Alternative
Hotel Only Alternative
Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative
The City finds that a good—faith effort was made to evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives in the RDElR that are reasonable alternatives to the project and could feasibly obtain most of the Project Objectives, even when the alternatives might affect the attainment of some of the objectives and might be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 [b]). As a result, the City finds that the scope of alternatives analyzed in the RDElR represents a reasonable range (see RDElR pages 5-3 through 5-37).

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B), the No Project Alternative is the No Project Alternative. There would be no significant impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, as described in Section 5.5 ofthe RDElR. No impacts related to air quality; cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; noise and vibration; transportation; and utilities and service systems would occur under this alternative. 25 Agenda Item #8.1:

While the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, and would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise, GHG emissions, and VMT, it would not meet any of the Project Objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve the project's basic objectives related to adding a residential presence Downtown, stimulating the local economy, promoting economic vitality and employment opportunities for the City, providing full— and part-time employment opportunities, or any other project objective.

Based on impacts identified in the RDEIR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

Alternative 2: Hotel/Residential (50°/o—50%) Alternative Under the Hotel/Residential (50%—50°/o) Alternative, approximately 50 percent of the building area would consist of hotel use and 50 percent would be for residential uses. This would result in additional residential units and fewer hotel rooms compared to the proposed project. This alternative would reduce the size of the underground parking garage, and remove the restaurant, bar, and spa from the proposed hotel.

The Hotel/Residential (50%-50°/o) Alternative would lessen but not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable transportation impact, as the VMT impact would be similar to the proposed project. The same would be true for the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact and GHG emissions impact. A potentially significant air quality impact during construction would still occur and require mitigation. Potentially significant impacts related to cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; hazards; stationary source noise; and vibration; as well as utilities and service systems would also still occur and require mitigation.

This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the project, as well as meet most ofthe Project Objectives, including stimulating the local economy; providing aesthetically pleasing architecture that complements the existing character of the City; promoting economic vitality for the City; promoting sustainability through hotel construction; adding a residential presence in the town center; providing employment opportunities in the hotel industry; encouraging quality, variety, and innovation in new development; establishing the bicycling is safe and convenient in Sonoma; and minimizing vehicle trips. However, this alternative would not develop a hotel at an economically viable scale with a restaurant and bar or provide the same level of employment opportunities in the restaurant industry.

Based on impacts identified in the RDEIR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the Hotel/Residential (50%~50%) Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

Under the Hotel/Residential (75%—25%)Alternative, approximately 75 percent of the building area would consist of hotel use, with the remainder residential. This would result in additional Agenda Item #8.1:

residential units and fewer hotel rooms compared to the proposed project. This alternative would reduce the size of the underground parking garage.

The Hotel/Residential (75%~25%) Alternative would lessen but not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable transportation impacts, as VMT impacts would be similar to the proposed project. In addition, the Hotel/Residential (75%—25%)Alternative would lessen but not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable GHG impact, as the impacts would be similar to the proposed project with the implementation of mitigation. Significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts to ambient noise levels near noise—sensitive land uses would still occur. Potentially significant impacts related to cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; hazards; stationary source noise; and vibration; as well as utilities and service systems would also still occur and require mitigation.

This alternative would slightly reduce impacts compared to the project, as well as meet most of the Project Objectives, including stimulating the local economy; providing aesthetically pleasing architecture that complements the existing character of the City; promoting sustainability through hotel construction; adding a residential presence in the town center; providing employment opportunities in the hotel and restaurant industry; encouraging quality, variety, and innovation in new development; establishing the bicycling is safe and convenient in Sonoma; and minimizing vehicle trips. Alternative 3 would not fulfillthe objective of an economically viable scale for the hotel component to the same extent as the proposed project and would not fulfillthe objective of promoting economic vitalityfor the City through the new transit occupancy tax to the same extent as the proposed project.

Based on impacts identified in the RDElR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the Hotel/Residential (75%—25%) Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

Alternative 4: Hotel Only Alternative
Under the Hotel Only Alternative, the number of hotel rooms and ancillary non~residential uses would remain the same. This alternative would not include a residential component and would provide a larger area for on—sitecirculation compared with the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, the VMT impact, GHG emissions impact, and construction noise impact under the Hotel Only Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts related to cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; hazards; stationary source noise; and vibration; as well as utilities and service systems would still occur and require mitigation.

This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the project, as well as meet some of the of the City; promoting economic vitality for the City; promoting sustainability through hotel construction; providing employment opportunities in the hotel industry; and encouraging quality, variety, and innovation in new development. However, this alternative would not include residential dwelling units in Downtown Sonoma (from the first objective); would not add a residential presence in the town center through mixed-use development that combines housing with non-residential uses; and would not meet the “variety" aspect in terms of land use called for 27 Agenda Item #8.1:

by the eighth project objective, to “encourage quality, variety, and innovation in new development.”
Based on impacts identified in the RDElR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the Hotel Only Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

Alternative 5: Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative
Under the Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative, the number of hotel rooms would be reduced compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not include a residential component and would provide a larger area for loading on-site relative to the proposed project. in addition, this alternative would include a smaller underground parking garage area compared with the proposed project.

Similar to the project, VMT impacts under the Hotel Only Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures. in addition, while the Hotel Only Alternative would result in a lesser impact on traffic and congestion, the difference in impact would be negligible when compared to the project. Impacts related to cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; stationary source noise; and vibration; as well as utilities and service systems would still occur and require mitigation.

The Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative would increase the project's significant and unavoidable transportation impact, since this alternative would eliminate the residential component that would be VMT—efficientbased on the alternative site location. in addition, the Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative would lessen but not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable GHG impact.

Significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts to ambient noise levels near noisesensitive land uses would still occur. Potentially significant impacts related to cultural and tribal resources; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; hazards; stationary source noise; and vibration; as well as utilities and service systems would also still occur and require mitigation.

The Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative would reduce some impacts compared to the project, as well as meet some of the Project Objectives, including stimulating the local economy; providing aesthetically pleasing architecture that complements the existing character of the City; promoting sustainability through hotel construction; providing employment opportunities in the hotel industry; and encouraging quality, variety, and innovation in new development. However, this alternative would not include residential dwelling units in Downtown Sonoma (from the first objective); would not add a residential presence in the town center through mixed-use development that combines housing with non~residential uses; and would not meet the “variety” aspect in terms of land use called for by the eighth project objective, to “encourage quality, variety, and innovation in new development.” Further, Alternative 5 would not fulfillthe objective of an economically viable scale objective of promoting economic vitality for the City through the new occupancy to the same extent as the proposed project. Based on impacts identified in the RDElR and throughout this findings document, the City finds that the project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate and rejects the other alternatives, including the Fewer Hotel Rooms Alternative, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

Agenda Item #8.1:

7. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed project.

The City finds and determines that (1) the majority ofthe significant impacts ofthe project willbe reduced to less~than~significant levels by implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in these findings; (2) the City’s approval of the project, as proposed, willresult in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less~ than-significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that willfurther mitigate, avoid, or reduce impacts to a less-than—significant level.

In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings for the project, and the considerations set forth below related to this project, the City chooses to approve the project because the economic, social, environmental, and other benefits resulting from the project substantially outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the project can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the project itself; and in the record of proceedings, as defined in Section 4 of this document. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground forfinding that the benefits ofthe project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval.

The City concludes that the project’s relative benefits outweigh its residual environmental effects for the following reasons:

1. Economic and Fiscal Benefits to the City of Sonoma. The hotel and commercial uses would generate significant annual transient occupancy taxes, as well as additional sales taxes and increased property tax revenues for the site, and guests of the proposed hotel would bring additional tax revenue to Sonoma during visits that may otherwise occur in the unincorporated County or in nearby cities. These direct benefits to the City’s annual budget would provide greater opportunity for enhanced City services, programs, and capital improvements. The proposed project would also provide an increase in the availability of local jobs that could be filled by the the City. The project would generate approximately 60 full-time and 30 part—timejobs at a range of income levels, providing region—wide employment opportunities. in addition, development of the project would provide short~term employment opportunities within the construction, engineering, and design fields, among others. 2. General Plan Consistency and Provision of Commercial Uses. The project as proposed Agenda Item #8.1:

and analyzed in the RDEIR and FEIR is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code with implementation of conditions of approval. The City’s General Plan identifies the entire site as Commercial. This land use designation “is intended to provide areas for retail, hotel, service, medical, and office development, in association with apartments and mixed—use developments and necessary public improvements.”
The project proposal responds directly to the uses allowed and envisioned in the City's General Plan and has been designed consistent with the development and design standards identified in the Development Code for the Downtown District and Historic Overlay District, including the City’s Downtown Sonoma Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s vision for community development as described in the General Plan, which is to: (1) include pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities in all development (Policy CD 4.4); (2) preserve and enhance the scale and heritage of the community without imposing rigid stylistic restrictions (Policy CD 5.1); and (3) promote higher density, infilldevelopment, while ensuring that building mass, scale, and form are compatible with neighborhood and town character (Policy CD 5.5).

The proposed project would be consistent the City's plans for the local economy as described in C
the 2020 General Plan, which is to: (1) focus on the retention and attraction of businesses that reinforce Sonoma‘s distinctive qualities (Policy LE 1.1); (2) promote and accommodate yearround tourism consistent with the historic, small—town character of Sonoma (Policy LE 1.5); (3) encourage a residential and pedestrian presence in commercial centers through mixed use and multi—familydevelopment (Policy LE 1.9); and (4) promote ground~f|oor retail uses in commercial areas to generate pedestrian activity (Policy LE 1.10).

The Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 19.16, Division lll (Planning Area Standards) establishes 13 planning areas The project site is in the Downtown District Planning Area, which has the following objectives:
“The primaw objectives for the Downtown district are to preserve and enhance its historic character and to retain and promote its economic vitality as a commercial, cultural, and civic center attractive to residents and visitors. New construction and new uses should build upon the established character of the downtown. High quality architecture, pedestrian-friendly design, and uses which draw locals as well as tourists are reasonable expectations for Sonoma‘s most distinctive district. While commercial uses will remain preeminent, the downtown’s housing stock should be preserved and extended. Multifamily and |ive~work development in the town center provide customers for downtown businesses and reduce automobile dependence. Higher density residential development at the edges The project would enhance activity in the Downtown district and promote additional economic and revenue generating activity. The project would propose uses that would draw locals and tourists, consistent with the Downtown district objectives, and would include both commercial uses and housing.

Agenda Item #8.1:

3. Housing Benefits to the City of Sonoma. The project would provide housing opportunities for current and future residents. Implementation of the project would increase and diversify the housing supply in the City. The residential component of the project would provide eight residential units, including two units that would be deed restricted for affordable housing in perpetuity. The affordable housing would be located on a site that provides convenient access to nearby services for the benefit of the community and surrounding areas.

8. Conclusion
The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR, as required by CEQA. Prior to that review and analysis, the City circulated the RDEIR and appendices and those documents also reflect the City’s independent review, analysis, and judgment pursuant to CEQA.

As part of the certi?cation of the FEIR, the City finds that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City, acting in its capacity as the Lead Agency.

As required by CEQA, the City in adopting these Findings, also adopts the MMRP. The City hereby finds that the MMRP meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of the project mitigation measures set forth herein, which mitigate significant impacts associated with the project and are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, these findings, and other measures.

Agenda Item #8.1:

HOTELPROJECTSONOMA
MitigationMonitoringand ReportingProgram
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

This page left intentionally blank
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Hotel Project S
o
n
o
m
a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pr
o
gr
a
m
City o
f
So
ts2015052041 SCno
H
rn
a
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

This page left intentionally blank
HotelProjectSonomaFEIR AECOM CityofSonoma A-1 MitigationMonitoringand ReportingProgram Agenda Item #8.1:

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENT
Where a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document has identi?ed signi?cant environmental effects, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid signi?cant effects on the environment.”
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Hotel Project Sonoma (project or proposed project), as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).

The City of Sonoma (City) is the Lead Agency that must adopt the MMRP for development and operation of the project. This report will be kept on ?le with the City of Sonoma Planning Department, No. l The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476.

The CEQAStatutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a lead agency and other agencies with implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section l5097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of portion of the project, as identi?ed in the EIR.

PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures.

The MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and others responsible for project implementation.

This document identi?es the individual mitigation measures, the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the measure, the timing of implementation,and space to con?rm implementation of the mitigation measures.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City will oversee monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures. The applicant and its construction contractor are responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing all of the mitigation measures contained within this MMRP. Certain mitigation measures also will require that the applicant coordinate or consult with one or more other public agencies in implementing mitigation measures speci?ed herein.

Any substantive change in the MMRP is required to be reported in writing. Modi?cations to the mitigation measures may be made by the City, subject to one of the following ?ndings, and documented by evidence included in the public record: a. The mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the Ml\/[RP is no longer requiredbecause the signi?cant environmental impact identi?ed in the Final EIR has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes AECOM HotelProjectSonomaFEIR MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram A—2 CityofSonoma Agenda Item #8.1:

the impact lessthan signi?cant as a result of changes in the project, changes in environment conditions, or other factors.

OR,
b. The modi?ed or substitutemitigation measure provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the MMRP; and, c. The modi?ed or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have signi?cant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing parties in their decisions on the Final EIR and the proposed project; and, d. The modi?ed or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City, through measures included in the MMRP or other City procedures, can ensure implementation.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the ?ndings involving modi?cations to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project ?le with this MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request.

This MMRP will be kept on ?le at:

City of Sonoma
Planning Department
No. l The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
(707) 93 8-3681
HotelProjectSonoma FEIR AECOM Cityof Sonoma A-3 MitigationMonitoringand ReportingProgram Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

mno?x
Agenda Item #8.1:

2__>_
<
M
Agenda Item #8.1:

m’
Agenda Item #8.1:

_>_
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

_0__2
05 5
5 Agenda Item #8.1:

_
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

m_E>_
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

_2
_<
m
mm
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

m__.__>_
_<
Agenda Item #8.1:

o?
Agenda Item #8.1:

__>_
_<
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

m_:__>_
<
Agenda Item #8.1:

_
Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

>
m
n_
_n_
_
cm
_
_
o
Agenda Item #8.1:

This page intentionally left blank
AECOM HotelProjectSonoma MitigationMonitoringand ReportingProgram A—26 CityofSonoma Agenda Item #8.1:

Agenda Item #8.1:

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # 10-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SON OIVI
A

APPROVING THE USE PERMIT, EXCEPTION TO DEVELOPMENT CODE L STANDARD. REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, DESIGN RE VIE
VV.

DEMOLITION PERMIT. AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. INCLUDING APPROVING THE

REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE FOR THE HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT 117, 135, AND 153 VVEST NAPA STREET, ASSESSOR PAR CEL NUMBERS (APNS) 018-251-067, 018-251-051, O18-—251—O68, AND O18~251— O‘l7.

VVI-IEREAS, on June 6, 2012 Michael Ross, AIA submitted an application the City of Sonoma for a Use Permit and Demolition Permit to redevelop 1 17, 135, and 53West 1 Napa Street for the Hotel Project Sonoma, ("Project"); and VVHEREAS, in June 2021, the applicant modified its Project to include an ei g
h
t
residential building and preparation ofa new EIR was in iated; and WHEREAS, the applicant further revised the Project as reflected in Projec t narrative (dated September 27, 2023) and Project plans (dated September 20. and VVHEREAS, as proposed and as permitted under this Resolution, the Projec t
entails
a 65,606 square foot 62-guestroom hotel, 80—seat restaurant and bar, a s p
a
with 6
treatment rooms, raised swimming pool veranda. 128 onsite parking spaces ( of a 52,110 square foot 11 ‘I—staIl basement parking garage, 9 surface parking spac es. and 8 covered residential parking spaces), and 21,221 square foot Baunit building; and
VVHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing the on Project, including the Final EIR, the Use Permit, and related approvals on Oc tob
er
19,
2023; and
VVHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the 2023 Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") and Final EIR (“Final EIR"); priorto taking any action on the and adopted the Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma, a Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and R ep
or
tin
g
Program, and Making the Required Findings Including Statement of Considerations for the Hotel Project Sonorna.

NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that it her eby
finds
and declares as follows:

I. Record
A. The record of proceedings ("Record") upon which all findings and determi nations related to the Project and the Final EIR are based includes, but is not limited to:

I
Agenda Item #8.1:

B.

An Environmental
June 2023 RDEIR and October 2023 Final EIR;
The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared foand/or r submitted to the Planning Commission relating to the Final EIR or the Pr oje
ct;

3. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented theoCity by the environmental consultant and sub consultants who prepared th e
Fin EIR
al or incorporated into reports presented to the Planning Commission;

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

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

6. All applications, letters, testimony and hearing presentations given bythe anof y Project sponsors or their consultants to the City in connection with th e
Proj
ect; All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented the City to by members of the public relating to the Final EIR or the Project;

8. The General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Mu nici
pal
Code and all other City—adoptecl land use plans and ordinances, incl udi
ng,
without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances; All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission incl udi
ng,
but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, reports, records and projections related to development within ofCity Sonoma and its surrounding areas:
1 O.The evidence. facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this re so
lu
ti
o
n;
and
1 1 .All other documents comprising the record of proceedings as described Public in Resources Code section 21 167.6(e).

N.“
The findings contained in this Resolution are based upon the evidence the entire Record relating to the Project. All the evidence supporting these fin di
ng
s
was
presented in a timely fashion, and early enough to allow adequate consideration bythe City. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are n o
t
inten
ded to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the reco of rd proceedings on which the City’s decision is based is the City Clerk, or design ee.

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

California Environmental Quality Act Determination
Impact Report ("Final EIR") was prepared to analyze th
e
pote
ntial environmental effects of the Project. The Planning Commission certified the asEIR complete and made a Statement of Overriding Consideration and Findings throug h Resolution 9—2023. That resolution requires the applicant's compliance with the Mi tig
ati
on
,
Nlonitoring and Reporting Program ("IVIIVIRP") approved as part of the certificatio n
the of
Final EIR and the mitigations that are required for the Project as described in theFin EIR. al
2 Agenda Item #8.1:

Ill. Use Permit Findings
In accordance with Section 19.54.040.E of the Sonoma Municipal Code. the Pl an
ni
ng
Commission has determined that the Hotel Project Sonoma, as revised by t h
e
Projec
t narrative (dated September 27, 2023) and Project plans (dated September 20, and as conditioned herein, is consistent with the findings required for Use Permit a p
pr
o
v
al
,
provided the applicant complies with and implements the MMRP. The City hereby makes the following findings based on the facts contained in the Record as a whole, inclu ding.
but
not limited to those set forth below.

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any speci?c plan ;
The development and use of the property as a hotel, restaurant, spa, and e i
g
h
t
residential building is consistent with the City of Sonoma 2020 General Plan. T he
Proje
ct site is designated “CornrnerciaI" by the General Plan. The purpose of the Com me
rci
al
designation is to:
"provide areas for retail, hotel, service, medical and office developmen t,
in
association with apartments and mixed—used development and necessary public invproverrients".

A consistency analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the Pis r
o
j
e
c
t
included in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The p r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. There is no Speci fic
Plan
applicable to the Project site.

2. The proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit within the zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations this of development code (except for approved variances and exceptions); Sonoma Municipal Code Compliance: The Project is located in the C o Zoning district. Hotels, restaurants, spas, and multifamily residential land use are s identi?ed as conditionally allowed uses in the Commercial zoning district as forth in Sonoma Municipal Code (SMC) Section 19.10.050. The proposed uses are al low
e
d
with
a Use Permit within the zoning district and as conditioned. the Project would cwith applicable standards contained in the SMC. The Project complies with the de vel
opme
nt
standards applicable to new development in the Downtown District as follows:

Table 1. Development Standards
Development Development Code Project
Feature Allowance
(SIVIC Chapter 19.34.

Table 3.7)
Building setbacks None Required O~15O feet
Floor Area Ratio 2.0 ‘l .58
Site Coverage ‘I 00% 74,2“/u
3 Agenda Item #8.1:

Maximum Roof 35 feet 35 feet
Height
Additional height of 40 feet 40 feet
roof mounted
equipment
Open Space 10%: of site minimum 46%
Parking: The Project proposes 128 on—site and up to 25 off—site parking spac es,
totaling
153 spaces, for the proposed project and existing uses in the Index Tribune Lynch and Buildings. The applicant is requesting an adjustment in parking requirements SMC per Section 19.481350 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements). Parking require ments for
commercial and residential mixed uses located in a commercial zone may breduced e upon determination by the Planning Commission that a reduction is justifie d.

Based
upon the parking demand study provided by VV-Trans, the amount of off— street
parking
is justified as the proposed uses are located on the same property and th e
of numb
er
parking spaces on—site and off—site will meet the peak demand. The off—site loca is tion located across the street and under the same ownership as the subject Apr op
er
ty.
cond on of approval has been included requiring a detailed Parking Manageme nt
Plan,
which will address shared parking. employee parking, valet parking, peak and offsite parking. A reciprocal parking easement will be required for 1 17. 1 35 a n
d
West 153
Napa Street and an irrevocable Offer of Dedication subject to review and app rov
al
the of
Community Development Director for a parking access easement at 136 Napa Street for the 25 staff overflow parking spaces to be available across the stre et,
which is
owned by the Applicant's affiliate, is also included in the Parking Management Plan.

Residential Component: As proposed and as permitted under this Res oluti
on,
the
Project entails a 65,606 square foot hotel. restaurant, and spa building a n
d
a21,221
square foot 8—unit residential building, resulting in a proposed residential com po
ne
nt
totaling 86,826 square feet "total building area”. Under SIVIC Section ‘l9.‘l0 .020
(B)
(3),
the applicant is required to provide a residential component normally comprisin g
of 50"/a
the “total proposed building area," here, 43,414 square feet of residential Given that the applicant is proposing to construct 21,221 square feet of residential usthere es, remains 22,193 square feet of residen I component unaddressed. Conseque ntly,
the
applicant is requesting a reduction of this requirement.

Residential Component Vvaiver: SMC Section 19.10.020.B.3, the circumstances under which the residential component may be reduced waived or include. but are not limited to, the following:
a. "The replacement of a commercial use within an existing tenant space another commercial use.
“The presence of uses or conditions incompatible with residential developme nt
onr
adjacent to the property for which a new development is proposed. c. “Property characteristics, including size limitations and environmental ch ara
cte
rist
ics
.
that constrain opportunities for residential development or make it infeasibl e. d. “Limitations imposed by other regulatory requirements, such as Growth t h
e Management Ordinance."
I-l
Agenda Item #8.1:

The project narrative states “[t]he Project requests this waiver based on circum stance
3 above as the parcel size and height limitations do not provide adequate space more for residential development while still meeting the Project objectives." The applicant proposes alternative measures to address the 22,193 s q
u
a
r
e
foot
residential component deficit through the provision of units offsite and/or payingafee. A condition of approval requires the applicant to prepare a Residential Componen t
Plan
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, prior and as con ndi precedent to issuance of a building permit, outlining how the project propo nent
will
provide 22,192 sf of residential development.

The condition requires that a Residential Component Fee be paid to the Ci ty
toequa
l $2,219,300.00 which is derived by multiplying 22,193 square feet by $100 per ($ 10 0
square foot fee adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35-2023), which the Cit shall y deposit into the City's Housing Trust Fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing to th e
cont
rary, said $2,219,300 liability shall be reduced by the number of square feet of flo or
area for
housing converted, acquired, or purchased under subsections (a) — (c), below m ult
ipl
ie
d
by $100 within 5 years of building occupancy. The Residential Component F e
e
beshall
paid to the City to be placed in the Housing Trust Fund in equal one—fifths i over 5 years from the date of approval of building occupancy and on each of the occupancy date for an additional 4 years. An escrow account will be e s
t
a
b
li
s
h
e
d
.

The unpaid portion of the Residential Component Fee shall accrue interest arate of five percent per annum, which amount shall be paid annually and allocate d
theo Housing Trust Fund. The Residential Component Plan may include any combi nation
of
the following measures:
a) Conversion of seven existing market rate apartments at 135 VVest Napa Stree to t deed restricted housing units affordable to households in the extremely very low. low, low, and moderate income categories. One unit shall be extremely two low, units very low, two units low, and two units affordable to moderate incom e households. These units would convert as current tenants terminate leases unless they qualify for an affordable unit. The units must remain af fo
rd
ab
le
in
perpetuity consistent with SIVIC Section 19.44.0620 (Continued avail abilit
y).

A
credit equal to the converted floor area, not to exceed 4,570 square bewill given for the conversion.
b) The purchase of existing deed restricted affordable housing units in tCity of h
e
Sonorna, the affordability of which is scheduled to expire and will becom e
market
rate within this Housing Element 6th Cycle, namely, on or before J a
n
u
a
r
y
31,
2031. The Applicant would be required to enter into new affordable housi ng agreement with the City that continue the affordable levels specified in origina l affordable housing agreement with the City in compliance with SM C
Sectio
n ‘l9.44.06O (Continued availability), subject to approval by the City Att or
ne
y
and
Community Development Director. The units must remain aff ord
abl
e
in
perpetuity consistent with SIVIC Section 19.44.06O (Continued availability). Agenda Item #8.1:

c) The purchase of current market rate apartments located within the Ci ty
limit and
s converting them to deed restricted affordable housing units as follows: 10percent extremely low (ELI), 30 percent very~Iow (VLI, 30 percent low (LI), and 30percent moderate income household. The first required unit shall be provided the atELI household category, the second shall be VLI, third required unit shall beand LI, the fourth unit shall be moderate income. The units must remain in perpetuity consistent with SMC Section 19.44.06O (Continued availabilit y).

The reduction of the residential component on site is supported by this condit ion
of
approval that will allow for additional affordable housing in the City.

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future /and uses in the vicinity,‘ and Location: The Project site is zoned Commercial, is located within the Do wnt ow
n
District Planning Area. and in close proximity to the Sonoma Plaza, a variet y
of hotels.
restaurants, businesses, and public transit. The Commercial zoning distric t
identif
ies hotels and restaurants as allowable uses, subject to Use Permit review a n
d
appro
val. The General Plan acknowledges that such uses add to the economic the of downtown and enhance pedestrian activity. The Project would promote th es
e
benefits
identified in the General Plan due to the proximity of the project site to and attractions in the Downtown District. such as the Plaza and the Sonoma S t
a
t
e
Historic
Park. The Project would add a hotel in Downtown Sonoma which would becom pa
tib
le
with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Size: The Project complies with Development Code standards regulating buildi ng height, site coverage, and Floor Area Ratio and is compatible wit h
exisin
g development in terms of size massing and design.

Design: The Project complies with Development Code, standards building height, setbacks, coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, which hav e
astheir
purpose ensuring that new development fits appropriately within its surr oun
din
gs.

The Project also complies with Downtown District Design Guidelines, and the inI fil
l
Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated this by reference.

Operating Characteristics: To ensure that the operating characteristics the of Project would be compatible with existing and future land uses in the vi itythe of site, the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progr am require the following:
a) Detailed Parking Management and Delivery plans
b) Stormwater retention.
c) Compliance with the Noise Ordinance with respect to activities. buildi ng
design
and equipment.
ct) Fair share contribution to the pedestrian improvements of the intersection First of Street VVest/\Nest Napa Street identified in the General Plan tenha nce
6 Agenda Item #8.1:

pedestrian safety and reduce crossing distances.
e) The development and implementation of a (1) trip reduction plan. ( 2 )
parki
ng management plan to address valet parking. shared parking for Lynch building and Sonorna lndex—Tribune building, employee parking ( i incentives for ride—sharing, bicycle and pedestrian and transit use), the pr o
vi
si
o
n
of bicycles for use by guests. and (3) delivery plan to address hours deli ver
y
and loading zone deliveries to the hotel and restaurant. f) The development and implementation of a construction management plan addressing construction traffic, noise, and dust control. g) The Project has not been approved as a Special Events venue.

4. The proposed use will not impair the architectural integrity and character the of zoning district in which it is to be located.

The proposed uses would not impair the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located. The Project site is in the Commercial zonin g district in the Downtown Planning Area, which supports a mix of historic bu il
di
ng
s
and new development. The Project site abuts the Sonoma Plaza National Re gis
ter Historic District but is not located within the District. The Project was eval uate
d
for
cornpatibility with the Sonorna Plaza National Register Historic District in th e
RDE
IR, which determined that that the proposed Project would have a less—than— significant
impact on the Sonoma Plaza National Historic District. as identified in th e
Hist
oric Reports prepared and provided with the Final EIR, incorporated by this The Project also complies with Downtown District Design Guidelines, and the in Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated this by reference. Therefore, the Project would not impair the historic character its of surroundings.

IV. Exception to Loading Space Findings
The applicant has requested that the City grant it an exception to the Development Code’s loading space requirement. Under the applicable version of the Development the C o
d
e,
applicant is required to provide six loading spaces on the Project site and r e
q
u
e
st
s
an
exception to this standard to provide four loading spaces. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings pursuant to SMC Section 1954.050 based on the facts contained in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to those set forth be low
:
1, The adjustment authorized by the exception is consistent with the General Pany l
a
n
,
applicable speci?c plan. and the overall objectives of this development cod e;
The requested modification to the number of loading spaces from six to would be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code as it would supp ort ongoing commercial use of the property and focus development within the city center.

2. An exception to the norrnal standards of the development code is ju sti
fi
ed
by
environmental features or site conditions; historic development patterns the of 7 Agenda Item #8.1:

V.

Based on the findings below and pursuant to SMC Section 19.54.080, property or neighborhood,‘ or the interest in promoting creativity andpers onal expression in site planning and development,‘
The exception to the number of loading spaces is warranted based on tproject h
e
characteristics, proposed Delivery Plan, and existing operating characteri stics
of
deliveries in Downtown Sonoma. The Delivery Plan estimates a total of 3 7 del
ive
ries
per week, with 22 of these trips being shared with neighboring businesses. De liv
eri
es
would be from a variety of vendors and vehicle types, ranging from large pro vide
rs
delivering twice weekly with a tractor trailer to several UPS and FedEx a week. The time associated with each trip would vary. Larger vehicles del ive
rin
g
supplies would stay onsite for a longer period of time than a quick delivery fro UPS m or FedEx. The applicant proposes four loading spaces, including tvvo in parking garage and two in the courtyard.

The requirement for six loading spaces has been determined by the tobeC it
y
excessive for a project of this size, as demonstrated by Ordinance 6-2023, adopt ed in August 2023. which reduced the requirement from one space per each 10, sf 000 for commercial land uses to one space per approximately 40,000 sf. The cod that e applies to the proposed Project is the code in effect when the Project applic ation
was
determined to be complete and therefore Ordinance 6»2023 does not tohe Project. However, by comparison, the governing code requires six loadin g
spaces
and Ordinance 6—2C123 requires two loading spaces. The applicant is req ues
tin
g
an
exception for the number of loading spaces and proposes to provide floading spaces. The requested exception to the applicable standards is justified onbas ed the site operating characteristics and historic delivery patterns for busi ness
es
in
Downtown Sonoma. Further. a condition of approval requires the prepara tion
and
maintenance of a detailed Delivery Plan, subject to review and approval the by Community Development Director.

Granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfar e, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the sam e
zoning
district.

The Project's anticipated vehicular delivery and pick»up patterns wou ld
benot
detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to neighboring pr op
ert
ie
s
or improvements. The Project's operations have been reviewed andrecei ved preliminary approval by Fire Marshall. A condition of approval re q
ui
re
s
the
preparation ofa detailed Delivery Plan for the review and approval by the Development Director, which will ensure deliveries to the site do ncreate o
t
circulation hazards.

Design Review Findings
t Planni
ng Commission grants design review approval of the Hotel Project Sonoma as c o
n
d
it
i
o
n
e
d
herein and subject to the applicant implementing the IVIIVIRP. Specifically, tPlanni ng Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of its decision to design review approval based on the facts contained in the Record as a whole, includin g,
but no
8 Agenda Item #8.1:

limited to those set forth below:

1. The project complies with applicable policies and regulations, as set fthis in Development Code (except for approved Variances and Exceptions}, oCity t
h
e
r
ordinances, and the General Plan.

The Project’s site design and architecture comply with the applicable p o
li
c
i
e
s
and
regulations set forth in the Development Code. Development of the Proj ect
would meet applicable development standards for the Commercial zoning district, incl udin
g
limits on height, setbacks, site coverage, and Floor Area Ratio. Conditions appr oval would ensure the Project meets policies and regulations pertaining to a p
pl
ic
a
bl
e
development standards. With approval of the requested exception. the Proj ect
would
comply with applicable policies and regulations in the Development Code. addit ion, the project complies with the General Plan, Downtown District Design Guideli nes,
and
Infill in the Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference.

On balance, the project is consistent‘ with the intent of applicable design g u
i
d
el
i
n
e
s
set forth in the Development Code.

The proposed Project is consistent with the intent of the Downtown District' s
design
guidelines. See Exhibit A above for a detailed discussion of applicable design guidelines and how the Project's designs comply with those guidelines.

The project responds appropriately to the context of adjacent development, aswell existing site conditions and environmental features.

The Project is compatible with adjacent development. It is consistent height, in architectural treatments, colors and materials of other buildings in the v i
c
i
n
it
y
.

The
Project also complies with Development Code standards including buildin g
height,
setbacks, coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, which ensure that new develop ment fits
appropriately within its surroundings.

The Project site is developed with four existing buildings, including:

1. Former Chateau Sonoma Building: The approximately 2,460-sf s i
n
g
l
e
former Chateau Sonoma Building located at 153 Vvest Napa Street was bucirca ilt 1 910 and is currently used as an office building. The entire building would rem ove
d
as part of the proposed Project. Page & Turnbull prepared a HRS in 20that 11 concluded the property is not individually eligible to be listed on the California Regis ter under Criteria 1. 2. or 3 because it lacked historic significance and only rea ta
in
e
d
moderate degree of integrity to its original date of construction.

2. Lynch Building: The approximately ‘|3,709—sf Lynch Building is locate d
135 at West Napa Street. The existing three—story, mixed-use building that ho us
es
retail
tenants, offices, and seven ntlarkebrate studio apartments was constructed 2002. in The Lynch Building and its current uses would not be altered or modified asof part the proposed Project. However, the surface parking lot adjacent to the build ing
would
9 Agenda Item #8.1:

be used as shared parking with the proposed Project through a shar ed
parking
agreement and would be modified to provide for the shared parking and of p r
o
v
is
i
o
n
utility easements required to serve the Project. The proposed Project woul d
not affect
this building.

3. Two-Story Metal Office and Vvarehouse South of the Lynch Building: The 351 West Napa Street site also includes a 7.690»sf two~story metal warehouse and office building that was constructed in 1986 and was previously used for news pa
pe
r
production, as well as an adjoining surface parking lot. The entire warehou se/of?ce building would be demolished as part of the proposed Project. This st ru
ct
ur
e
was
constructed less than 45 years ago and is not potentially historic.

4. SirIgle—Story Warehouse on the Sonoma lndex—Tribune Building The Sonoma lndex—Tribune Building. at 1 17 VVest Napa Street has been designat ed
asn
historic resource. This building will not be removed or affected by the The parcel that includes the Sonoma lndex—Tribune Building. at 117 VVest Street, also includes an approximately 3,81 3~sf one—story, metal warehouse buildin g
was tht
constructed in 1977 and shares a common wall with the two—story metal w ar
eh
ou
se
building on the 135 VVest Napa Street parcel. On this parcel there is also par lot kin
g
facing First Street West. The entire metal warehouse building would be asr e part of the proposed Project. and the southern surface parking lot on this would also become part of the Project site. The southern surface parking lot wo uld
beused
for shared parking for the proposed Project through a shared parking agree ment with
the proposed hotel. The Historic Resources Evaluation for the Hotel Projec t
Sonom
a Project (HRE) prepared by Knapp Architects in 2015. addressed the w ar
eh
ou
se
additions even though they were less than 50 years old at the time. RDEIR concluded that the warehouse additions are not historically significant b e
c
a
u
s
e
they were less than 50 years old and were constructed well after the lndex— Tribune
was
established, and that the additions should not be included in the designation of 17 VVest Napa Street as a historical resource.

Therefore. the Project substantially preserves the qualities of any significan t
historic
structures or other significant historic features on the site.

The project will not impair the historic character of Its surroundings; The Project site abuts the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic The proposed Project would result in changes to the Project site that may be vfrom is
i
b
l
e
the southwest corner of the Sonoma Plaza, however would not impact Sonom a Plaza National Register Historic District. The Project complies with SIVI C

19.42. 05!) (Guidelines for infill development) as the design of the proposed Project does nt match the historic buildings in the district but would blend with the setting and would not impair the integrity of setting, feeling. or association of the Sonoma Pla za
Nation
al Register Historic District. The RDEIR determined that the proposed Pr oj
ec
t
would
have a |ess—than—significant impact on the Sonoma Plaza National Historic Dand ist
ri
ct
therefore the Project would not impair the historic character of its surrounding s.
lu
Agenda Item #8.1:

5. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the T re
atm
e
nt
ofHistoric Properties,-
The Project site abuts the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District but isno located within the District. The proposed Project was evaluated for compatibi lity
with
the Sonorna Plaza National Register Historic District in the RDEIR, which that that the proposed Project would have a Iess—than—significant impa ct
the on
Sonoma Plaza National Historic District. The project complies with the S e
c
r
et
a
r
y
of
Interior's Standards as identified in the Historic Reports prepared and pro vid
ed
with
the Final EIR, incorporated by this reference.

6. The project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines se t
forth in
Chapter 19. 42 SMC (Historic Preservation and In?ll in the Historic Zone); The Project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines identified infill the Historic Overlay Zone as noted in Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorp orated
by
this reference.

7. The project substantially complies with any applicable preservation pla n
orther
guidelines or requirements pertaining to a local historic district as designated throug h S/VIC 19. 42. 020.

The Project site is not subject to a preservation plan and the Project site iwithin no a local historic district designated through SIVIC ’l9.42.020. The Project site islocated outside the Sonorna Plaza National Register Historic District, the Broadway Distric t, Train District, and Sebastiani Cottage District.

VI. Demolition Findings
Based on the findings below and pursuant to SIVIC Section 19.54.0390 (Demolition Permi t), the Planning Commission hereby grants a demolition permit to the Hotel Project So nom
a‘
s
applicant to demolish the 2,460—square—foot, sing|e—story, former Chateau Sonoma Build ing located at 153 VVest Napa Street, a 7,690—square—foot, two—story metal warehouse anoffice d building at 135 VVest Napa Street, and a 3,813—square—foot, one—story, metal building at ’l 17 Vvest Napa Street. Speci cally. the Planning Commission hereby mthe a
k
e
s
following findings based on the facts contained in the Record as a whole, including, not but limited to those set forth below:

1. The structure is not historically signi?cant, based upon the criteria established the by State Office of Hisloric Preservation,’ or
The Project would include the demolition of the Chateau Sonorna Building, thewostory metal office and warehouse south of the Lynch Building, and the warehouse on the Sonoma lndex—Tribune site. Below is a discussion reg ardi
ng
demolition of these structures.

Agenda Item #8.1: