Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 like we all call it, but it was actually an ice
making facility in the early 1900s.
I still don't understand the magic of
making ice back then, but this was the well that
_provided the water and now it's on —— preserved
and on display in the building. Other things
that were discovered along the way were severely
contaminated soils that needed to be removed,
abated, and cleaned, encapsulated.
And a very complex seismic
strengthening program. Couple this with COVID
and the time stretched out, the costs went up,
and the owner's idea about the project and her
desire to retain it started to change.
And now the building is up for sale,
but it leaves behind this legacy. This is the
space now after it's been retrofitted. This is
the area that would be for the wine tasting room.
This is its location as a key anchor in the City
of Sonoma Historic Train District. This is the
building today. State park on the side. And
some of the after pictures of this really
ambitious and fully committed preservation of a
historic building.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 So, if you think about it, it's the
private sector or nonprofits that are driving the
preservation of historic buildings in Sonoma.
And if this Commission can assist the private
sector to do it, I believe it is an excellent
thing for all of us to consider. Because it
takes a special type of owner who can actually
acquire a building like this, invest very heavily
in it, and leave behind good work like this.
And just by adding two small uses, the
wine tasting use and the vacation rental, it will
improve the ability for this project to go on to
the next owner and allow it to be part of the
public domain where people can enjoy it, come in
have a glass of wine, and not disturb the
neighbors.
So, I'm here asking your, with great
respect, for your decision here because I know
it's a relatively complicated one, asking your
approval of this amendment to the change of the
use permit. So, I'm available to answer any
questions and with that I would like to introduce
Michael Woods.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Before we do that
let's see if there's any questions for you. Mr.
Barbose.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Well, if
we sort of look around town it seems like we've
had a lot of tasting rooms fall by the wayside.
Not being in the wine business, I can only
surmise that the cost of the plaza rents versus
the income generated by the tasting room leads
the owners to abandon that as a commercial
venture.
So, I'm just wondering given all the
money that's been put into this, and the
relatively small scale of this tasting room, how
is this tasting room going to recoup any.
significant sums that seemingly weren't available
to all these people who have gone out of
business?
MICHAEL ROSS: Right. Great question.
In a way what we're doing is describing an
imaginary buyer right now. And we see this as —— would be a trophy location for highlighting a brand and it's not necessarily about driving
revenue out of that room. It's really about
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 anchoring the brand with quality which this
building is, and this property is.
And so, I see it more about brand
strengthening than driving revenue from glasses
of wine or sales.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Other
questions? I've got one. I noticed in your
survey of photographs an outdoor swimming pool
and what looks to be the area that surrounds it.
Is your application proposing that this area is
not allowed to be used?
MICHAEL ROSS: That swimming pool is
going to be associated with the residential uses
on the property which would be the ADU and the
upstairs unit well.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Will the up ~—
but when you say residential uses are you saying
that the pool would not be available to vacation
rental guests?
MICHAEL ROSS: No, I'm not saying that.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay.
MICHAEL ROSS: I'm saying that would be
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: So, there is an
outdoor potential for outdoor activities on this
property —— MICHAEL ROSS: What ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: ~— at the pool?
MICHAEL ROSS: Commissioner Barnett, I
actually would say that that is something that
would need to be approved through the property
management plan. And since I haven't been privy
to what that might be but currently, I was going
to say that the pools associated with the
residential uses.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, but there
at present there is no residential use and the
Respondent —— and the ADU may end up being a
residential use and have the use of the pool.
But the upstairs of the unit is the future
residential use being proposed now for vacation
rental use in the meantime.
So, I'm just looking for clarity on
what in fact the activity level on this property
will be for up to six people and while and —— and
so, you're saying that that hasn't been defined
yet.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MICHAEL ROSS: I think it's a valid
question and it hasn't been defined yet, so thank
you for the question. But I'm sure that we could
provide feedback on it or consider a restriction
on that use.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Barbose.
MR. BARBOSE: I'm sorry I forgot my
other question that I wrote down. It has to do
with the artesian well. And it looks like the
shaft of it was somehow reinforced or concrete
was put in that so you can and lighting so you
can look down in it. Is that correct?
MICHAEL ROSS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Was there
a sort of a less costly solution to —— what to
do about the artesian well?
MICHAEL ROSS: Abandon it, and backfill
it, put a concrete slab on top of it.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: And just
in terms of price difference on those two what do
you estimate that was?
MICHAEL ROSS: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Are we
talking millions?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MICHAEL ROSS: No. The total cost of
the renovation is best addressed by Tom Thornley.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
MICHAEL ROSS: But the cost of cleaning
up the soil, removing it, trucking it off very
long distances, the testing, the seismic retrofit
there is —~ this is a very complicated project
that required a lot of care, and it got it.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thanks.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay and anyone
.I.
else with a question? I've got one more. You
made the statement that you might have altered
your proposed uses in 2018 if you knew then what
you know. Now, did I understand that correctly?
MICHAEL ROSS: Yeah, I was trying to —— we didn't go for a wine tasting use permit because the use of property at the time was
twofold. One it was going to be the second
residence of the owner and downstairs was going
to be a lifestyle retail shop.
And so, that was the desire of our
Applicant at the time. And but those —— that use
has changed. She has changed her mind, and she
now has decided to sell the property.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: NO, I understand
that. My question is I guess I took as the
implication of your comment that what you knew
then versus what you know now was more related to
the nature of the workthat had to be done, not
the not the choice lifestyle choices of the
property owner.
MICHAEL ROSS: Yeah.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Did I understand
that correctly?
MICHAEL ROSS: That's exactly correct.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. SO, then
my follow—up question to that is when did you
realize how expensive this project was actually
going to be and why did the applicant not come
forward sometime between now and six years ago to
request a modification of the application?
Because at some point in time you all
went my God this project is costing 10 times what
we thought it was going to be or whatever it was.
And so, I'm wondering why the ~~ why now at the
very end when the building is completed and the
rehabilitation completed and all this money
spent, why now is it that the request for the
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 addendum or the change in the application now
instead of earlier?
MICHAEL ROSS: I think that's a great
question of the owner. I could surmise that she
was dedicated to completing the work and getting
it done so it could maximize the value of the
property. And also, provide her an opportunity
to say should I stay, or should I not stay? You
know there's private decision—making that happens
with everybody. But this decision wasn't made
until after the project was over.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: I see. Okay,
thank you. Yes.
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: I have one
follow—up question, you know, along the same
lines. Because as I look at the breakdown of
costs that was provided by the Thornley
Construction, many of the costs are things that
would logically be rolled into the first permit.
You know, the seismic stabilization and
a lot of the asbestos. So, I'm, again, I'm I
understand the COVID shut down that was 50k, but
I'm just curious you know what percentage are we
talking about here? You know it looked —— it
seems like a lot of the sunk costs were already
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
known because of what was permitted and the
request for that. So, if you have any color on
that I'd appreciate it.
MICHAEL ROSS: I think he cost question
should be addressed to Tom who's available here
tonight specifically. But on a project like this
it's near impossible to predict the future. And
—— or the levels of complexity that that's
associated with an old stone building.
And so, it's not surprising for me in
today's marketplace to see the cost of
construction double and like this one, and it
did. And now that it's for sale if we can assist
the sales to offset some of these costs that's
why I'm here. And I really believe that even
with granting this request, it's going to be a
good neighbor, it's not going to be the type of
loud and rowdy restaurant or something. It's
just quiet wine tasting inside of a large stone
building.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Any other
questions? Seeing none, thank you, Michael.
MICHAEL ROSS: Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Tom, did you want
to come up or was Mr. Woods going to proceed you?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MICHAEL WOODS: Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, Michael Woods. I'm an attorney
representing the property owners. I live on
First Street West my office is at 846 Broadway
here in town. Commissioner Barnett following up
on one of your questions regarding the timing of
the decision making on the project.
There were truly unforeseen conditions
that came about during construction. One of
those was discovering oil, not a good thing in
this context. We found out that there had been a
dry—cleaning plant not far from the property to
the south in the early part of the 20th century
and there had been a fuel oil driven boiler just
across the property line that leaked.
And so, we found hydrocarbons in the
water and brought in the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Once you're under their
jurisdiction you're not going to stop the project
and come to the Planning Commission, frankly, and
ask for an amendment to the use permit.
You really couldn't have done that at
that time. There was a need to approach the
remediation in a way that was consistent with the
Water Board's jurisdiction and that's what we did
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 at very considerable cost. During some of the
soil's remediation efforts I recall that the rear
building was actually elevated several feet into
the air and put on blocks and then chained back
to the earth in order to prevent it from blowing
away.
I mean these kinds of circumstances
came up during construction and Tom knows about
those better than I do. But I guess I would just
point out that there were sort of a cascading
range of issues that came up on the project
during construction that ultimately led the owner
to change course.
And the reason why there was no
discussion about a use permit for wine tasting or
for a vacation rental in 2018 was because that
wasn't part of the owner's plan. As Michael
indicated Mac and Leslie were planning to make
this a second residence here in the valley. They
had their own plans. Leslie had her own plans
for a lifestyle store on the ground floor.
And I think this cascading range of
events that occurred during construction affected
their decision as to whether they wanted to
continue owning the property or not. And they
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 reached the decision that they would not. I
don't think that the use permit for the tasting
room is going to be an economic driver in the
sense of how much money would sales produce from
a given tasting?
I think the closest parallel to this,
at least in my experience, is the Vallejo—
Castenada Adobe that was approved under the
adaptive reuse provisions for an historic
structure back I think it was in 2012, 2013. And
at that time, we had 25 or 30 neighbors who were
very opposed to the project.
They were concerned about potential for
noise, potential for parking issues, they were
concerned I think that the operation of a tasting
room on the north side of West Spain Street
adjacent to Girl in the Fig that they'd had
issues with over the years would be replicated by
Three Sticks at the Vallejo—Castenada Adobe and
that wasn't the case.
Since that project was approved
consistent with the adaptive reuse findings, I
think there's been one neighbor that's expressed
concerns over the years. Hard to avoid something
like that on occasion, but by and large the
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 conditions of approval that allowed investment in
that property saving that Adobe from ruin, that
allowed private tastings by appointment only,
strictly controlled and regulated has worked.
The building was preserved, and the
property has operated as more of a, I think, and
I don't I'm not speaking for the owners at this
point, but I think more as a branding kind of an
exercise and kind of a lifestyle choice where
someone that's interested in those wines also has
a destination location to go for a special
occasion for a wine tasting.
So, it's not what drives the economics
of an individual glass being poured or a bottle
being sold, it's much more organic, I would
expect, in the context of a brand overall. So, I
looked at the findings in the staff report for
compliance with the adaptive reuse ordinance. I
thought they were well drafted and compelling.
I think we meet all of the findings.
And obviously, it's in the Commission's
discretion to determine that, but I think you've
got a solid situation here with the conditions of
approval to where you can approve this consistent
with the adaptive reuse findings.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 I think it's important too to consider
just briefly what signal do we send to property
owners who are involved in historic renovation or
restoration in the City of Sonoma. If you're in
a project and you're trying to get it done,
perhaps you're hoping that you would be able to
come back to the Commission at some point and say
look an amendment would be appropriate here and
would help us recoup some of our costs that we
expended on an extraordinarily expensive project.
I don't think we want to send the
signal that you should shut the project down
until you come in and see what approvals you can
get, because that suggests that you're not going
to complete the historic restoration. And I
don't think that's a signal that we want to send.
So, I would recommend obviously on
behalf of the owner and request that you move
forward with approval. Happy to answer any
questions if I can.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Yeah, I've got
one, two. Are you implying that this property
has become a financial hardship to the owner?
MICHAEL WOODS: Yes.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: You are?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MICHAEL WOODS: I am.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: And so, does that
open the door to a discussion of the financial
condition of the owner?
MICHAEL WOODS: NO. Well, you —~ I
don't think anybody despite their level of ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Wealth.
MICHAEL WOODS: —~ wealth is going to
make imprudent decisions regarding investment in
real estate. I have represented many, many
wealthy owners of real estate in the Sonoma
Valley and Napa Valleys and I have not found them
to be loose with their change, so to speak.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: I understand, but
MICHAEL WOODS: Because it's simply not
reasonable from a business judgment. I think
here is a company ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: But you don't
believe that it's the City's responsibility to
ensure that a speculative project no matter what
it costs is the responsibility of the City to
solve for a given property owner are you?
MICHAEL WOODS: Well, I think the City
does have a responsibility to encourage private
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
investment in real property in order to restore
and preserve an historic resource. I think
that's part of the City's objectives from a land
use perspective and part of the reason why we
have an historic adaptive reuse provision in our
development code in the first place.
No, of course, Commissioner or Chairman
Barnett I'm not suggesting the City is
responsible for the financial condition of the
property owner. But I do believe that it's in
the City's best interest to send signals to
property owners involved in preserving historic
structures that contribute to historic districts
in any way that they reasonably can.
Obviously, you need to make the
findings and grapple with the individual facts of
the particular case. But I think from an overall
policy perspective that's a wise course.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. And I
.L
guess that's it for the moment. Anybody else
have questions for Mr. Woods? Okay, thank you.
MICHAEL WOODS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Mr. Thornley,
you're on.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 THOMAS THORNLEY: Okay. My name is Tom
Thornley. I live at 7162 Street East. I've kind
of written down what I need to say here. I'm not
quite as good on fly as these other two guys.
Suffice it to say this was a very difficult, very
expensive, and very robust seismic retrofit
restoration.
However, tonight I want to focus my
comments on two surprises we encountered during
the process. We started the project the building
was yellow tagged because of the severe
structural damage from the Napa earthquake.
There was a crack in the front wall that you
could put your hand through. The front of the
building was held up by temporary emergency
shoring, it's in danger of falling down.
Almost immediately after we started, we
dug test holes around the perimeter of the
foundation per requests from our structural
engineers to determine if the stone walls were
sitting on any type of foundation. And if not
how deep did the stone extend below grade.
The day after the test fits were dug,
we noticed a black oily substance on the top
groundwater at the bottom of the holes. We
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 immediately called a hazmat geologist and had it
tested. It turned out to be crude oil and fuel
oil. We immediately contacted the Bay Area
Regional Water Quality Board, opened an
investigation, and mapped out a mitigation plan.
Based on the HRE, we knew the building
at one point was an ice manufacturing facility.
The Bose Ice and Storage company. Before
refrigeration was invented the only way to get
ice was to manufacture it or go up in the
mountains and get it out of the mountains.
The manufacturing process was invented
in France in the late 1800s and required very
large steam—driven equipment that fused ammonia
and other chemicals with the water to make the
ice. The steam driven equipment was powered by
crude oil and fuel oil. Fuel oil is crude oil
refined once. It's basically still a crude oil.
Over the years the fuel pipes leaked,
eventually rusted away, and leaving plumes of
contaminated soil around and under the building.
A mitigation protocol plan was put in place that
required us to have a geologist on site every
time we did any ground disturbing activity.
aw
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
And the soil had to be tested, the
extent of the contamination dictated what toxic
landfill the spoils had to be hauled to. Some of
it had to go to Nevada it was so hot. Some of it
went to Kettleman's Hills here in California and
then some of it was deemed to go to the Salona
County Landfill.
This was an extremely costly, labor
intensive, heavily regulated procedure that went
on throughout the entire project. By the time we
were able to get the final sign off from the
Water Quality Board, we had off hauled 410 tons
of hazmat soil. That's enough to fill this room.
And it was done throughout the project.
It didn't —~ every time a shovel went in the
ground. So, this was right up into landscaping
we're having this testing done. The second
surprise that occurred within a couple of months
of the hazmat soil discovery.
In the early demolition phase of the
project, we were removing the concrete floor on
this side of the building. The slab was being
cut up into 12 or 24 inch by 24—inch pieces,
broken apart with a 90~pound jackhammer, loaded
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 onto a hand cart, and then loaded into a dump
truck in the driveway.
Early one morning the Jackhammer
operator was breaking out four two by two squares
at a time. Suddenly the floor gave way and all
four pieces plummeted into a dark hole and landed
with a big splash. The operator let go of the
90—pound hammer and leaped off to the side. We
were all stunned to discover the dark hole was
actually a rock lined functioning artesian well.
We immediately reported the find to
PRMD. We were told to file a well abandonment
permit and fill it with concrete. Leslie McQuown
couldn't bear the idea of doing that, so she
decided she wanted to save it as a rare piece of
Sonoma history and turn it into a functioning
archaeological art installation. And that's what
it is today.
Over the next several months Thornley
Associated ~~ Associates negotiated with the
Water Quality Board and PRMD to save the well.
Eventually after pumping out the artesian well
twice and having it tested for pollutants, the
water test to clean both times. We were granted
permission to save it.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Based on historic photos we know the
well existed in 1887 but speculated it could date
back to the Spaniards in the early 18008. At a
great expense the well was successfully saved,
lit, ventilated, an overflow installed, and had a
one—inch glass floor installed over it.
Personally, I think the discovery of
this well was one of the most significant
archaeological finds in this town's history. The
water from this well was the source of the ice
that changed this town dramatically. Sonoma was
primarily a quarry town but the Bose Ice And
Storage Company changed that by allowing the
shipment of wine, produce, and dairy products by
rail.
The town is what it is today day
largely due to the water from this well. I
encourage the Planning Commission to approve this
proposed use in order to broaden the access to
this historically significant building and this
very significant archaeological find. And I am
open to questions about numbers, the process,
whatever.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay.
Commissioners, anyone have a question? Mr.
Barbose.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN: Can
.1.
you push your button real quick? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Roughly
how much additional cost was incurred in creating
what is there now, which sounds very interesting
and beautiful.
THOMAS THORNLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: But how
much did that cost versus just filling it in the
way the county first wanted you?
THOMAS THORNLEY: On the west —~ you're
talking about just the well itself.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Just the
well itself.
THOMAS THORNLEY: I would guess the
well was probably it certainly was in six figures
to save it. It could have been probably, I would
think, 150 to $200,000. Interesting thing about
this well is it was initially dug in the 1800s
and then when Bose bought the property, he
improved the well.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 So, when we first found the well, we
looked down the hole there are four pieces of
concrete laying there that have fallen into it
and a jackhammer. So, we retrieved that. We had
to get OSHA protocol set up to go into an
enclosed space and pull the four pieces of
concrete out.
Well, we had read in the HRE that Bose
had improved the well as it turns out under these
four pieces of concrete were —— was an intact
redwood barrel. And that redwood barrel sat in a
hand carved bell—shaped chamber. So, the well
initially was four to five feet of adobe lined
with rocks, an impermeable surface. Then it was
about probably 15 feet of gravelly hard pan.
Well, when Bose came in, they went
down, and hand chiseled it out so that the when
the bell —— when the well charges the water flows
down the side goes into the bell and the
sediment's filtered out when it goes through the
cracks in the barrel.
It's cowboy engineering at its best.
And saving it was cowboy engineering at its best.
And as far as I know we -~ I know there have been
other wells found in this town, hand dug wells, a
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 lot of them have been abandoned, filled up. As
far as I know this is the only one that's ever
been saved. And it's crystal—clear water oddly
enough.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Other questions?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I have a
question.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Matt.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK:
Specifically, about :he well, Tom. Do you recall
when in the project's timeline that well was
discovered?
THOMAS THORNLEY: Yeah. It was almost
immediately after we —~ probably within two
months of us discovering the contaminated test
pits.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Okay.
THOMAS THORNLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Thank
you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Further, anyone
else? Thank you, Mr. Thornley.
THOMAS THORNLEY: Okay.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. I'm sure
you're all anxious to speak. I am going to call
for a five—minute recess because I'm an old man
with an old bladder.
I'd like to bring the meeting back to
order. Please take your seats and bring your
full attention. Okay. Now, we're going to open
this up for public comment. Let me suggest given
the number of hands I saw raised, that if you
have something new to add to what's been said, of
course, you're welcome to come up and you're
welcome to come up if you want to repeat
something that someone has said.
But another option is because if
there's 10 of you, we could go through another 30
minutes of this at three minutes each, is as
someone is speaking if you agree with what they
have to say just silently raise your hand. This
may reduce in general the total number of people
who want to speak and the repetition of points.
But nonetheless afford the Commission
the opportunity of getting a sense of what public
opinion is. So, if you would like to speak,
please come up to the lectern, give your name and
your address so that if this matter continues to
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 future meetings the City knows where to contact
you.
And as I say I'm not going to use the
timer, but I will be sort of listening and
watching the clock. Thank you, go ahead.
CHRISTINE BOHAR: Okay I'm ready.
Hello to the Commissioners. My name is Christine
Bohar. I have lived at 299 First Street West
for over 40 years. I know all of my neighbors
and their children. I have also watched the
residential neighborhood grow quite a bit. Eight
new residents and including two historic
renovations since I've been there. All this
within a block of the Cooperage.
In May of 2018 I was one of many
neighbors that spoke in favor of the adaptive
restoration and reconstruction of the Cooperage
with certain conditions. The buildings would be
renovated historically and that the use would be
residential with a small quote, ”home wear store
on the ground floor, and the barn would be for a
caregiver unit.”
The neighbors were thrilled. We
endured five years of construction, noise, and
disruption, that resulted with two handsome and
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 well—done buildings for us to admire. And for
that we're thankful. Six years after the
original approvals were granted the owners are
coming back to the Planning Commission requesting
permits for additional and unanticipated uses.
Unspecified wine tasting use, VRBO with
the short—term vacation rentals, and some defined
retail. Now that the owners have decided not to
live in the building as originally approved, they
want to recoup their expenses by changing the
uses of the building.
We see that as creeping commercial and
retail intrusion into our residential community.
This would change the character of our charming
street, the additional traffic noise, deliveries,
etcetera would be more than this section of First
Street West can comfortably enjoy.
If I had known, oh, I've heard this
before. If I had known this was what the owners
wanted in 2018, I would have been against it then
just as I am now. Our street needs more
residential not more VRBOs, entertainment, and
wine tasting venues. Please deny the Applicant's
request. Thank you.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
.12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you very
much. Next up just come right up.
STEVE WEISIGER: I'll set my own timer.
My name is Steve Weisiger. I reside at 227 First
Street West. I live next door to The Depot
Restaurant. I feel that I have a somewhat unique
perspective being directly next to a restaurant.
Three disturbing things I heard tonight
were we're reinventing history, an imaginary
buyer, and I also heard people be little this
this won't be a hectic busy noisy thing. Listen,
those hours that were listed on throw them out
the window, 7:30 there'll be leaf blowing, you're
going to have delivery trucks which have backup
alarms, you're going to be hearing all kinds of
activity.
I've been involved with this property
I've lived here, I moved away, and now I live
here again since '90, '91. The first incident
that I witnessed was the renter coming out and
screaming at the Depot for dumping bottles at
11:00 p.m. at night.
And this was an early riser: You are
going to hear wine bottles throughout the day
dumped into a garbage. You're going to hear
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
rolling thunder twice a week as the dumpster is
moved. We had renters complain to the City to
get the dumpster moved in the back. Well, the
back smells now, the back is noisy. Twice a week
they roll it out to the street.
Unbelievable, they're constantly doing
renovations. Now, these are good neighbors,
these are good people you can talk to them
they'll listen to your complaints, but I have to
desensitize myself. I'm the kind of guy I wants
to identify every noise.
But I really empathize with anyone
who's going to be living next to something that
starts to expand. Selfishly, I have to drive up
and down this street. On Friday O'Tour, I don't
know how you pronounce it, had an event truck in
front for two hours closing this street down to a
single lane.
This street is like a game of Frogger.
I'm dodging people constantly. So, for me this
should not be taken lightly. If somebody here
lives next to a restaurant, you get it. If you
don't, you don't get it. You don't get that some
—— that contractors and others they show up as
early as they can to get their job done.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 Workers not knowing they're just
excited to be there at 6:30 a.m. to open up and
they're just loud talking. Meanwhile my bedroom
windows open because it's hot and I don't have
air conditioning. So, you know this this is not
to be taken lightly.
And in terms of no events. I think
VRBO, I think a short—term rental each time an
occupant takes charge of 2,500 square foot place
they're —— it's like an event. They're going to
be noisy; they're going to be using the pool, a
pool is a megaphone, you're going to you're going
to hear that noise.
So, for me please don't downplay the
intensity that something like this causes. I
understand that you want to get your costs back.
There's also —— I do my own taxes when I make
mistakes the government gives me all kinds of
places to write things off.
I don't understand why the City has to
step up other than this was a beautiful art
project and then we're coming later to ask
permission and forgiveness to get these costs
back. All because they fell out of love with it,
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 they don't want to live here anymore and that
makes me sad. Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, sir.
Next up.
CARRIE FOG: Hello, my name is Carrie
Fog. I live at 291 First Street West and I'm
one of the neighbors of this project. In 2018 as
we all know they received their first permit.
Now, it's 2024 and they are coming back to the
Planning Commission requesting for additional and
unanticipated use as a wine tasting room, short—
term rental, and some unspecified retail. I
don't know what that would be.
Their extensive and very expensive
restoration and construction took nearly 5 years
to complete. Although it may seem to make sense
to the owners to recoup some of their enormous
investment in the project and since they now
don't plan to reside there, we neighbors see it
as creeping commercial and retail development
into our small single family residential
neighborhood.
The finished product is a beautifully
executed and lovely restoration of this historic
old town Cooperage building. We all love passing
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 that building every day as we come home. But
where am I? We see it as a overreaching
permitted usage would change the character of our
charming street.
The additional traffic, parking
problems, and anticipated noise would be more
than this section of First Street West can come
comfortably accommodate. We enjoy the vibrancy
and activity of our location here, but we do not
want to live adjacent to what would resemble a
busy hotel and entertainment venue.
I urge you to carefully consider this
example of how the continuing proliferation of
tasting rooms and short—term rentals is eroding
the character of our neighborhoods. Please vote
no on this project. Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, ma'am.
Next up. You can queue up a little bit if it'll
—— if you're inclined.
MICHAEL HEFLER: Hello. My name is
Michael Hefler. I'm the new guy on the block,
we've only been here three and a half years. I'm
at 293 First Street West. And I want to firstly
thank all of you for your service to the
community. I've done a few of these where I've
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
1o
11 12
.13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
spoken to different township's people and I
always appreciate the fact that you guys are
volunteering to help out the town, so thank you
for that.
And thank you for consideration in this
matter. The three capable intelligent men that
are employed by the McQuown's did a very nice job
in describing a lot of different things there.
But the thing that was interestingly avoided was
that pool. That pool is going to be the place
where whoever buys the, you know, puts in a wine
tasting there and has their friends over are
going to be out at night waking up my
grandchildren when they come over to sleep.
It's very straightforward. I don't
think anyone can imagine them not having friends
and having parties at that pool. I certainly
can't imagine that. The property is a lovely
property, but our neighborhood is a lovely
neighborhood. We wake up every day to birds
singing. We wake up every day to looking out the
backyards and seeing a beautiful place.
We don't want that disturbed by the
kind of noise that was just described very aptly
here. So, I would strongly urge you to look at
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 it from the point of view is this, what I would
want as one of my neighbors when you're making
your decision and say no to this property.
The McQuownPS have the right to change
their mind, they certainly do, but they've got a
lot of money. So, making a little more money for
them would be a nice thing for them, but it
wouldn't make any difference in their lives. To
us this would make a huge difference to all our
lives. So again, I thank you for your
consideration.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, sir.
Who's next?
CAROL HEFLER: Good evening. I'm Carol
Hefler. I live at 293 First Street West.
Michael and I have lived there as he said for
three and a half years, and I love our
neighborhood. I love our house and I love the
quiet. I'm just going to make this short, when I
think of what could possibly be in the Cooperage
it really troubles me. Nobody's —— nobody tastes
wine silently, nobody lives in a rental and
doesn't say a word, nobody goes to a pool
quietly. Please vote no.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 NINA SWUSDIPANEE: Hi. Nina Swani, 287
First Street West.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: How do you spell
your last name?
NINA SWUSDIPANEE: S—W-U—S-D-I—P—A—N—
E—E. I would like to —~ the Commission to
consider the realistic possibility of what would
happen at the Cooperage if you do permit their
application. There is no —— it's just the pool
area is going to be used for wine tasting as you
know in real —— in reality.
And the comparison to Three Sticks, the
Castenada Adobe adoption is unfair because there
there's no pool, there's no overnight guests,
and the applicant is still operating the
business. Currently, the current owner is
selling the property, so we don't know who is
coming to be the owner.
And when Three Sticks applied for their
use permit, you did know who was there and they
are still operating it. And I would like you to
reconsider the application to put in restrictions
at the very least of what they can do at the
property. Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 TOM DUNLAP: Good evening,
Commissioners. Thank you for letting us comment
on this. My name is Tom Dunlap. I own the Swiss
Hotel and I own all the property across the
street from this project.
My daughter and my grandchildren live
at 298 First Street West, my sister lives at 340
First Street West and also has the duplex there.
And I
—— we also restored two historic buildings
and I understand the problems with that and the
unintended consequences.
I restored the Swiss Hotel in 1989 to
1992 and I restored the house on 298 First Street
West which is a historic building in 2016. The
issue that I have with this project is, and I
think it turned out nice it looks it looks good,
is again the issue of business creep.
This is a neighborhood. You have
people that are very committed to supporting this
neighborhood and enjoy the quality of life here.
And the more we let business move into this
neighborhood, the more it's going to disrupt
that.
The ~~ this neighborhood has already
committed itself to a lot of activities that
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
happen in the town relative to Arnold Field, the
Field of Dreams, and the Veterans Building that
creates a lot of traffic, and noise, and
disruption.
And it —— everybody understands that's
part of living in this neighborhood, but I don't
think that we need to have more business just
moving further and further up and intruding into
the areas between the homes. So, I would hope
that you would consider that and vote no on this
amendment.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, sir.
Next up.
VICTOR CONFORTI: Yes. Before I get
started let me hand something out here. Let me
give you —— I did submit some comments, excuse
me. I did submit some comments, Victor Conforti,
206 East Spain Street. I submitted some comments
earlier, I guess you got those.
And they were focused on the aspect of
the of the state listings or whether it was —— whether that's the path I guess that would be used to support the project. So, I've kind of
going off on a more general comments and mainly
just again wanting to thank my friends Mike and
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Tom, builders, and super architect for decades
we've known one another and the wonderful job
that you did.
And I could imagine, only imagine the
problems that occurred. Sorry the —— and also
Christina whose wonderful report taught me
something. I always ~— I learn a new thing every
day. But tonight, I wanted to sort of focus on
the neighborhood issue that I think is an
important issue in general with a community like
Sonoma.
2 We have something here that's so
precious that you can't duplicate this anywhere
or we have a committed community, committed
citizens who like yourselves who spent a huge
amount of hours on numerous nonprofits, and
cultural things, and other use that really
requires a full—time resident to do.
A vacation rental obviously eliminates
a potential neighbor for these people who have
been speaking who would be a part of their
neighborhood would be supportive of the goals.
In fact, one of the provision for the adaptive
reuse findings, one of the findings is the first
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 finding is that these alterations or adaptive
reuse would enhance and perpetuate neighborhoods.
That's a fairly important part of this
discussion. I think the —— I think the proposed
use today is not going to enhance and perpetuate
the neighborhood. It does have too many impacts,
it's more intense than the original proposal,
it's —~ it has you know side effects that aren't
obvious at first, as they've been pointed out
here tonight.
But the more subtle thing is this
aspect of a people who want to have a
neighborhood that includes other owners, property
owners, who live there like they do and will join
in with them to create a neighborhood. So, the —
- this is a hard thing to quantify.
I do as a, you know, I've been a real
estate developer myself over the decades and I
don't think you can be certain that the —— a
buyer would be interested in this property
because of its return on investment. I would
guess that that the —~ an owner who is not making
decisions based on return on investment when they
buy something they're looking at a home, the
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
16 17
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 special place, special location, and they want to
live there.
And they will pay whatever it takes if
they have the resources. So, this may not be the
fact that the —— a commercial use as a will
outperform in terms of the actual sale price.
But the important thing really is the community
benefits and which proposal supports that, so
thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.
MARY SMITH: My name is Mary Smith and
I live at 154 West Spain Street. And I just want
to make a comment about the Three Sticks Winery.
They very, very frequently have big black
limousines come drop people off, park in front of
the driveway, makes it very difficult to get out
at where I live. And I've had encounters like
that numerous times. So, when you say a winery
is not a problem I would have to disagree.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. How
many more have comments they'd like to make?
Come up please, sir.
PETER MATTHIS: Hello. My name's Peter
Matthis. I live at 287 First Street West, that's
two houses to the north of the Cooperage or
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 icehouse. I've lived there for quite a while,
over 20 years. I've had many a meal in the
Cooperage itself with the previous owners. They
were good neighbors and friends of many of us
there in the neighborhood, the Wagers, Ken, and
Claudia.
I’m here to ask you to deny both of the
expanded expansions to the use or changes. I am
not in favor of seeing wine tasting rooms keep
colonizing into neighborhoods. And that would be
the case here. I mean we have some right down at
the end of First Street or right at the Plaza,
but this is too much in my opinion and will
impact me directly.
The other one is the —— and I'm just
against it in principle. And I'm in the wine
business by the way you know. But enough is
enough, there's plenty of vacant places to be
rented for tasting rooms on the Plaza itself. I
also am against allowing for the vacation rental
process. These people, like was previously said,
it denies us the possibility of a permanent
neighbor people that do VRBOs rental or that type
of things are notoriously noisy and disrespectful
to neighborhoods.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 No matter what conditions you write to
them for that property, they will never see that
condition they're going to do what they always do
which is make a lot of noise and splash in the
pool and get drunk and go party, you know, have
big parties. When they say there's only two
people there, they have 20.
Okay that's —— we all know, we read
about that. Okay. So, I am sympathetic that the
owners have spent a, you know, a gob smacking
amount of money on this project. Mr. Ross said
right at the beginning that when you go into a
project like this you have -— it's —— you have no
idea what you're really getting into.
He said he was not at all surprised
that the cost doubled. Okay, that's the way it
is, and the owners of this property are both
wealthy and savvy by all accounts. So, I think
they reasonably could have anticipated the risk
of up —— the downside risk of the costs getting
very high. To me they're now asking us, the
community, to essentially help them avoid the
moral hazard that they had with this project.
So, I urge you to not approve this change. Thank
you.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
l2
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, Sir.
Anyone else?
JIM BOAHR: This working? I'm Jim
Bohar, I live at 299 First Street West. Good
evening, Commissioners, staff. I live right next
door to the Cooperage Icehouse. The Icehouse
received a conditional use permit in May of 2018.
A personal petalitre for the owner Leslie
McQuown, limited retailing of personally
selected items, security apartment in the rear
because of their concern for safety.
Neighbors and I attended those Planning
Commission meetings. I was there, several of my
neighbors were there. Our concerns were included
in conditions of approval including the
prohibition against VRBOs and including no food
to be served to the public.
That was not an accident, that was an
agreement by the Planning Commission to insert
those in the conditions of approval. During
construction that took about five years, the
owner chose not to live in the property but sell
it. High construction spending led to $12
million selling price. It didn't sell at $12
million. It was reduced to 7.9 and it's been
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 there for some time, perhaps a year I don't know.
I don't know when it was put on the market.
Now, attempting to add commercial value
by changing the two commercial uses, the new
application is termed an amendment to the
original permit. An amendment is a minor change
or improvement, perhaps a clarification. This is
not that. This is a major change in use.
It will have a detrimental effect by
allowing creeping commercialism into our
neighborhood. It will set a commercial
precedent. The Applicant requests continued
retail, wine tasting, an ADU, a VRBO, as I said
previously prohibited.
There are really six potential usable
bedrooms and a newly added swimming pool which
was not part of the first CUP, it was added
later. It has a permit, but it's never been
mentioned in the narrative here. But it's —~ as
we've talked it's going to be a wonderful outdoor
recreation center for the guests in the two
rentals.
Wine tasting usually adds food pairing.
And I mentioned the previously prohibited use of
food. Shared use of wine tasting, and retail use
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 is wanted, but we don't specify the sizes. It's
2,500 feet, that's a very large space. It
describes vague use of the VRBO associated with
proposed wine tasting, which is rather hard to
understand that relationship.
No solution is given to the additional
needed parking. The owners under their original
permit have already received the incentive and
benefit from the adoptive reuse section of the
code. They have the responsibility for the large
amount of money spent. They've received other
concessions including a large parking waiver, a
negative declaration under CEQA.
This project appears to nullify that
negative declaration because of significant
impacts on our neighborhood context. We want
more housing not retail in our neighborhood. I
have some interesting information I hope I can
share with you.
I learned that shortly ago that ammonia
is actually gas used in ice process. It
dissipates, it will kill people but only while
you're making ice. It goes away, it's not in the
soil. I looked further into that because I was
questioning it. I've done over 250 deals as an
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 industrial broker that have contamination of this
type.
I hired an environmental consultant
AMICUS Strategic Environmental Consulting. I
got the report two days ago. There are no toxic
substances in that soil. The cleaning
establishment was to the south it was nearby but
there's no cleaning solvents in that soil. There
is only heating oil that used to heat those kinds
of warehouses and manufacturing plants.
The heating oil is not a toxic
substance. It's not what they call a VOC, a
volatile organic compound. It does not leave the
soil. As a matter of fact, the report that I
have states that that heating oil soil could have
been left in place and not removed.
The only reason it was removed is
because the deep footings that the construction
people felt had to be dealt —— had to be dug and
they took out the soil to make room for the
footings. That soil you could call dirty, but
it was not toxic, and it didn't have to be care —
~ taken away. It was taken to another dump that
takes dirty soil.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 The cost of that soil, it was about 20
percent more than if they just dumped it in a in
a dump somewhere, very little cost. Furthermore,
those reports started out, it's called a phase
one investigation, started in August 21, 2018. A
couple of months after that permit, everyone was
aware that there were problems in that soil.
You can identify the quantity, the kind
by doing what's called a phase two environmental
investigation. It's on file here I suppose it I
suppose it points out all of those details. So,
I would be —— I'd be glad to share this report
with you. It has it has reference to all these
reports.
I'd also like to comment about the ice
business. If you walk over to the rail car ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Try to wrap it
up.
JIM BOAHR: Yes. The history of ice
is over in the rail car with the historic
preservation people. Ice was used for local
transportation of produce to the city. They
tried ice in refrigerator cars for a year or two,
but it didn't work, it melted.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
They had to wait for the reefers to be
invented to carry produce across the country.
So, it's not such a —— ice is not such a big
historical event. It's not shocking, it's not
something we have to preserve. And I'm sorry to
get so wound up, but I am. I'm very concerned
about this project impacting my neighborhood.
Again, like my neighbors, I want neighbors, I
don't want retail, and VRBOs, and wine tasting.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRLARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Okay.
Unless there is anyone else, I will bring the ——
oh, please come up.
PATRICIA CULLINAN: Patricia Cullinan,
Denmark Street. I just want to clarify
something. This was not the original ice plant
in Sonoma where Velas is. The trains stopped
there, they got their water there, and they
picked up ice. This is a later addition of an
ice plant in Sonoma. I just want to correct the
record. Thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Going
once, going twice, three times, I will now close
the public hearing.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Mr.
Chair, if I can interrupt. This is for City
staff. Can we get the AC running again? I know
there's a lot of emotion in this room, but I
think that my temperature level is not...
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. At this
time, Ms. Gates, I want to direct some questions
on the legal issues to our attorney, Mr.
Ruderman, if he is still with us. Is he's still
with us?
MR. RUDERMAN: Can you hear me?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: I can hear you.
Thank you.
MR. RUDERMAN: Great.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Good evening,
David. I'm sure you're finding this interesting.
I've got some questions that will inform at least
my deliberations about this going forward that
has to do with some legal issues. In 1999, I was
the member of the city council who proposed a ban
on vacation rentals in residential zones. And it
was an experience that I'd had in Carmel,
California that prompted me to do that.
That ordinance was passed as I say in
1999 and has been in effect in the city of Sonoma
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
for a long time. At the time it was passed it
allowed vacation rentals in commercial districts
but was an absolute ban on vacation rentals in
residential zones.
So, my question for you is this. Given
that prohibition, given the language in the reuse
ordinance, that would seem to permit it how does
one resolve the legal conflict between a true and
existing ordinance in the City of Sonoma banning
vacation rentals in residential zones and now
everywhere else and a reuse ordinance that it
would appear allows it as an option with the
approval of the Planning Commission.
MR. RUDERMAN: Well, normally we try to
interpret all provisions of the code such that
they are consistent. We do not like to imply
repeal of other provisions. So, we presume that
the Council when they adopted the vacation rental
ban and its current incarnation understood that
there was an existing provision related to
vacation rentals as a condition of an adaptive
reuse permit.
And so, the way that I would reconcile
those two is that vacation rentals, new vacation
rentals, are banned in all situations except for
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 upon an approval by the Planning Commission of an
adaptive use permit. And there are ~— there's
actually a special finding I believe that Ms.
Tierney identified that is required in order for
the Planning Commission to approve a vacation
rental as a condition of an adaptive reuse
permit.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Is there not also
a legal precedent that when two —— when there's
a conflict between regulations and ordinances
that the defer —— that one defers to the more
stringent ordinance?
MR. RUDERMAN: The rule is that —— well, first of all, if we're not talking about a conflict between an ordinance and a regulation.
Normally, a regulation is subservient to an
ordinance like a resolution would be subservient
to an ordinance. We‘re talking about what you
are identifying as a potential conflict between
two ordinances.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Yes.
MR. RUDERMAN: Normally, yeah, and in
those cases, yes, one of the cannons of
construction is that the more —— not the more
restrictive but the more specific applies.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Actually, there may be even a provision in our
code that talks about the more restrictive
applying.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: There is.
MR. RUDERMAN: Yeah.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Based on my
reading. Okay. So, that was one of my legal
questions. My second question has to do with the
granting of permits under the premise of an
adaptive reuse.
As I read the ordinance that pertains
to adaptive reuse, it basically allows for these
other uses in order to preserve a building in
danger of collapse or other threatening
conditions. And it is to help to compensate
potentially for the cost of the preservation
under adaptive reuse. That there is a
consideration of granting other permitted uses
for a property. Do I understand that correctly?
MR. RUDERMAN: I think the question
you're asking is how tight of a nexus do you need
between the rehabilitation of a structure and its
use as listed within the adaptive use.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Well, to an
extent I am. I mean I think that it's clear that
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 in 2018 when the adaptive reuse ordinance was
used to allow for example the lifestyle store and
for the parking credits that those were at that
time an appropriate application of that
ordinance. And my question to you has to do with
today.
At this point the building has been
rehabilitated, stabilized, it is not in danger of
collapse, and to my mind no longer —~ the
adaptive reuse provision no longer as it strictly
states applies to this building anymore.
In other words, the question I'm asking
is it too late to apply requests for non~
customary permitted uses under the adaptive reuse
regulation when one of the tenants of the
regulation of the ordinance is that the
building's in imminent danger of collapse or
danger to the public?
It's no longer that. And so, how would
any request made today apply under the adaptive
reuse? It's no longer a building that requires
adaptive reuse, I mean, or remediation I should
say. That's been completed. So, my question to
you is, is this too late?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MR. RUDERMAN: And my answer would be
the Commission needs to make the findings that
are listed in the ordinance in order to grant the
adaptive reuse permit. There is discretion
inherent within those findings and there could be
a reasonable difference of opinion regarding
whether or not those findings can be made.
But the only finding that specifically
says uses the word fallen into such level of
disrepair that economic benefits of adapted reuse
are necessary is the finding that's required only
for the vacation rental use. So, for other uses
I think that that terminology is not used in the
ordinance.
So, I'm sorry if I'm not giving you a
straightforward answer, but what I'm saying is
that the Commission has some discretion here and
those -— that discretion should be guided by the
findings that are required. And the findings
aren't necessarily as clean-cut I think as you
have described them.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, and that's
why I‘m asking these questions. Because I'm
trying to find out where we do have discretion
and where we're running afoul over the law. My
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]~299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 last question has to do with the lifestyle store
permit. I don't know what a lifestyle store is,
but let's set that aside.
There's many different lifestyles. My
question is this use was never affected. I don't
believe a business permit was ever issued for the
use. In other words, no one ever applied at City
Hall to create this business use, it was simply
something that was allowed under the original
2018 reuse provisions. Now, is there an
expiration on the permitting of a use that
remains unaffected for six years?
MR. RUDERMAN: Yes. I'm trying to find
-— here it is, I think it's 19.56 of the
development code speaks to time limits. So, the
Applicant has two years from permit approval to
exercise that permit.
And exercise means either the permittee
actually obtained a building permit and commenced
construction or has actually commenced the
permitted use on the subject property in
compliance with the conditions of approval. So,
in this case my understanding is that the permit
was obtained, that obviously the construction not
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
only commenced but concluded, and the permit was
final.
And so, under that first prong of the
time limit provision in 15, in 19.56.040, the ——
it's not required that you actually engage in the
use because they satisfied the first part of
that.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, thank you.
All right, are there others with questions for
our land use attorney? Mr. Barbose.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Well,
actually I had a question for Christina. If you
would put up the findings that he just ~— that
Mr. Ruderman just mentioned. In particular,
there seems to be a difference of the findings
that are required for the vacation rental as
opposed to the other adaptive reuse. So, I'd
like to be able to look at that.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
So, I think we can't do that and keep Mr.
Ruderman on the phone.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
But I
—— so, not the ——
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MR. RUDERMAN: You don't need to see me
for this. I think you can ~- ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Okay.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN: I
don't think we'll be able to hear you.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
All right, well, we can get them back.
.I.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: But you
have a nice —— ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, and I do have a little bit of clarifying
information. There was a question in 2018 what
the historic report said. So, in 2018 it was not
listed federally or state, it was of local
importance.
But also, a vacation rental wasn't
requested so that sixth finding didn't need to be
met for the project.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Oh, Okay.
.1.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
So, the finding —— so, we have the normal use
permit findings of approval and I'm assuming
we're talking about the adaptive reuse.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: This is not the
findings; this is your recommendatiOn.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Oh, sorry I didn't know that we had done that
yet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: It's
19.42.030.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, I got it, we're just having here, here.
Here, we go. So, the beginning of the finding is
important too. The Planning Commission shall
approve with or without conditions the adaptive
reuse of a historic structure only if all of the
following findings can be made.
The alteration or adaptive reuse would
the first is enhance, perpetuate, preserve,
protect, and restore those historic districts,
neighborhoods sites, structures, and zoning
districts which contribute to the aesthetic and
cultural benefit of the City.
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Kristina, is
this for the vacation rental or the wine tasting?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
This is all of them.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: So, I think
it was around specifically the language around
like the vacation ——
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Well,
that's number six.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, I wasn't sure if you wanted to go through
all of them or.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I wanted
to go through —— well, this is very helpful. I
mean I
—— maybe it was in my packet I hadn't ——
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
It's in the resolution.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yeah, all
right. I'll get it in the online.
.L
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Let's leave it up
though if we could.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yeah,
because this is really going to —— it should be
guiding our discussion about what we're thinking
about this.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
And number two stabilize and improve the economic
value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites
structures, and zoning districts. To preserve
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 diverse architectural design reflecting phases of
the City's history and encourage design Styles
and construction methods and materials that are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Four, promote and encourage continued
private ownership and utilization of structures
now so owned and used. Five, substantially
comply with the applicable Secretary of the
Interior standards and guidelines for the
treatment of historic properties as well as the
applicable requirements and guidelines of this
chapter.
So, all five of those were made for the
previous project and the Commission made those
five findings for the adaptive reuse permit in
2018. What was not addressed in 2018 because a
vacation rental was not proposed. The additional
—~ the following additional finding is required
for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation
rental.
Six states, restore and rehabilitate a
historic structure and or property excluding
second units which is listed or eligible for
listing on the State Register of Historic Places
that has fallen into such a level of disrepair
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are
necessary to stem further deterioration, correct
deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as
implemented in the conditions of project
approval.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
Thank you. And this is in our resolution?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Other
comments? Mr. Wirick.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I've got
a lot of comments and a lot of thoughts and a lot
of notes. Are we ready to dive into this
conversation?
COMMISSIONERSTEVE BARBOSE: That's
what we're here for.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: All
right. The Cooperage Building is awesome, it's
fantastic.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Talk into your
mic.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: The
Cooperage Building is awesome and it's fantastic
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 and all those great things. I don't —— I haven't
heard one person say anything negative tonight
about how that building has turned out, and I
think that's a testament to the professionals
involved and to the Applicant.
It contributes significant
significantly to the historic fabric of our town
and our rich architectural history. I hear that
,congratulations are in order too for Sonoma
League for historic preservation award from last
year, which is great. Kudos to all those
involved for that.
It's, you know, it's clear to me that
the Applicant pulled all the stops, and the cost
was really no object for this project and how
great for the building. While I appreciate the
significant efforts toward the historic
preservation, some of the uses requested are a
little troubling to me.
Aside from the implications around
neighborhood compatibility that we've heard
tonight from neighbors, the sticking point for me
in this whole thing is the ability of this body
to make the findings necessary to support
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
approving the use as a vacation rental
specifically.
In my reading of 19.42.030 which is the
—— Kristinaif you would throw that back up on
the screen, which outlines our —— or the findings
that we must make. It's six conditions here that
we have to meet or that we have to observe in
order to approve its use as a vacation rental.
Including the special finding in number six.
The essence of number six in my reading
is but for the approval of this as a vacation
rental as a means of infusing economic
feasibility that the historic structure would
fall into such a state of disrepair that it would
crumble and need to be demolished.
In fact, the actual language is the
economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary
to stem further deterioration. The prima facie
rationale reflected in the project's narrative
provided by the Applicant says that the uses are
being requested to one, add property value for
resale and two, to partially offset the cost,
high Cost of construction.
Which while true and transparent are
not supported by the development code as findings
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of approval. The fact set around this project as
a hole I don't think lends itself well to making
a finding of economic shortcoming or necessity as
the code says. And it's tantamount to an ex post
facto approval. I mean it's kind of outside the
normal SOP around how these things are granted.
I mean between September 2015 and
August of 2022 there were no less than 12
building permits issued for this location with
the last permit finale in November of 2024. In
addition to that the use permit that was granted
in May of 2018 did not as we've discussed did not
seek vacation rental and that coupled with the
scale of the project it's subsequently added
features, its amenities, its appointments, and
finishes all nice ~~ I'm just challenged in
finding that the use as a vacation rental is the
only thing standing between viability and
insolvency.
And I'm challenged too by the
retroactive application of the adaptive reuse
provision. And this is all notwithstanding the
fact that the May 2018 use permit expressly
disallowed the use of the site as a vacation
rental.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 And while you know we don't know the
specific rationale behind the Planning Commission
at the time expressly and maybe preemptively
stating that that would be a disallowed use, I
can conclude that the Planning Commission saw fit
to enshrine in those conditions that there's a
belief in the community that more vacation
rentals above that which were already
grandfathered in have a detrimental effect to
neighborhoods.
We've heard neighborhood concerns
around the application compatibility, noise,
parking availability, traffic congestion.
There's definitely consensus in the neighborhood
that that there are some things here of concern.
And that taken in concert with other factors I
think have the effect of casting doubt as to as
to general plan consistency too, which calls for
compatibility with neighborhood context.
I think for those reasons I would have
a hard time supporting an amendment to allow the
use as a vacation rental. I might be open to
discussing the merits of a wine tasting use
permit in this case, I'd like to hear what other
Commissioners have to say. You know, in my
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 opinion that doesn't diverge wholly from the
impacts of the existing approved use and that all
activities occur indoors and are governed by you
know a revocable permit that addresses nuisance
issues.
You know whether people are trying to
on caps or sipping wine I don't think that's —— I
think that's of limited consequence as it relates
to neighborhood impact. You know, as it stands
now there's no head counter or capacity limits
imposed by anything other than the fire code.
So, I don't think that the grant of a WTP is
outside the realm but would like to hear input
from the rest of the commission on this topic.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you,
Commissioner. Would —— Mr. Willers.
COMMISSIONER BILL WILLERS: Thank you,
Commissioner Wirick. I think you hit all of the
substantial points in this and very thoroughly.
And I want to stop —— start with the first
paragraph of section 19.42.030 which says the
adaptive reuse of historic structures within the
Historic Overlay District involving uses not
otherwise allowed through the base zone may be
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
allowed subject to the approval and conditional
use in compliance with the following ordinances.
In other words, while the finding says
the Planning Commission shall approve, first we
have to find the threshold of whether or not this
is an adaptive reuse. The way I look at this
permit is that it is a wholly separate use
permit, it is not an amendment to an original use
permit. The original use permit has been
effectuated, the building is built, the permit is
finalized, and it is a building.
It is now a use permit asking for an
intensification of use of a —— of an existing
structure and an existing use. And it is no
longer an adaptive reuse under the adaptive reuse
ordinance. I will not be able to make the
finding number six to allow for a vacation rental
given that context. And I think that the wine
tasting use permit is actually an encroachment
into a residential district that for the most
part our general plan does not support. So,
those are my comments.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Willers. Who'd like to go next? Matt, could you
turn off your mic?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Are you
kicking me off?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Mr. Barbose.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I would
agree with both of all the opinions expressed by
Mr. Wirick and Mr. Willers. I don't think that
this using the adaptive reuse is appropriate here
for the reasons Mr. Willers just mentioned. This
is really an application for a separate use
permit to allow things that weren't allowed
before. And it can't be justified because of the
adaptive reuse because the work has already been
done.
It —- the project is complete, it's
beautiful we all say that. It's gorgeous, but
it's not an adaptive reuse anymore, you've
already done that. We're done with adaptive
reuse that ship has sailed.
So, I am not going to vote in favor of
either the vacation rental or the wine tasting.
There is no way a wine tasting is going to right
the economic ship that is apparently necessary
even if were even talking adaptive reuse.
But given that it's a residential
neighborhood, I just I'm not going to approve a
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wine tasting in it and I'm definitely not
approving a vacation rental.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. MS.
O'Neill.
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: First of
all, thank you to the professionals and to the
McQuown's for the incredible job done on this
property. It's truly beautiful and I
think the
saving of the well was really a great decision
and I do want more of the public to have access
to this and be able to see this. I think it's a
very special property and I would like to see
more of the public be able to get in there and
see it.
Cost isn't our issue; we're the
Planning Commission and we have nothing to do
with the economic ability of any applicant. And
also, because we know the Applicants can sell the
property and we know in particular in this one
they are selling it so none of that is an issue
for us. So, I want to just put all that aside
and say I feel for them but it's just not our
issue.
I liked that historic photo that
Michael Ross showed with the live above work
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 below that was so cool. And I'd like to see it
continue live above, work below, not vacation
rental above but live above, work below. I would
like to see that.
I live next to a vacation rental, and I
know exactly how vacation rentals work and how
noisy they can be and especially with a pool.
And we're not looking for more vacation rentals
in the City of Sonoma, we are looking for more
housing. There's still the ability with this
property even with the current permit to do a 31—
day plus rental and that option still exists.
There's the ADU there and if the ADU is
going to be rented by somebody they really don't
want to be with a vacation rental as well. So, I
think that that's just a nonissue. I think that
the item six is the clincher. It's you know we
just we can't make those findings number six both
in the vacation rental and in the wine tasting
use permit.
And the wine tasting use permit it says
the property used will not adversely affect the
welfare of the area residents. These residents
supported you in 2018 and there —— the work was
done, and this work was completed in a fabulous
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 way, but that was because you had the
neighborhood support.
Neighborhood support is so critical,
and you definitely do not have neighborhood
support here now. So, I think that you really
just have to recognize that the neighbors did get
you to this point. If too much money was spent
and they went too far down the rabbit hole or the
artisan well hole, that's really great you guys
did a wonderful project and it will outlast all
of you, but it's not our place to save you
economically.
Caution to the neighbors, the
property's empty now somebody's going to move in
there you might have the noisiest neighbors with
a pool party every single day of the year. And
you're not going to have any control over that so
just keep in mind that you know with a vacation
rental at least you do have the ability to have
some regulations there. With ownership you're
not going to have any of those regulations so
caution.
Vacation rental, if this had come
forward and it was a dilapidated building, and we
could have looked at it that would be something I
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1endar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 think we would really have looked at. But what
we've seen even like with the Maysonnave Cottage
people have come together with proposals to put
together the Maysaonnave Cottage and make it a
short—term rental. It was the original vacation
rental in the City Of Sonoma, but nobody has been
able to find a way to develop it in such a way
that it was economically feasible.
If somebody then does the work and it's
not economically feasible and they come to us for
help, sorry we're not here to help you
economically we are just here to look at
planning, and building, and use permits. So,
that's not our position to help. I do think that
this property contributes massively to the
Historic Train District and I'm so glad it was
sold —— it was sold to the McQuown's and that
they did all this work. I really appreciate
that, but we just can't make the findings for
either a vacation rental or a wine tasting use
permit.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Yes.
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: I'll try to
be succinct because I pretty much agree with
everything that's been said. And I do want to
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 reiterate the incredible craftsmanship and the
dedication of the owners to reestablishing this
property. And also, to Kristina for the
extensive work you did and the you know the
options that you gave us to consider. So, I
really appreciate that.
But I would agree I mean while I
empathize with the owners, I mean I've owned an
old house and discovered crazy things that I had
to deal with, it really can't be part of our
decision. Especially when we heard in some of
the narrative that the building was yellow tagged
when it started.
So, there was an expectation that there
would be a lot of work that would need to be
done. I think the bottom line for me, and this
was a series of conflict for me to try to
resolve, was that you know the original building
was residential on top and commercial on the
bottom.
And the original permit asked for the
same. And in all honesty, those are revenue
streams. So, and what I heard tonight was the
wine taste, I'm paraphrasing, but the wine
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
tasting room was more of a branding it wasn't
necessarily going to bring a lot of revenue.
And so, really based on those things
and based on the fact that that we have met the
five aspects of approval, I too am not inclined
to support this amendment and really am more
supportive of the original permit from 2018.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMANeJENKINS:
Well, I don't know how much more I can add to the
eloquent comments from my colleagues, but I have
to say I concur with all of them. I did a lot of
—~ I spent a lot of time deliberating this and I
think Matt put it together quite well. What I
was really focused on going into this was
community, neighborhood compatibility.
I don't think that criteria has been
sufficiently met with this request and like my
colleagues I'm just simply not prepared to
approve it tonight. So, thank you and thanks to
the work of my colleagues. And I do too want to
acknowledge the spectacular work this is truly
beautiful project, a true community benefit, and
I do hope the public has the opportunity to see
it and thank you for that.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIRLARRY BARNETT: Thank you, all.
I'll wrap up. I'm not going to really add much
more to what's already been said, I concur with
all of it. When I proposed the vacation rental
'ordinance in 1999 it was because I could see that
there was a risk of Sonoma evolving into
neighborhoods without neighbors. And I didn't
want to see that happen and I still don't want to
see it happen.
When I see what's happened in the
county and the complaints and things that people
in the county have had to put up with as the
proliferation of vacation rentals has proceeded
there, then I'm ever more convinced that we
dodged a real bullet here in the town. And I'm
appreciative that I had the support of my fellow
council members in 1999 to prevent it from
happening.
This is an odd situation. This is a
project that for me falls in the category of
having started as a vanity project. It was going
to be a special project that frankly some very
wealthy people wanted to do because it was going
to be fun and interesting and exciting and be a
place to live in town.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 And it was not presented at the time to
be an investment with a projected return. It
was about something else and what we see as the
result, and I concur with everybody else when I
walk to the farmers market I cut through Casa
Grande parking lot and I take a look to the west
and I see the building and it presents the
profile that it always has I feel pleased and
proud of the effort that was done to keep the
integrity of that building on the street. And
with the others I agree it’s lovely.
Now, the issue now is that since the
plan is no longer for it to be a residence for
the owner and I want to say there's a line in the
findings that talk about encouraging private
ownership. I'm trying to find out what the
alternative to private ownership is. I mean a
corporation can own a piece of property and so
there's some wording there that we need to look
at that private ownership is a term without
reference.
You know what's happened now is it
basically this is an investment property and
unfortunately given the unintended expense and
cost, the owner will never rescue or get a return
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 l3
14 15'
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 on the investment. What I know of the owners of
the building is that this will not impact you
know what they have for breakfast tomorrow
morning.
They own Stone Edge Farm which is a
remarkable project of its own in terms of energy
and hydrogen generation and battery technologies
and as a micro grid. I've had a tour of that
property, it's an amazing place. And these are
really quite remarkable people who I think for
very good reasons decided to get involved with
this project and then for whatever probably Very
good reasons as well, changed their mind about
what they wanted to do.
So, where are we today? Now we have a
project for sale and someone's going to buy it
either to live there or as an investment
property. Now if it becomes a bed and breakfast
in a wine tasting room and that goes with the
land then it truly becomes an investment
property.
Because is it if it's a vacation rental
given the nature of the space, the beauty of the
work that was put into it, this is not going to
be $199 a night vacation rental this is going to
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 be a $10,000 a weekend vacation rental. So, it's
going to —— if it becomes an investment property
it changes everything. And I certainly think
that the implication of private ownership is not
that a property becomes an investment property.
I don't know what to make of that term
private ownership, but it implies to me owner
occupied. It, you know, at —— in its best
manifestation. So, with the rest of the
Commission at this point I cannot support the
requested uses and I'd like some guidance from
City staff as to what kind of motion we now bring
to the floor to resolve the issue for tonight.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: So, I believe based on what has been
discussed tonight that the motion will probably
be a recommendation that staff bring forward the
resolution for denial. With the findings in
regard to what I've written down is specific to
compatibility on the conditional use permit, the
wine tasting use permit, and then also on finding
number six under the adaptive reuse. That those
would be the findings for the specific to denial.
And I'll look closer, but those are the
ones I just quickly noted during the discussion.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 And then, the recommendation with that would be
that you would continue to a date certain being
May 16th that we would bring forward that item
again.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Would
someone like to incorporate the recommendations
of our Development Director into a motion? I
don't think you have to repeat it verbatim since
we have all this on the record. Who would like
to make the motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Okay, Mr.
Chair, I will make a motion to provide direction
to staff to return with the resolution denying
the amendment to the use permit and the wine
tasting permit incorporating the what Director
Gates has enumerated in her earlier soliloquy.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: IS there a
second?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS: I
second that.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. We
have a motion, roll call please, Madam.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Sorry I just wanted to make sure that we are
continuing to a date certain on May 16th.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I would
like to amend my motion to continue to a date
certain on May 16th.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: IS that
acceptable to the second?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS:
Yes, that's acceptable, thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right, now
we're ready for the roll call vote.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Barbose?
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner O'Gorman—Jenkins?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS:
Aye.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner O'Neill?
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Willers?
COMMISSIONER BILL WILLERS: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Wirick?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Yes.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Vice—Chair Dambach?
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: YeS.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Chair Barnett?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Aye.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN: The
motion passes.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Yep,
we'll take another five—minute break. We will
come back into session. I'm going to ask the
indulgence of the Commission to switch around a
few things on the agenda to give those who remain
in the audience the opportunity to get out of
here a little earlier.
So, what we're going to do is we're
going to close the public hearing portion and
then reopen it after we have received the
presentation of the general plan housing element
and the request for the interpretation of SMC
Section 1954.080, Items 51 and 52. And we're
actually going to put off the work program
discussion until-our subsequent meeting. So,
unless there's an objection to that.
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: You lost
me are you referring to 4.3?
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Sonya Ledanski Hyde, certify that the
foregoing transcript is a true and accurate
record of the proceedings.
Veritext Legal Solutions
330 Old Country Road
Suite 300
Mineola, NY 11501
Date: May 2, 2024
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calenda1‘—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:
19.42.030 Adaptive reuse.
The adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zone, may be allowed subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, in compliance with SMC 19.54.040 and as set forth below.
A. Eligible Structures. The following types of structures are eligible for adaptive reuse:
1. Officially Designated Structures. Those structures of officially designated historical significance as indicated by (a) listing with the State Office of Historic Preservation, or (b) listing as a locally significant historic resource, regardless of whether they are located within the historic overlay zone.
2. Structures with Potential Historical Value. In addition to officially designated structures, there are other structures that may have historical value because of their age (usually more than 50 years old), and their contribution to the overall historic character of the community due to their unique architectural scale and style, use of design details, form, materials, or proportion, as may be documented through listing on the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation’s inventory of historic structures. Such structures shall only be eligible for adaptive reuse if located within the historic overlay zone and shall not be eligible for consideration as a vacation rental.
B. Allowable Use. The following uses may be considered in an application for the adaptive reuse of a historic structure:
1. Residential Uses and Densities.
a. Allowable Residential Uses. Single- and multifamily dwellings and residential condominiums. b. Allowable Residential Densities. The allowable residential density within the historic overlay district may exceed the normally allowable density under the subject general plan designation and zoning district, subject to the approval of the planning commission.
2. Nonresidential Uses.
a. Bed and breakfast inns;
b. Hotels;
c. Limited retail;
d. Mixed use (residential over commercial) developments; e. Professional and service-oriented offices;
f. Restaurants (with or without outdoor dining facilities); and Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 1 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.1:
g. Vacation rentals (limited to structures listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places); and
h. Wine tasting facilities.
C. Retention of Residential Character, Scale, and Style. Adaptive reuse projects shall retain a residential character, scale, and style (e.g., off-street parking areas would be prohibited in the front and street side setbacks, new construction would have a residential appearance, signs would be limited, etc.). The guidelines set forth in SMC
19.42.040 shall be considered by the planning commission in applications for adaptive reuse.
D. Compliance with Parking Standards. The above-listed uses shall be provided with suitable parking, in compliance with Chapter 19.48 SMC (Parking and Loading Standards).
E. Findings and Decision. The planning commission shall approve, with or without conditions, the adaptive reuse of an historic structure only if all of the following findings can be made, in addition to those identified in SMC
19.54.040 (Use permits). The alteration or adaptive reuse would:
1. Enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore those historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts which contribute to the aesthetic and cultural benefit of the city;
2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts;
3. Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting phases of the city’s history, and encourage design styles and construction methods and materials that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood(s);
4. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures now so owned and used; and
5. Substantially comply with the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties as well as the applicable requirements and guidelines of this chapter.
The following additional finding is required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental:
6. Restore and rehabilitate a historic structure and/or property, excluding second units, which is listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places, that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as implemented in the conditions of project approval. (Ord. 03-2016 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 06-2013 § 2(A) (Exh. B), 2013; Ord. 06-2009 §§ 1 – 3, 2009; Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003. Formerly 19.42.020).
Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 2 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.1:
The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Sonoma Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.sonomacity.org
Hosted by General Code.
Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 3 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.1:
Agenda Item #8.1:
FINAL
City of Sonoma Planning Commission
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Use Permit for the Adaptive Reuse of the Cooperage &
Exception to the Covered Parking Requirement
301 First Street West
May 24, 2018
1. The buildings and use of the property shall be improved, upgraded, and operated in conformance with the project narrative and approved Use Permit Submittal Drawings prepared by RDC Architecture, dated May 24 2018, except as modified by these conditions and the following:
a. Commercial use of the ground floor of the Cooperage building shall be restricted to a limited retail use consisting of a lifestyle retail store that curates, displays, and sells unique or one-of-a-kind home furnishings, clothing, artwork, fabrics and similar products.
b. The hours of operation for the retail shop (i.e., business hours open to clients, customers, and/or the public) shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. six days a week.
c. The conventional kitchen within the employee breakroom at the back of the retail shop on the ground floor of the Cooperage shall be for the exclusive use of employees. No food shall be prepared in the breakroom or kitchen for public consumption.
d. Special events and live music shall be prohibited.
e. Further use of the property for short-term, vacation rental purposes shall be prohibited.
Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Department; Building Department; Fire Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit; Ongoing
2. All Building Department requirements shall be met, including applicable Building Code requirements related to seismically retrofitting the URM building, repairing/repointing mortar between stones comprising the Cooperage building, CALGreen standards, energy conservation, egress, exiting, the provision of automatic fire sprinkler systems, provision of bathroom facilities/fixtures, and ADA requirements (e.g., disabled access including at entrances, bathrooms, accessible paths of travel, etc.). Building permits shall be required.
Enforcement Responsibility: Building Department; Fire Department Timing: Prior to construction
3. All Fire Department requirements shall be met, including applicable requirements related to emergency access, the provision of automatic fire sprinkler systems, and water line/connections for fire service.
Enforcement Responsibility: Fire Department; City Engineer; Building Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit; Ongoing
4. If the building permit valuation for the project or other improvements to the property exceeds $40,000 within any two-year period, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for completing public frontage improvements such as the construction or reconstruction of any damaged or non-compliant sections of curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and/or structural street section along the First Street West frontage, as determined necessary by the City Engineer.
Enforcement Responsibility: City Engineer; Public Works Department; Building Department Timing: Prior to final inspection approval/occupancy
5. An encroachment permit from the City shall be required for any work within the public right of way on First Street West.
Enforcement Responsibility: City Engineer; Public Works Department; Building Department Timing: Prior to any work/construction within the public right of way Agenda Item #8.1:
6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Sanitation Section of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) as set forth in their memorandum dated April 30, 2018 (attached).
Enforcement Responsibility: Sanitation Section of Sonoma County PRMD; Sonoma County Water Agency; Building Dept.; Public Works Dept.
Timing: As set forth in the memorandum from PRMD dated 4/30/2018
7. A sewer clearance shall be provided to the City of Sonoma Building Department verifying that all applicable sewer fees have been paid prior to the issuance of any building permit. Note: Substantial fees may apply for new sewer connections and/or the use of additional ESDs from an existing sewer connection. The applicant is encouraged to check with the Sonoma County PRMD Sanitation Division immediately to determine whether such fees apply.
Enforcement Responsibility: Building Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit
8. The applicant/owner shall pay any required increased water fees applicable to the changes in use in accordance with the latest adopted rate schedule.
Enforcement Responsibility: Public Works Department; Water Operations Supervisor; City Engineer Timing: Prior to final occupancy
9. All applicable stormwater requirements shall be met and implemented on site prior to construction and/or final occupancy.
Enforcement Responsibility: Stormwater Coordinator; City Engineer Timing: Prior to construction and/or final occupancy as applicable
11. All new or resurfaced parking and/or drive areas shall be surfaced with an approved material as required by the Building Official and City Engineer.
Enforcement Responsibility: Building Department; City Engineer Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit; Prior to final occupancy
12. The project shall be subject to architectural review by the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission (DRHPC), encompassing elevation details, exterior colors and materials, and site details, including bicycle racks.
Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Department; DRHPC
Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit
13. The exterior work/modifications proposed for the Cooperage building and barn shall comply with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, including the recommendations set forth in the Historical Evaluation prepared by Julian Inman Architect as follows:
a. Re-pointing shall match the original tooling pattern of the stone mortar joints. Color of the mortar shall match the original mortar. Hardness of the replacement mortar shall not exceed that of the original mortar, or as necessary for structural stability. The mortar strength shall not exceed that of the stone. b. Replacement of any features shall match the original in material and finish. c. Cleaning of the stone shall be by the gentlest means possible.
Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Department; DRHPC; Building Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit; Throughout Construction
14. A landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be required, subject to the review and approval of the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission (DRHPC). The plan shall address new site landscaping (including planters/containers), hardscape improvements, and any fencing/walls. The landscape plan shall comply with the City of Sonoma’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and 19.40.060 (Landscape Standards).
Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Department; DRHPC
Timing: Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit
Agenda Item #8.1:
15. If new exterior lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be required, subject to the review and approval of the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission (DRHPC). All proposed exterior lighting for the buildings and/or site shall be indicated on the lighting plan and specifications for light fixtures shall be included. The lighting shall conform to the standards and guidelines set forth in Section 19.40.030 of the Development Code (Exterior Lighting). No light or glare shall be directed toward, or allowed to spill onto any offsite areas. All exterior light fixtures shall be shielded to avoid glare onto neighboring properties, and shall be the minimum necessary for site safety and security.
Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Department; DRHPC
Timing: Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit
16. The applicant shall be required to pay for all inspections prior to the acceptance of public improvements, or within 30 days of receipt of invoice; all plan checking fees at the time of the plan checks; and any other fees charged by the City of Sonoma, the Sonoma County Water Agency or other affected agencies with reviewing authority over this project.
Enforcement Responsibility: Public Works Department; Building Department; Affected Agencies Timing: Prior to the acceptance of public improvements, or plan check, or within 30 days of receipt of invoice, as specified above
Agenda Item #8.1:
G:\_Departments\Planning & Community Services\_Planning Comm\_Current Agenda\FirstW301-McQuown-Cooperage Adaptive Reuse\Sewer Cond_301 1st St W_Cooperage Bldg.doc Page 1 of 1
PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
SANITATION SECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rob Gjestland, City of Sonoma DATE: April 30, 2018
FROM: Keith Hanna FILE: Unknown
LOCATION: 301 1st Street West, Sonoma APN: 018-161-017
OWNER: Leslie McAQuown
ARCHITECT: RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc., Michael B. Ross Project description: The proposal involves the adaptive re-use of two existing structures to accommodate a retail shop with residential unit above, plus a detached ADU and storage area
1. Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) operates Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (District) under contract with District. References to District employees are understood to be Water Agency employees acting on behalf of District.
2. Applicant shall obtain a Sonoma County Water Agency Survey for Commercial/Industrial Wastewater Discharge Requirements from the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD), and shall submit the completed Survey, along with two (2) copies of the project site plan, floor plan and plumbing plan to the Engineering Division of PRMD.
If additional sewer pre-treatment, separate process and domestic wastewater lines, and/or monitoring facilities are required by the Sonoma County Water Agency per this Survey, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Survey prior to occupancy of the proposed retail shop. The issuance of building permits is contingent upon completion of the Survey.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a Sewer Disconnect Permit from the Sanitation Section of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) when obtaining a Building Demolition Permit for the existing structure. Disconnection of the existing structure from the sewer shall be inspected by the Engineering Division of PRMD to ensure that disconnection is conducted in compliance with Health and Safety Codes, and to preserve any sewer connection credit that may currently be assessed to the property.
4. If external sewer construction is proposed, the Applicant shall obtain a permit to construct sanitary sewer facilities prior to temporary occupancy, or occupancy of the proposed retail shop, residence, and detached ADU. The sewer design, and construction, shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Sanitations Code Ordinance. All sewer work shall be inspected and accepted by the County Inspector, before occupancy or temporary occupancy is approved for this project.
5. At the time of sewer permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide the Sanitation Section of the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) with data related to the floor area of the building, differentiating retail, office, residential, restaurant/wine bar/tasting room seating, etc., for the purpose of correctly calculating sewer use fees, as defined by Sonoma County Water Agency Sanitation Codes. Sewer use fees (including Connection and Annual Service fees) shall be paid prior to temporary occupancy, occupancy, and building permit final. No connection to sewer or temporary occupancy, or occupancy shall be allowed until the sewer use fees are paid.
6. Sewer Use Fees for sewer service shall be calculated at the prevailing Sewer Connection and Annual Sewer Service Charge rates in effect at the time of sewer permit issuance.
7. All Sewer Fees per Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Ordinances (latest revision) shall be paid to the Sanitation Section of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) prior to temporary occupancy, or occupancy of the proposed retail shop, residence, and detached ADU.
8. The Applicant shall pay to the Sonoma County, Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) for Planning Referral to Sanitation Section at the current rates in effect at the time of sewer permit application.
Agenda Item #8.1:
1 City of Sonoma
Memorandum
DATE: July 17, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Gates, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Item #8.1 Revised Staff Recommendation
Michael Woods, a representative for the Appellant, has requested a continuance of Item #8.1 to a date certain to allow time to “review new information and determine the effect, if any, it will have on our appeal.”
Staff recommends that City Council continue Item #8.1” Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP-24-1)” to the Regular Meeting of the City Council on September 4, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department Staff Contact
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Discussion, Consideration and Possible Actions Regarding Placing a City Sales Tax Measure on the November 5th, 2024, Ballot, Including:
1. A Resolution Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Submission to the Voters a Question Relating to a Transactions and Use Tax and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate ta General Municipal Election to be Held on November 5, 2024, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Election Code and Directing City Staff to Carry Out Related Actions; and
2. An Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 Governing the City’s Transactions and Use Tax, Subject to Approval by the Voters, of a One-Half Cent General Transactions and Use Tax
Summary
This agenda report includes discussion related to a potential Transaction and Use General Tax for the City of Sonoma to maintain existing services, while expanding in areas such as Parks and Recreation.
Included are the following sections:
1. Background
2. Current City of Sonoma Budget Information
3. Sales Tax Cap
4. Voter Polling Overview
5. Recommendation on Potential Ballot Measure
Background
On September 28, 2023, the Finance Committee received a presentation on potential revenue sources to address the desire to expand services including creation of a Parks and Recreation Department. On May 30, 2024, the City Council held a study session on the proposed FY2024/25 Annual Budget. During that meeting, staff presented a budget deficit that would limit any new programs or services without taking action to reduce costs or identify a new revenue source. On June 19th, 2024, the City Council adopted the FY 2024/25 budget with a $2.8M projected deficit, using unrestricted fund balance to pass a balanced budget. In adoption of the budget, one of the key actions was to bring a proposed revenue measure to the City Council for consideration in the November 2024 General Election. Based on previous conversations with the Finance Committee and evaluation of potential new revenue sources, a Transaction and Use General Tax Measure (generally referred as “Sales Tax” Measure) is being recommended for the November 5, 2024, election
Agenda Item #9.1:
Current City of Sonoma Budget Information
The FY2024/25 Budget was presented to the City Council on May 30th and June 19th, 2024.
During the presentations, staff provided details on the City’s General Fund revenues and projected increases that are used to support critical programs, projects and services. The four largest contributors to the General Fund total revenues are Property Tax at approximately 23%, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) at approximately 25%, Sales Tax at approximately 17% and a local ½ cent Sales Tax (Measure V) that generates approximately 11%. The City currently has General Fund revenue which is projected to grow at a relatively moderate rate, while costs for utilities, supplies, construction materials, specialized services, equipment, vehicles, and labor have outpaced the growth of revenues. In addition to the normal annual operating adjustments, the City is facing a variety of external factors that are projected to decrease revenue and increase costs, in the current and near term. These factors include, but are not limited to:
Increases to CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Payments; Downward trend in TOT and Sales Tax revenue receipts and projections; Increases to the City’s contracts with Police and Fire The following discussion on revenue impacts is excerpted from the City Manager’s Message for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget dated June 19, 2024, and included in the Council packet as part of the June 19th budget adoption.
CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability Payments
The City’s CalPERS Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) increased 41 percent, or $547,000 over the prior year due to poor investment earnings by CalPERS in 2022. The UAL represents the amount by which the City’s actuarial accrued pension liability exceeds the actuarial value of assets; or, in other words, the present value of benefits earned to date that are not covered by plan assets. The employer and employee make contributions into the CalPERS pension trust each year, over the course of an employee’s working life. That money is invested and earnings from these funds are reinvested. By the time the employee reaches retirement, the accumulated assets in the trust are available to pay benefits. The objective is to accumulate sufficient assets to pay the benefits over the remainder of the employee’s life. To meet this objective, a pension plan should receive contributions in accordance with an actuarially based funding policy. If investment returns fall below what is needed to maintain adequate funding, higher employer UAL contribution costs are required. Tumultuous global markets in FY 2021-22 played a role in CalPERS’ first investment loss since the global financial crisis of 2009. CalPERS target earnings rate of 6.8 percent fell short with a net return of -6.1 percent. Like most other CalPERS contracted agencies that carry a UAL, Sonoma is required to pay for that FY 2021-22 loss on an amortized basis beginning in FY 2024-25
Sales Tax and TOT Projections
The City’s top three revenue sources; including sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax; make up 75 percent of total General Fund revenue. A confluence of economic factors has resulted in flat General Fund revenue overall for FY 2024-25.
Sales tax (including Measure V local sales tax) makes up 28 percent of total General Fund revenue and is projected to decrease 3.4 percent from the prior year. Elevated inflation and interest rates led to a higher cost of goods resulting in consumers not spending as much as they had in the prior year. Following multiple years of post-pandemic tax growth assisted by federal tax policy and temporary workplace accommodations, consumers reassessed their economic conditions and limited Agenda Item #9.1:
purchases. Following the greater trend of consumers looking for value, fine dining eateries experienced lower receipts. Restaurants make up 25 percent of the City’s sales tax receipts (the largest segment of sales tax receipts). As consumers still desire to eat out and travel, they are making more cost-conscious decisions, resulting in slower growth. Sonoma’s receipts from October through December of 2023 were 7.9 percent below the fourth sales period in 2022. Excluding reporting aberrations, actual sales were down year-over-year in Sonoma across all industry categories. The fourth quarter is notably the highest sales tax generating quarter of the year and exhibited diminished year-over-year returns as consumers balanced higher prices and financing costs with essential household needs. Measure V, the voter approved transaction tax had negative collections with a drop of 4.0 percent.
Transient occupancy tax makes up 25 percent of the City’s General Fund revenue and is expected to decrease 8 percent from the prior year’s amended budget. This revenue total includes one percent of TOT that is transferred to the Housing Trust Fund. The decrease is the result of sluggish demand as more frugal travelers are opting for cheaper travel options. California’s monthly occupancy rate was down, the state’s average daily rate was flat, and the revenue per available room was down from the prior year. FY 2023-24 saw less hotel business, but years prior enjoyed incredible pent-up demand post-Covid and high rates. Hotels in general have brought rates down to stay competitive as travelers opted to go other places with less expensive options.
Police and Fire Contract Increases
The Sheriff’s contract is increasing 16%, or $873,000, due to administrative overhead increase for training, Insurance and Liability increase, and labor contract increase. The Fire District contract increased $234,000 to cover cost of living adjustments, insurance and workers compensation.
Sales Tax Cap
The current sales tax in the City of Sonoma is 9%, which is composed of the following taxes:
1. 7.25% statewide sales tax (including Bradley-Burns local sales tax);
2. 1.25% countywide transactions and use taxes; and
3. 0.5% City of Sonoma Measure V transactions and use tax.
In addition, in March 2024, voters approved Measure H, a countywide 0.5% sales tax to support fire services. Measure H will go into effect on October 1, 2024, raising the total sales tax in the City to 9.5%.
State law caps the amount of sales tax that local governments may levy. Currently, Sonoma County and any city within the County may impose sales taxes that do not exceed 10.25%, or 3% above the 7.25% statewide sales tax. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 7251.1, 7292.8.) The proposed
0.5% increase to the City’s local sales tax would not exceed this cap because it would result in a total sales tax of 10% in the City—0.25% less than the maximum.
In November 2024, Sonoma County voters, including those in the City, will also consider a 0.25% countywide tax titled the Sonoma Child Care and Children’s Health Initiative. Because the proposed 0.5% increase to the City’s local sales tax would still be 0.25% less than the 10.25% cap, both the proposed City sales tax increase and the Sonoma Child Care and Children’s Health Initiative could be adopted without exceeding the sales tax cap in the City of Sonoma.
Agenda Item #9.1:
Voter Polling Overview
A survey was conducted by EMC research between March 24 and April 7, 2024, of likely November 2024 voters in the City of Sonoma. The multimodal survey was conducted including telephone, email-to-web, and text-to-web survey. Live telephone surveys were conducted by trained, professional interviewers with landlines and mobile phones included in the survey. In addition, links to the online survey were sent via email and text. The Survey offered in English and Spanish and included 200 interviews in total. The overall margin of error was ±6.93 percentage points.
Key Survey Findings:
A majority of local voters are optimistic about the way things are going in Sonoma and rate the job the City is doing positively.
Voters recognize the City’s need for additional funding and most indicate it is worthwhile to increase taxes to maintain quality local services.
Support for a potential one-half percent sales tax exceeds the simple majority passage threshold in this poll.
Emergency response, public safety, and maintaining evacuation routes are top funding priorities for voters.
Additional information about accountability and the need for funding is helpful in conveying the benefits of a measure.
Proposed Ballot Language
Shall the City of Sonoma measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as public safety, prompt emergency response times/ safe evacuation routes; improving traffic safety for pedestrians; maintaining streets/ sidewalks; enhancing youth recreation and parks; and funding affordable housing programs, by adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $3,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits, public disclosure of all spending, and all funds staying local, be adopted? Recommendation on Potential Ballot Measure
The proposed resolution would accomplish the following: Call the election for the purpose of placing the Sales Tax measure on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election, designate the authors of the argument, direct the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis of the proposed measure, and authorize related actions.
Staff is recommending the City Council designate two members to author the argument in favor of the measure. Arguments must not exceed 300 words in length and must be accompanied by the printed name and signature of the author or authors submitting it. No more than five signatures will appear under each argument on the ballot pamphlet. If a timely argument against the measure is filed, the two designated members of City Council would also be authorized to file a rebuttal to the argument against the measure.
Additionally, the authors of the argument against the measure are authorized to file a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the measure, in accordance with Election Code §9285. Rebuttals may not exceed 250 words in length and must be submitted no later than ten days after the final filing date for submitting the primary arguments.
Agenda Item #9.1:
The City Clerk will provide public review of the arguments and impartial analysis for a period of ten calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for the submission of those materials.
In accordance with Election Code §9286(b), the City Clerk as the Elections Official sets the date by which ballot arguments must be received. To meet the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters’ deadline of August 16, 2024, if the City Council approves the recommended action, the deadlines for the above actions will be as follows:
* August 10, 2024, is ten days, which is the time set by the EC, however, since it is a Saturday, it will fall to the next business day.
The ordinance proposing the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the City Council and the tax must be approved by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the City voting in an election on the issue. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 7285.9.) Recommended Council Action
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions individually and by separate motion:
1. Adopt a Resolution Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Submission to the Voters a Question Relating to a Transactions and Use Tax and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate ta General Municipal Election to be Held on November 5, 2024, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Election Code; and
2. Designate two City Council Members to author the argument in favor of the measure and authorize them to file a rebuttal to any timely filed argument against the measure; and
3. Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 Governing the City’s Transactions and Use Tax, Subject to Approval by the Voters, of a One-Half Cent General Transactions and Use Tax
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
The City has a multi-year contract with the County to conduct our municipal elections. Funds have been included in the 2024/2025 budget for election expenses based on an estimate provided by the County in the amount of $65,000 for two council seats and one measure.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Agenda Item #9.1:
Exempt
Not Applicable
Action Requested
Attachments
2024 TUT Resolution Final
2024 TUT Ordinance Final
Agenda Item #9.1:
1 City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ________ - 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIA,
CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION
RELATING TO A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF
THE ELECTION CODE
WHEREAS, as authorized by state law, the City imposes a transactions and use tax, commonly known as a local sales tax, through Chapter 3.13 of the Sonoma Municipal Code (Rev. & Tax.
Code, § 7251 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, this tax is currently set at 0.5 percent; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to increase this tax to 1 percent to close budget deficits and expand the City’s services to its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further wishes to make other updates to Chapter 3.13 to reflect changes in state law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance implementing these amendments to Chapter 3.13 is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Ordinance”) and is incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance increases a general tax and, accordingly, it must be approved by a majority (50% plus 1) of the City’s voters (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 2(b); Rev. & Tax. Code, § 7285.9); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 5, 2024 (the “Election”); and WHEREAS, the City Council therefore wishes to submit the Ordinance to the voters at the Election (Elec. Code, § 9222); and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General municipal election be consolidated with the Statewide General election to be held on the same date and that within the city the precincts, polling places (voting centers) and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Sonoma canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
WHEREAS, the City has an agreement in place with the County of Sonoma to perform these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma as follows:
SECTION 1.
Agenda Item #9.1:
2 That pursuant to the requirements of section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a question pertaining to a Transactions and Use Tax.
SECTION 2.
The City Council hereby orders the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A to be submitted to the City’s voters at the Election, and it further orders the following question concerning the Ordinance to be placed on the ballot for the Election:
Shall the City of Sonoma measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as public safety, prompt
emergency response times/ safe evacuation routes;
improving traffic safety for pedestrians; maintaining streets/ sidewalks; enhancing youth recreation and parks; and
funding affordable housing programs, by adopting a ½
percent sales tax, providing about $3,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with
independent audits, public disclosure of all spending, and all funds staying local, be adopted?
YES
NO
SECTION 3.
That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is majority (50% + 1) of the votes cast.
SECTION 4.
The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the Ordinance by such deadline as the City Clerk may establish. (Elec. Code, § 9280.) SECTION 5.
The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of the Election in the time, form, and manner required by law. The Clerk is further directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and with the Sonoma County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters no later than 88 days before November 5, 2024.
SECTION 6.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate the necessary funds to pay for the City’s share of costs to place the Ordinance on the ballot for the Election.
SECTION 7.
The City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed, and directed to implement applicable procedures concerning arguments in favor of or against the Ordinance, including but not limited to Elections Code section 9280 et seq. The Clerk may work with the County elections official as necessary to complete this task.
Agenda Item #9.1:
3 Rebuttal arguments are hereby authorized. This authorization applies only to the Election and lapses when the Election’s results are certified. (Elec. Code, § 9285.) The City Council hereby authorizes Council Members _______ and ________ to prepare and file the argument in support of the Ordinance, and to prepare and file a rebuttal to any argument against the Ordinance. (Elec. Code, § 9282(b).)
SECTION 8.
That the county election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election.
SECTION 9.
That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.
SECTION 10.
The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines). The calling of a municipal election is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15378. Further, the general tax proposed by this Resolution is a government funding mechanism that does not “involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment,” and thus adopting this Resolution is not a project under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4).
SECTION 11.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 12.
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Council Meeting on this ___ day of July 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:
1 City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE # ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA
AMENDING SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.13,
GOVERNING THE CITY’S TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX, SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL BY THE VOTERS, OF A ONE-HALF CENT GENERAL
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
The People of the City of Sonoma, State of California, do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Title 3, Chapter 3.13 of the Sonoma Municipal Code, entitled “2012 Transactions and Use Tax,” is amended as stated below. Deletions are indicated by strikethroughs, and additions are indicated by underlines.
Chapter 3.13
2012 2024 Transactions and Use Tax
Sections:
3.13.010 Title.
3.13.020 Operative date.
3.13.030 Purpose.
3.13.040 Contract with state.
3.13.050 Transactions tax rate.
3.13.060 Place of sale.
3.13.070 Use tax rate.
3.13.080 Adoption of provisions of state law.
3.13.090 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes.
3.13.100 Permit not required.
3.13.110 Exemptions and exclusions.
3.13.120 Amendments.
3.13.130 Enjoining collection forbidden.
Agenda Item #9.1:
2 3.13.010 Title.
This chapter shall be known as the city of Sonoma transactions and use tax ordinance.
The city of Sonoma hereinafter shall be called “city.” This chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the city.
3.13.020 Operative date.
“Operative date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the date of such adoption being July 2, 2012.
3.13.030 Purpose.
This chapter is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the city to adopt this tax chapter which shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.
B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that incorporates provisions identical to those of the sales and use tax law of the state of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part
1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State sales and use taxes.
D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this chapter.
3.13.040 Contract with state.
Prior to the operative date, the city shall contract with the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax chapter; provided, that if the city shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the operative date, it shall Agenda Item #9.1:
3 nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.
3.13.050 Transactions tax rate.
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the city at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this chapter.
3.13.060 Place of sale.
For the purposes of this chapter, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
3.13.070 Use tax rate.
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the city of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this chapter for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
3.13.080 Adoption of provisions of state law.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as though fully set forth herein.
3.13.090 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes.
In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
A. Wherever the state of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this city shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:
Agenda Item #9.1:
4 1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;
2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this city or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this chapter.
3. In those sections, including but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the state of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the state under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; or
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.
4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. 1. The word “city” shall be substituted for the word “state” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this state” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.
2. “A retailer engaged in business in the District” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combines sales of tangible personal property in this state or for delivery in the state by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this section, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.
3.13.100 Permit not required.
If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this chapter.
3.13.110 Exemptions and exclusions.
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the state of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.
Agenda Item #9.1:
5 B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government.
2. Sales of property to be used outside the city which is shipped to a point outside the city, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this subsection, delivery to a point outside the city shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-city address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-city and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this chapter.
5. For the purposes of subsections (B)(3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this chapter the storage, use or other consumption in this city of tangible personal property:
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such Agenda Item #9.1:
6 aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter.
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this chapter.
5. For the purposes of subsections (C)(3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subsection (C)(7) of this section, a retailer engaged in business in the city shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the city or participates within the city in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the city or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the city under the authority of the retailer.
7. ”A retailer engaged in business in the city” shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the city.
D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for, a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.
3.13.120 Amendments.
All amendments subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 Agenda Item #9.1:
7 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this chapter; provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this chapter.
3.13.130 Enjoining collection forbidden.
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the state or the city, or against any officer of the state or the city, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this chapter, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.
SECTION 2.
If this Ordinance would otherwise cause the transactions and use tax in Chapter 3.13 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to exceed the limit provided in Revenue & Taxation Code § 7251.1, the City hereby invokes its authority under Revenue & Taxation Code § 7292.8 to impose a transactions and use tax exceeding that limit.
SECTION 3.
The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines). The general transactions and use tax this Ordinance adopts does not “involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment,” and thus it is not a project under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4).
SECTION 4.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5.
If at least a majority (50% plus 1) of City voters case votes in favor of this Ordinance in the election held on November 5, 2024, this Ordinance shall be considered adopted and may be executed below on the date that the vote is declared by the City Council.
Agenda Item #9.1:
8 SECTION 6.
As soon as practicable after this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Section 13, the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published according to law, transmit it to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
SECTION 7.
This Ordinance and Chapter 3.13 of the Sonoma Municipal Code may be amended or repealed by the City Council or the voters. However, as required by Article XIII C of the California Constitution, no amendment to this Ordinance or to Chapter 3.13 of the Sonoma Municipal Code may increase any tax rate above those hereby authorized unless such amendment is submitted to and approved by the voters.
SECTION 8.
The taxes imposed by this Ordinance are general taxes, the proceeds of which may be used for any lawful purpose of the City. They are not special taxes within the meaning of Article XIII C, § 1(d) of the California Constitution.
APPROVED:
________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
******
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the _________________, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:
9 Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
1 CITY OF SONOMA
GENERAL SALES TAX
MEASURE
FOR THE
NOVEMBER 5, 2024
ELECTION
July 17, 2024
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 1
2024/25
COUNCIL
GOALS
• HOUSING
• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/
REVENUE STEWARDSHIP • PARKS AND RECREATION/
COMMUNITY SERVICES • CLIMATE MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION
• ANNEXATION / UNIFICATION
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 2
1 2
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
2 SUMMARY OF 2024/25 BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Increased
Cost
• CalPERS Unfunded Liability Increase
• Public Safety (Police & Fire) Contract Increase
Decreased
Revenue
• Decrease in projected Sales Tax and TOT revenue
projections
Result
• Projected Structural Deficit, would not allow City to increase service levels and will impact existing
services
• FY24/25 Budget balanced utilizing General Fund
Reserves
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 3
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX TREND AND PROJECTION
$3.5 $3.1 $6.8 $6.4 $5.9 $6.0 $6.3 $6.4 $6.6 $6.8
-11.4%
120.5%
-5.7% -7.9%
2.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
140.0%
$-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
FY 19-20 Actual FY 20-21 Actual FY 21-22 Actual FY22-23 Actual FY 23-24 Projected FY 24-25 Projected FY 25-26 Projected FY 26-27 Projected FY 27-28 Projected FY 28-29 Projected Year Over Year % Change Tax Revenue $ Millions Transient Occpancy Tax
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PCT CHANGE
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 4
3 4
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
3 PROPERTY TAX TREND AND PROJECTION
$4.5 $4.5 $4.8 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.7 $5.9 $6.1 $6.4 0.0%
6.1%
8.9%
1.9%
4.0%
3.4% 3.6% 3.6%
3.7%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
$-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
FY 19-20 Actual FY 20-21 Actual FY 21-22 Actual FY22-23 Actual FY 23-24 Projected FY 24-25 Projected FY 25-26 Projected FY 26-27 Projected FY 27-28 Projected FY 28-29 Projected Year Over Year % Change Tax Revenue $ Millions Property Tax
PROPERTY TAXES PCT CHANGE
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 5
SALES TAX TREND AND PROJECTION $3.0 $3.2 $3.7 $3.9 $3.8 $3.8 $3.9 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 5.0%
16.7%
5.5%
-3.9%
2.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
$-
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
FY 19-20 Actual FY 20-21 Actual FY 21-22 Actual FY22-23 Actual FY 23-24 Projected FY 24-25 Projected FY 25-26 Projected FY 26-27 Projected FY 27-28 Projected FY 28-29 Projected Year Over Year % Change Tax Revenue $ Millions Sales and Use Tax
SALES AND USE TAX PCT CHANGE
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 6
5 6
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
4 Property
Tax
Sales
Tax
Measure V
Local Sales
Tax
$2.8M
(11%)
Ambulance
Billing
$2.3M
Franchise Tax
CITY OF SONOMA GENERAL FUND REVENUE
Where does the city get its money?
Transient
Occupancy Tax
$6.0M
(25%)
$5.5M
(23%)
$4.0M
(17%) (9%) Other
Revenues
$1.6M
(6%)
Fees & Other
Service Charges
$982K
(4%)
$643K (3%)
Business License Tax
$494K (2%)
Based on budgeted numbers, not actuals
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 7
$ 96,9107
$ 1,096,242
$ 2,722,041
$ 2,935,602
$ 3,487,221
$ 7,595,839
$ 7,936,241
Community Activities ***
Other **
Community Development
City Administrative
Departments *
Public Works
Police
Fire
* Includes City Council, City Clerk, City Managers Office, Finance, City Attorney ** Includes Successor Agency, Non-Departmental, Transfers to other funds *** Includes recreation and community programs and services by non-profit and partner groups GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES: $ 26,742,296
How are the budget dollars distributed? (FY 24/25)
Based on budgeted numbers, not actuals
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 8
7 8
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
5 GENERAL FUND FIVE-YEAR FISCAL FORECAST ($M)
$24.3
$25.1 $25.8 $26.5 $27.2
$27.1 $27.3 $28.1 $28.9
$29.8
$20.0
$21.0
$22.0
$23.0
$24.0
$25.0
$26.0
$27.0
$28.0
$29.0
$30.0
$31.0
2024/25
Proposed
Budget
2025/26
Projected
Budget
2026/27
Projected
Budget
2027/28
Projected
Budget
2028/29
Projected
Budget
Surplus Deficit Revenues Expenditures
$2.8M
$2.1M $2.2M
$2.3M
$2.5M
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 9
CITY OF SONOMA LOCAL SALES TAX
• At ½ cent, approximately $3M annually would be generated to support existing and expanded City services
• The general sales tax can protect and enhance investments for: • Parks and Recreation Department creation/expansion (per city council goal) • Youth and Senior recreation programs • Public Safety and emergency operations
• Community infrastructure including streets, waterways and parks (including the Plaza) • Housing and Homeless services
• Climate Initiatives
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 10 9 10
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
6 GENERAL SALES TAX MEASURE
• Sales Tax revenue would be available for all governmental purposes at discretion of City Council • Sales Tax is not applied to purchases considered essential such as housing, groceries, prescription medicines, utilities, personal services • Requires 50% + 1 voter approval, may only appear on Municipal General Election (in November of even numbered years) • Visitors pay a share to the community • Local sales tax will keep sales tax revenue in the City of Sonoma City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 11
CURRENT SALES TAX RATE & CAP
• The current sales tax in the City of Sonoma is 9%, which is composed of the following taxes:
1. 7.25% statewide sales tax (including Bradley-Burns local sales tax);
2. 1.25% countywide transactions and use “sales” taxes; and
3. 0.5% City of Sonoma Measure V transactions and use “sales” tax. • In addition, on March 2024, voters approved Measure H, a countywide 0.5% sales tax to support fire services. Measure H will go into effect on October 1, 2024, raising the total sales tax in the City to 9.5%. • State law caps the amount of sales tax to 10.25%, or 3% above the 7.25% statewide sales tax. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 7251.1, 7292.8.)
• The proposed 0.5% increase would not exceed this cap because it would result in a total sales tax of 10% in the City,
0.25% less than the maximum.
• In November 2024, Sonoma County voters, including those in the City, will also consider a 0.25% countywide tax titled the Sonoma Child Care and Children’s Health Initiative. Because the proposed 0.5% increase to the City’s local sales tax would still be 0.25% less than the 10.25% cap, both the proposed City sales tax increase and the Sonoma Child Care and Children’s Health Initiative could be adopted without exceeding the sale tax cap in the City of Sonoma.
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 12 11 12
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
7 POLLING RESULTS
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 13 Polling Methodology
• Conducted by EMC Research
• Survey of likely November 2024 voters in the City of Sonoma • Multimodal telephone, email-to-web, and text-to-web survey • Live telephone surveys conducted by trained, professional interviewers; landlines and mobile phones included
• Links to online survey sent via email and text • Survey offered in English and Spanish • Survey conducted March 24 – April 7, 2024
• 200 interviews; overall margin of error ±6.93 percentage points City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 14 13 14
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
8 Polling - Key Findings
• A majority of local voters are optimistic about the way things are going in Sonoma and rate the job the City is doing positively. • Voters recognize the City’s need for additional funding and most indicate it is worthwhile to increase taxes to maintain quality local services. • Support for a potential one-half percent sales tax exceeds the simple majority passage threshold in this poll. • Emergency response, public safety, and maintaining evacuation routes are top funding priorities for voters. • Additional information about accountability and the need for funding is helpful in conveying the benefits of a measure.
15 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure Polling Question: Right Direction/Wrong Track
Two-thirds of voters are optimistic about the direction of the City. 16 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 15 16
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
9 Polling Question - City of Sonoma Job Rating
Over half rate the City’s job performance positively.
17 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure Polling Question - Perceived Need for City Funding
Three-in-five agree that the City has at least some need for additional funding for city services, with one-in-five saying there is “great need.”
18 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 17 18
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
10 Polling Question - Tax Sentiment
Three-quarters agree that high-quality city services are worth raising taxes for. A majority also trust the City to manage tax dollars.
19 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure Polling Question - Vote Progression
Shall the City of Sonoma measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as repairing potholes; maintaining streets, sidewalks, public safety, and emergency response; enhancing youth and senior recreation programs, the Plaza, City parks and cemeteries; and providing affordable housing programs, by adopting a one-half percent sales tax, providing about $3,000,000 yearly for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits, public disclosure of all spending, and all funds staying local, be adopted? Support for a potential sales tax measure clears the passage threshold. 20 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 19 20
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
11 Polling Question - Key Voter Issues
Emergency response, public safety, and maintaining evacuation routes are top funding priorities for voters. 21 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure Polling Question - Key Voter Issues, Cont.
Most other priorities tested are also a priority for voters. 22 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 21 22
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
12 Polling Question - Informational Statements
Additional information about accountability and infrastructure benefits are helpful in conveying the benefits of a measure. 23 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure
RECOMMENDED BALLOT LANGUAGE
Shall the City of Sonoma measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as public safety, prompt emergency response times/ safe evacuation routes; improving traffic safety for pedestrians; maintaining streets/ sidewalks; enhancing youth recreation and parks; and funding affordable housing programs, by adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $3,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits, public disclosure of all spending, and all funds staying local, be adopted?
24 City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 23 24
Agenda Item #9.1:
7/17/2024
13 NEXT STEPS
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 25 Initial Arguments July 31, 2024
Attorney’s Impartial Analysis July 31, 2024
Rebuttal Arguments August 12, 2024
Public Review Period August 1 – August 12, 2024
• By resolution, call the election for the purpose of placing the Sales Tax measure on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election, designating the authors of the argument, directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis of the proposed measure, and authorizing related actions.
• Staff is recommending the City Council designate two members to author the argument in favor of the measure. If a timely argument against the measure is filed, the two designated members of City Council would also be authorized to file a rebuttal to the argument against the measure. • The City Clerk will provide public review of the arguments and impartial analysis for a period of ten calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for the submission of those materials. • In accordance with Election Code §9286(b), the City Clerk as the Elections Official sets the date by which ballot arguments must be received. In order to meet the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters’ deadline, August 16, 2024, if the City Council approves the recommended action, the deadlines for the above actions will be as follows:
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
City of Sonoma – City Council 2024 Sales Tax Measure 26 These actions should be considered individually by separate motion.
1. Adopt a Resolution Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Submission to the Voters a Question Relating to a Transactions and Use Tax and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate ta General Municipal Election to be Held on November 5, 2024, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Election Code and Directing City Staff to Carry Out Related Actions. 2. Designate two City Council Members to author the argument in favor of the measure and authorize them to file a rebuttal to any timely filed argument against the measure.
3. Introduce an ordinance amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 governing the City’s Transactions and Use tax, subject to approval by the voters, of a one-half cent general transactions and use tax and second a public hearing for the second reading and adoption.
25 26
Agenda Item #9.1: