Sonoma City Council
September 4, 2024

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 twoyear 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:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 04 Sep 2024
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
A Resolution Affirming Support of Farms, Ranches, and Agricultural Operations and Businesses in Sonoma County and Opposing Measure J
Summary
On August 21, 2023, the proponents of an ordinance filed, with the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters Office, a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition to phase out existing and prohibit future Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in most unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. That petition was verified by the Registrar then certified by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on April 16, 2024, and later modified on May 14, 2024, to appear on the ballot as Measure J of the November 5, 2024, Presidential General Election.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a CAFO as a “point source” for water discharge and as an agricultural operation where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. Per the EPA, CAFOs are also defined by size, animal concentration, and animal species in order to determine the category of CAFO as one of “large, medium, and small” operations, all of which trigger differing environmental mitigation requirements based on the operation’s size. As currently construed, CAFOs are regulated and permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. The EPA’s stated purpose for this regulation is to mitigate water contamination that would negatively impact water quality and fish populations ultimately for the purpose of protecting public health.

The draft text of Measure J takes the EPA’s definition of a CAFO and uses it to ban these types of operations in Sonoma County for the dual-stated purpose of environmental protection and— in line with the beliefs of the proponents of the measure—animal welfare. As written, Measure J would prohibit, outside of the county Coastal Zone, farms and other animal production operations that meet the definition of a CAFO as defined by federal regulations; would require phasing out existing CAFOs over three years; would authorize daily financial penalties for violations; and would require, among other things, the Agricultural Commissioner to create a job retraining program for CAFO workers.

The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (Ag + Open Space) has stated that seven of the eight active dairy operations in Sonoma County could be impacted by this proposed ordinance, and that conservation purposes will not be fully realized if agricultural production is no longer viable on these properties. In short, conservation efforts—which is considered another form of environmental protection—of these properties would be placed in an unknowable future, and these lands could be rezoned for the purpose of commercial projects in areas long intended to preserve the county’s farming legacy.

The Sonoma County Board of Economic Development, and the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Executive Summary on the subject, analyzed impacts of Measure J and showed that if passed it could result in a significant impact to the Sonoma Agenda Item #9.1:

County economy, referencing losses in agricultural products ($259 million), reductions in spending through the region ($38 million) in addition to a significant loss of labor income and employment. The findings of the report conclude that for every job lost from the livestock and poultry production sector in the county would then result in an additional job lost from the Sonoma County economy on the whole.

That type of job loss would result in, as stated by the County of Sonoma Human Services Department, estimated an additional $1.5 million necessary for their department for costs needed for job retraining of individuals who lost their job from such a measure, as well as an increased demand for CalFresh and Medi-Cal benefits to those impacted. In addition, the Sonoma County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures estimates an additional $1.6 million needed in county general fund support to run the program outlined in the language Measure J; as the measure, as written, provides no information or a funding source to accommodate these new regulations.

For all that is estimated within Sonoma County, analysis of broader economic to the food service, dairy, poultry, and food delivery industries throughout the North Bay and the greater Bay Area have yet to be fully explored.

Opposition to the Measure spans far and wide and includes municipalities, environmental associations, agricultural and farming associations, and even press, as well as associations outside the county. At this time, those groups include but are not limited to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the City of Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Press
Democrat’s Editorial Board, among many others.

With so much uncertainty and the litany of potential negative impacts to our economy and agricultural preservation, as well as budgetary concerns broadly to the county, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution officially opposing Measure J on the November 5, 2024, Presidential Ballot and affirming support of agricultural operations and related Business in Sonoma County.

Sonoma County District 2 Supervisor David Rabbitt will be available to answer questions at the meeting.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the resolution officially opposing Measure J on the November 5, 2024, Presidential Ballot and affirming support of agricultural operations and related Business in Sonoma County.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact from this action.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Agenda Item #9.1:

Exempt
Not Applicable
Action Requested
Attachments
City Council Resolution Opposing Measure J
Agenda Item #9.1:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION #______ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA OPPOSING MEASURE J AND

AFFIRMING SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND RELATED BUSINESSES IN

SONOMA COUNTY
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the proponents of an ordinance filed with the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters Office a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition of an ordinance to phase out existing and prohibit future Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in most unincorporated areas of Sonoma County; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Registrar of Voter s Office verified that sufficient signatures supported placing the Initiative, known as Measure J, on the ballot at the November 5, 2024, Presidential General Election; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors certified the results of the Registrar ' s examination on April 16, 2024, and modified ballot language on May 14, 2024, for Measure J to appear on the ballot of the November 5, 2024, Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, if approved by a majority of voters, Measure J would prohibit, outside of the Coastal Zone, farms and other animal production operations that meet the definition of a CAFO, as defined by federal regulations; require phase out of existing CAFOs over three years; authorize daily financial penalties for violations; and require, among other things, the Agricultural Commissioner to create a job retraining program for CAFO workers; and
WHEREAS, if approved by a majority of voters, the changes imposed by Measure J could force the permanent closure of 15 poultry and six diary operations in Sonoma County ; disrupt what amounts to 41 percent of California certified organic diaries and 13 percent of the nation' s organic milk; create gaps in the county' s open space; amount to estimated losses in agricultural products ($259 million) and in affiliated businesses ($121 million) , spending reduction through the region ($38 million), and the loss of one job in the Sonoma County economy for every job lost in the county' s livestock and poultry production sector. according to reports; and
WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the City of Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, and the boards/commissions of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Sonoma County Farm Trails, and Sonoma County Family Farmers Alliance, among others, have taken formal positions against the passing of Measure J.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma adopt a resolution opposing the passing of Measure J and affirming support of agricultural operations and related business in Sonoma County.

PASSED, RESOLVED, AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City of Sonoma City Council on this 4th day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 04 Sep 2024
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Granite Inc., for $163,250, Approve $16,325 (10%) in Contingency, and Approve a Project Budget of $189,599.41 for Urgent and Necessary Repairs to the Storm Drain System at the Intersection of Fifth Street East and East MacArthur Street Pursuant to Public Contracts Code 22050
Summary
In late March 2024, Public Works crews notice a sink hole starting to form in the asphalt roadway at the intersection of Fifth Street East and East MacArthur Street. Crews determined that there was a significant void under the asphalt concrete (AC), and that the existing AC had been bridging over this void. After preliminary investigative excavation was completed, it was determined that this void measured 9 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 3.5 feet deep. This void was determined to be caused by a severely degraded corrugated metal pipe (CMP), that had deteriorated in some locations throughout the intersection of Fifth Street East and East MacArthur Street. As a result of this deterioration, the stormwater passing through this section of the City's storm drain system had been flowing unconfined under the roadway, which washed out the roadway subgrade and created the void. Public Works staff placed two large steel plates over the void to allow vehicle traffic and pedestrians to cross safely.

Through April and May City staff worked to address this issue by conducting two additional exploratory operations to gather data and to further define the scope of work. The following was determined via field investigation:

1. The existing CMP on the east side of the intersection has undergone severe degradation and is no longer able to convey stormwater (reference attached detail).

2. The existing 15" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) on the north side of the intersection has significant gaps ad separation between joints under the road and is no longer able to convey stormwater (reference attached detail).

3. The existing 15" RCP on the west side of the intersection is completely blocked with dirt/silt and as such is not effective at conveying stormwater (reference attached detail).

4. The exact location of the transition from CMP to RCP on the south side of the intersection was located (reference attached detail).

5. Location of existing utilities in the area that may conflict with an RCP replacement project.

In June, Public Works staff worked with the City's on-call City Engineer (through GHD) on an engineered plan for this repair, and utilizing the existing Storm Drain Master Plan, determined that an in-kind replacement of the existing pipe size, and Class IV strength Reinforced Concrete Pipe would be adequate based on the pipe cover and traffic loading that the new pipe would be subject to. The replacement pipe is elliptical in shape due to the minimal clearances present between the roadway surface above and the 4" gas distribution line below. This RCP is not a shelf item and has been special ordered, received, and is currently being stored at the City corporation yard. Since the sinkhole was discovered and due to time constraints, Public Works has taken the approach that there was not enough time to complete a typical Design-Bid-Build Agenda Item #9.2:

scoped process for this project if the project is to be constructed in September 2024. As such, the focus of the work on the storm line repair has been to complete as many phases as possible of this project prior to the onset of rain. This project is now ready for immediate replacement and construction of the storm drain repair and pavement/ramp replacement.

In order to avoid further damage, such as a second sinkhole, or the widening of the current 9'x11' void, the work must be done prior to the onset of the rainy season. While vehicles are temporarily driving over traffic plates, wet weather or continued expansion of the sink hole will impede the safe and orderly flow of traffic through the intersection. This will result in unsafe conditions or a road closure. To avoid these situations immediate repairs are needed. Due to time constraints, and the unsafe conditions posed by subjecting the current conditions to the winter rains, the City cannot proceed with a typical design-bidbuild timeline, as it would with typical construction projects. If Public Works had opted to pursue a typical timeline of design-bid-build, this project would not be able to go to construction until Summer of 2025, after the winter rains and subsequent flows had subsided. Given the unexpected nature of discovering this sink hole, and the dangerous conditions that could arise if not addressed in a timely manner, this sink hole at this intersection poses a clear and imminent danger and requires immediate action to mitigate the existing conditions and prevent damage to essential public services.

Under Public Contract Code 20168 and 22050, the City Council may, upon a four fifths vote, declare that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property because of an emergency, and repair or replace a public facility, take directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to acquire contracts.

The City received a cost proposal from Granite Inc. for $163,250 to complete this project. This does not include the cost of the pipe, as the Public Works has already ordered and received the RCP. The City's on-call City Engineer provided an engineer's estimate, which was $163,760. This work includes demolition and removal of the existing asphalt, aggregate base, and compromised storm drain infrastructure; installation of approximately 77 linear feet of new storm drain (provided by the City); installation of a new storm drain manhole; and this also the installation of a new ADA ramp and repaving the roadway as part of the repairs.

This project is CEQA exempt under section 15260(a) of the CEQA guidelines because the emergency repair to this public facility is necessary to maintain services essential to the public.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Granite for $163,250, approve $16,325 in contingency, and approve an overall project budget of $189,599.41 for urgent and necessary repairs to the storm drain system at the intersection of Fifth Street East and East MacArthur Street pursuant to public contracts code 22050.

Alternative Actions
Decline emergency contract, direct staff to proceed with design-bid-build process, putting construction at Summer of 2025.

Financial Impact
Agenda Item #9.2:

The cost of the granite construction is $163,250. Staff asked GHD for an engineer's estimate, which showed $163,760. This was not a previously approved capital improvement project and will be funded through General Fund. An estimate of the total project costs is as follows:

Granite Construction Company Bid $163,250.00
10% Contingency $16,325.00
23"x14"x6' Class 4 Elliptical Pipe (& 1 stick 15"
RCP) $8,824.41
Geotechnical Engineer (as needed) $1,200.00
Total $189,599.41
In the event Council opts to pursue design-bid-build, the City will need to pursue additional design through an engineering design firm to produce 100% plans, specifications, and estimates to formally put the project out for bid, which staff estimate will add an additional $40,000 to this project.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution
Plan - Intersection of 5th Street East and East MacArthur Street Contract for Minor Public Works Project
Emergency Storm Drain Presentation
Agenda Item #9.2:

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2024

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GRANITE INC., FOR $163,250, APPROVE $16,325 (10%) IN CONTINGENCY, AND APPROVE A PROJECT BUDGET OF $189,599.41 FOR URGENT AND NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE INTERSECTION OF 5TH STREET EAST / EAST MACARTHUR STREET PURSUANT TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS CODE § 22050
WHEREAS, 5th Street East, classified as a local road, and East MacArthur Street, classified as a collector road, are within the jurisdiction of the City of Sonoma (“the City”) and the City is responsible for the traffic control, safety, and maintenance of these roads; and WHEREAS, on or about late March 2024, City crews noticed a sink hole developing in the roadway pavement at the intersection of 5th Street East and East MacArthur Street (the “Intersection”) and it was determined that a significant void was under the asphalt concrete (“AC”), and that the AC bridged a large void extending approximately 9’ x 11’; and WHEREAS, the City Public Works determined the apparent cause of the void is a deteriorated City storm drain pipe in the Intersection; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated a plan and the engineered plan for immediate replacement and construction of the storm drain and pavement, however, to avoid further damage to the Intersection, the repairs must be done before the winter rains; and WHEREAS, traffic has been diverted away from the sink hole over traffic plates, and wet weather or continued expansion of the sink hole will impede the safe and orderly flow of traffic, such that unsafe conditions exist and immediate repairs are needed to avoid danger to the public; and
WHEREAS, the repairs to the Intersection are within the definition of a “public project” as defined in Section 22002 of the California Public Contract Code (“PCC”), and a notice for bids to let contracts is required except in emergencies; and WHEREAS, under the PCC §§ 20168 and 22050, the City Council may, upon a four-fifths vote, declare that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property because of an emergency, and repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts; and
WHEREAS, the required repairs to the Road are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) under Section 15269, subdivision (a) of the CEQA Guidelines because the emergency repair to this public facility is necessary to maintain service essential to the public, health and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma finds, orders, and resolves as follows:

SECTION 1: The Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Agenda Item #9.2:

SECTION 2: The sink hole at the Intersection establishes a sudden and unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, or essential public services.

SECTION 3: The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record, which includes, but is not limited to:
a. Agenda reports prepared by the Public Works Director for the meeting on September 4, 2024.
b. Staff presentation at the meeting held on September 4, 2024, before the City Council. c. The City of Sonoma Municipal Code, and all other applicable regulations and codes. d. Public comments, both written and oral, received and/or submitted at or prior to the meeting.
e. All related documents received and/or submitted at or prior to the meeting.

SECTION 4: Substantial evidence exists that requires immediate action, such that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency.

SECTION 5: The public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, and property because of the emergency described in the Recitals.

SECTION 6: In light of the emergency, the City Manager, City Engineer, and/or Public Works Director may take all steps necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare including, without limitation, awarding contracts under PCC § 22050 and the Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.04.

SECTION 7: In compliance with applicable law, and to protect public, health, safety and welfare, the City Manager may execute emergency contracts, and the City Engineer and/or Public Works Director may take immediate emergency action to repair the Intersection and report these actions to the City Council at each regular meeting until the repairs are completed.

SECTION 8: City staff shall report to the City Council at its next regular meeting on the status of the repairs and the need for the authority herein.

SECTION 9: The City Council adopts this resolution by 4/5 vote as required by Public Contracts Code § 22050.

PASSED, RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of September 2024 by the City Council of the City of Sonoma by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.2:

Agenda Item #9.2:

1 CONTRACT FOR MINOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
This Contract for Minor Public Works Projects for by and between the City of Sonoma, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and (hereinafter "Contractor") is effective on the Effective Date identified on the signature page.

1. In consideration of the City’s obligations set forth herein, the Contractor shall furnish the tools, equipment, labor and material necessary to perform as set forth in Exhibit A and complete in a good and workmanlike manner, replacement of City’s existing water meters. The Contractor shall perform the Work in accordance with the terms of this Agreement (including Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference), and at the compensation rates and charges set forth on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit “A” consists of the Contractor’s original proposal and supplemental proposal and scope of work details, which are made a part of and together herewith constitute the contract.

2. The total sum of this “on-call” Contract shall not exceed ($ ) Dollars. It is understood and agreed that in accordance with California Public Contract Code §22300, the Contractor will be allowed to substitute securities for money withheld by City to insure performance under this Contract. In accordance with Public Contract Code §20104.50, City shall promptly review payment requests and if not suitable for payment, City shall no later than seven (7) days after receipt return the same with an explanation as to why the payment request is not possible. City shall make progress payments within thirty (30) days after receipt of an undisputed and properly executed request. Failure to comply with the time requirements shall subject City to certain interest charges.

3. The following shall govern the responsibilities and indemnification by Contractor:

A. City and each of its officers, employees, and agents including, shall not be liable or accountable in any manner for loss or damage that may happen to any part of the Work; loss or damage to materials or other things used or employed in performing the Work; injury, sickness, disease, emotional injury, or death of any person; or damage to property resulting from any cause whatsoever except their negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence, attributable to performance or character of the Work, and Contractor releases all of the foregoing persons and entities from any and all such claims.

B. To the furthest extent permitted by law (including without limitation California Civil Code Section 2782), Contractor shall assume defense of, release, and indemnify and hold harmless, City and each of its officers, employees, and agents (excluding agents who are design professionals), from claims, suits, actions, losses and liability of every kind, nature and description, including but not limited to claims, etc., and fines of regulatory agencies or relating to claims, etc., for copyright and/or infringement patent, and attorney’s fees and Contractor’s fees, directly or indirectly, from any cause whatsoever, directly or indirectly, arising out of, connected with, or resulting from performance of the Work, failure to perform the Work, or condition of the Work which is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of Contractor, Subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether it is caused in part by the negligence of City or by any person or entity required to be indemnified hereunder.

C. Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of Contractor, its Subcontractors of any tier, or the officers or agents of any of them.

D. To the furthest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, Civil Code Section 2782), the indemnities, releases of liability and limitations of liability, claims, procedures, and limitations of remedy expressed throughout Contract Documents shall apply even in the event of breach of contract, negligence (active or passive), fault or strict liability of the party(ies) indemnified, released, or limited in liability, and shall survive the termination, rescission, breach, abandonment, or completion of the Work or the terms of the Contract Documents.

E. The Contractor’s obligation to defend and indemnify shall not be excused because of the Contractor’s inability to evaluate liability or because the Contractor evaluates liability and determines that the Contractor is not liable to the claimant. The Contractor will respond within 30 days to the tender of any claim for defense and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended by the City If the Contractor fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and indemnity within 30 days, in addition to any other remedy authorized Agenda Item #9.2:

2 by law, so much of the money due the Contractor under and by virtue of the contract as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City, may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the claim or suit for damages or until the Contractor accepts or rejects the tender of defense, whichever occurs first.

F. The indemnities in the Contract Documents shall not apply to any indemnified party to the extent of its negligence or willful misconduct; nor shall they apply to City or other indemnified party to the extent of its active negligence.

4. This Contract shall not be assigned without the written approval of the City.

5. The Contractor shall have full care, custody and control of the project to completion and shall maintain the same in a safe and tidy condition. The Contractor shall at all times maintain proper facilities and provide safe access for inspection by City to all parts of the Work, and to the shops wherein the Work is in preparation. Where the specifications require Work to be specially tested or approved, it shall not be tested or covered up without timely notice to the City, or its representative, of its readiness for inspection, and without the approval thereof or consent thereto by the latter. Should any Work be covered up without such notice, approval or consent, it must, if required by the City, or its representative, be uncovered for examination at the Contractor's expense.

6. The Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions for the duration of the project including, but not limited to, the safety and health conditions on the Work site. This requirement shall apply continuously and shall not be limited to normal working hours. Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of law including the standards, rules, regulations and orders established by the California Division of Industrial Safety. Contractor shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably adequate to render the Work site safe and healthful. Contractor shall take all steps necessary to ensure that any hazardous condition is corrected promptly either by the Contractor or by assigning such responsibility to the appropriate subcontractor and ensuring that the corrections are completed. The City, design engineer, construction manager and the officers, agents or employees, shall not have control over or charge of or responsibility for construction or safety means, methods, techniques, procedures, as these are solely the responsibility of Contractor.

7. Should the City at any time during the progress of the Work request any alterations, deviations, additions or omissions from said Contract, specifications or plans, it shall be at liberty to do so, and the same shall in no way affect or make void the Contract, but will be added to or deducted from the amount of said contract price, as the case may be, by fair and reasonable valuation. The value of any such extra work or change shall be determined in one or more of the following ways:

A. By estimate and acceptance of a lump sum.

B. By unit price named in the contract or subsequently agreed upon.

C. By cost and percentage or by cost and a fixed fee.

8. Contractor shall obtain insurance acceptable to the City in a company or companies acceptable to the City. The required documentation of such insurance shall be furnished to the City at the time Contractor returns the executed contract. The Contractor shall not commence Work nor shall allow its employees or agents or anyone to commence Work until all insurance and properly executed endorsements required hereunder have been submitted and approved. The Contractor shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this Contract, the following policies of insurance with insurers (if other than the State Compensation Fund) with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, or its equivalent, against injury/death to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance hereunder by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors:

A. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

B. Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001), in an amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence. If Work involves explosives, underground or collapse risks, XCU must be included. If a general aggregate limit is used, either the general Agenda Item #9.2:

3 aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project or the general aggregate shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

C. Automobile Liability, with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 0692, Code 1, (any auto), in an amount of $1,000,000 per accident. Said policy shall contain or be endorsed with the provision that coverage shall not be canceled without 30 days prior written notice (10 days for non-payment of premium) to City by mail.

D. Prior to City's execution of Contract, Contractor shall provide properly executed Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements evidencing the insurance required herein, on an Acord 25.

E. The Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability caused by the work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance at least as broad as one of the following ISO ongoing operations Forms: CG 20 10 or CG 20 26 or CG 20 33 (not allowed from subcontractors), or CG 20 38; and one of the following ISO completed operations Forms: CG 20 37, 2039 (not allowed from subcontractors), or CG 20 40 F. For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

G. Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; In the event of any cancellation in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

H. Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. However, the Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Entity for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

I. Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

J. Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.

K. Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. In the event of a claim that gives rise to the Contractor’s insurance, The City Agenda Item #9.2:

4 reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

L. City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above for all policies required by this Agreement, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.

9. The term of this Agreement shall commence at 12:00 a.m. on November 1, 2023 (the “Commencement Date”) and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2025 (the “Termination Date”) unless extended by written agreement of the parties or terminated earlier. Contractor may request extensions of time to perform the services required hereunder. Such extensions shall be effective if authorized in advance by City in writing and incorporated in written amendments to this agreement.

10. The Contract shall be construed and interpreted according to California law; any action to enforce the terms of this Contract or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Sonoma.

11. Should the Contractor fail to complete this Contract with the time fixed for completion, due allowance being made for unavoidable delays, it shall become liable to City in the amount of $100 in Liquidated Damages per calendar day for each day said Work remains incomplete beyond the time for completion. If it appears to the Contractor that it will not complete the Work in the time agreed, it shall make written application to City at least ten (10) calendar days prior to expiration of the time for completion, stating the reasons why and the amount of extension it believes should be granted. The City may then, with discretion, grant, or deny such extension. Any money due or to become due to Contractor may be retained to cover the liquidated damages, and should such money not be sufficient to cover such damages, the City shall have the right to recover the balance from Contractor or its Sureties.

12. Contractor warrants to City that all materials and equipment furnished under this Contract will be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work will be of good quality free from faults and defects and in conformance with the contract documents. Neither final payment nor use or occupancy of the Work performed by the Contractor shall constitute an acceptance of Work not done in accordance with the Contract or relieve Contractor of liability in respect to any express warranties or responsibilities for faulty workmanship. Contractor shall remedy any defects in the Work and pay for any damage resulting from faulty workmanship which shall appear within the period of one (1) year from the date of final payment by the City for the Work. City will give notice of observed defects with reasonable promptness. All materials are covered by the manufacturer’s warranty only. With respect to the materials furnished hereunder, Contractor hereby disclaims all expressed or implied warranties, whether implied by operation of law of otherwise, including, without limitation, all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness or fitness for a particular purpose.

13. By execution of this Contract, Contractor warrants that it has carefully examined the site of the Work contemplated and any plans and specifications and contract documents pertaining to the Work and has satisfied itself of all local conditions affecting the Work and delivery of materials; City specifically disclaims any warranties for information provided to Contractor. It is the obligation of Contractor to notify City of any and all ambiguities, conflicts, etc., in and among such plans, specifications and/or documents.

14. Contractor shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the Contract and shall keep the Work under its control at all times. No subcontractor will be recognized as such, and all persons engaged in the Work will be considered as employees of Contractor, and it will be held responsible for the Work which shall be subject to the provisions of the Contract and specifications, if any.

15. Whenever, in the opinion of the City, the Contractor is neglecting the Work or is not prosecuting the same with diligence or is not fulfilling the provisions of the Contract and specifications, the Work, wholly or in part, may be suspended by written order of the City. If the Contractor, within five (5) days after the date of receipt of such a written order, does not agree to provide the required remedies for such deficiencies, the City may declare this Contract terminated and itself proceed to complete the Work herein specified or engage others to do the same.

The cost of such Work and necessary materials shall be charged against the Contractor and be deducted from Agenda Item #9.2:

5 next or subsequent estimate payment for same. If payments to Contractor are not sufficient to cover the charges, the balance may be recovered from the Contractor or its Sureties. If City declares the Contract terminated pursuant to this paragraph and the amount of any such charges is less than the amount which would have been due to Contractor upon completion of the Work by it, the difference shall be paid it by City; should the amount of said charges exceed the latter, the difference shall be paid by Contractor to City.

16. In the event City declares this Contract terminated pursuant to the previous paragraph, Contractor shall discontinue Work, and City reserves the further right to take possession of and use any materials or equipment of any nature whatsoever belonging to or used by the Contractor on the Work. All expenses charged under this paragraph shall be deducted and paid by City out of any monies due Contractor under the Contract, and in such accounting City shall not be held to obtain the lowest figure for completing the Contract, but all sums actually paid therefore shall be charged to the Contractor.

17. Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, including, but not limited to, a City of Sonoma business license, pay all charges and fees and give all notices necessary and incident to the lawful prosecution of the Work and comply with all conditions of any permit, license or authorization allowed. Contractor shall ensure that each subcontractor has all required permits and licenses (including, but not limited to, a City of Sonoma business license), given all required notices and complies with all conditions of any permit, license or authority.

18. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7103.5, Contractor assigns to City all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act or under the Cartwright Act arising from purchases of goods, services or materials for this Contract. This assignment shall be made and effective at final payment without further acknowledgment by the parties.

19. Contractor shall not be entitled to the payment of any additional compensation for any act, or failure to act, by the City, including failure or refusal to issue a change order, or for the happening of any event, thing, occurrence, or other cause, unless he/she shall have given the City due written notice of potential claim.

The written notice of potential claim shall set forth the reasons for which the Contractor believes additional compensation will or may be due, the nature of the costs involved, and insofar as possible, the amount of the potential claim. The said notice as above required must have been given to the City prior to the time that the Contractor shall have performed the Work giving rise to the potential claim for additional compensation if based on an act, or failure to act, by the City, or in all other cases within fifteen (15) days after the happening of the event, thing, occurrence, or other cause giving rise to the potential claim.

20. In the event the Work requires Contractor to dig trenches or other excavations deeper than four (4) feet below the surface, Contractor shall promptly, and before the following conditions are disturbed, notify the public entity, in writing, of any:

A. Material that the Contractor believes may be material that is hazardous waste, as defined in §25117 of the Health & Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site in accordance with provisions of existing law.

B. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated.

C. Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in Work of the character provided for in this Contract.

D. City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially so differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the Work shall issue a change order under the procedures described in this Contract.

In the event that a dispute arises between City and Contractor, whether the conditions materially differ or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the Work, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by the contract but shall proceed with all Work to be performed under this Contract. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the contracting parties.

Agenda Item #9.2:

6 21. Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local law including, but not limited to, the following requirements of the California Labor Code:

A. City has obtained from the Director of the State Department of Industrial Relations the general prevailing rate of wages and employer payments for health and welfare, vacation, pension and similar purposes in the county in which said work is to be performed for each craft and type of workman or mechanic needed to execute this Contract. These prevailing rates are on file in the City's office and will be made available to any interested party upon request. The Contractor shall post a copy of said prevailing rates at the job site.

Pursuant to Sections 1770, et seq., the Contractor and all subcontractors under him shall pay not less than the prevailing wage rate. The Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, such laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, such laborer, workman, or mechanic who is paid less than the prevailing wage rate for any Work done under this Contract by him, or by any subcontractor under him.

B. Pursuant to Sections 1810, et seq., eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work upon all Work done hereunder, and it is expressly stipulated that no workman employed at any time by the Contractor, or by any subcontractor or subcontractors under this Contract, upon the Work or upon any part of the Work contemplated by this Contract, shall be required or permitted to work thereon more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week, except as provided in Section 1815; all the provisions whereof are deemed to be incorporated herein, and it is further expressly stipulated that for each and every violation of said last named stipulation, said Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City, Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for each workman employed in the execution of this Contract, or by any subcontractor under this Contract, for each calendar day during which said workman is required to labor more than either (8) hours in violation of the provisions of said sections of the Labor Code.

C. Contractor shall comply with Section 1776 relating to certified copies of payroll records including the maintenance of these records and their certification and availability for inspection.

D. Contractor agrees to comply with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 regarding employment of apprentices. The responsibility for compliance with these provisions if fixed with the prime contractor for all occupations.

E. In the event the Work involves the excavation of any trench(es) five (5) feet or more in depth, Contractor shall submit a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench(es) in accordance with Section 6705.

F. Pursuant to requirements under the California Labor Code, Contractor hereby acknowledges its affirmative obligations related to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) compliance and enforcement efforts with respect to prevailing wage requirements on public works projects. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1 (a)]. Contractors and Subcontractors may register with the DIR at https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/PWCR/ActionServlet?action=displayPWCRegistrationForm. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project unless registered with DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.

This construction of the improvements under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

22. In the event that any scope of work requested by the City to the Contractor may exceed a total amount of $25,000.00, Contractor must then obtain the following bonds: a Performance Bond in the amount of 100% of the estimated contract task price and a Payment “Labor and Materials” Bond in the amount of 100% of the estimated contract task price, which shall be duly executed by Contractor as Principal and an admitted surety company as Surety prior to City's execution of this Contract. In conjunction with submittal of the bonds, the Contractor shall furnish the original, or a certified copy, of the unrevoked appurtenant Power of Attorney or other instrument authorizing the person who executed the bonds to do so and a certificate from the Clerk of Sonoma County that the certificate of authority of the surety has not been surrendered, revoked, canceled, annulled or suspended.

Agenda Item #9.2:

7 23. Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition), creed, national origin, color, disability as defined by law, disabled veteran status, Vietnam veteran status, religion, age (40 and above), medical condition (cancer-related), marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, or any other unlawful basis. Employment actions to which this provision applies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, and selection for training. Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

24. This contract is further subject to the provisions of Article 1.5 (commencing at Section 20104) of Division 2, Part 3 of the California Public Contract Code regarding the resolution of public works claims of less than $375,000. Article 1.5 mandates certain procedures for the filing of claims and supporting documentation by the contractor, for the response to such claims by the contracting public City, for a mandatory meet and confer conference upon the request of the contractor, for mandatory nonbinding mediation in the event litigation is commenced, and for mandatory judicial arbitration upon the failure to resolve the dispute through mediation. This contract hereby incorporates the provisions of Article 1.5 as though fully set forth herein.

25. This Agreement is subject to Government Code Section 84308, as amended by SB 1439. Contractor shall disclose any contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) made within the preceding 12 months by the party or the party’s agent. Contractor shall provide a signed copy of the attached Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form to the City prior to, or concurrent with, the Contractor’s execution of this Agreement.

26. Under no circumstances shall Contractor or its employees look to the City as an employer. Contractor shall not be entitled to any benefits. City makes no representation as to the effect of this independent contractor relationship on Contractor’s previously earned California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) retirement benefits, if any, and Contractor specifically assumes the responsibility for making such a determination.

Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation, and other applicable federal and state taxes.

27. In the event that Contractor or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Contractor providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or CalPERS to be eligible for enrollment in CalPERS as an employee of the City, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for CalPERS benefits on behalf of Contractor or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

28. Contractor shall maintain all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Contractor under this Agreement. All such documents shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City.

In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds ten thousand dollars, all such documents and this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement.

29. Compliance with Laws.

A. General. Contractor shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations. Contractor represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Contractor to practice its profession. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice its profession. City is not responsible or liable for Contractor’s failure to comply with any or all of the requirements contained in this paragraph or in this Agreement.

Agenda Item #9.2:

8 B. Workers’ Compensation. Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing performance of this Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.

C. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Contractor certifies that it is aware of and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6401.7, which requires every employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.

D. City’s Living Wage Ordinance. Unless otherwise exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, this contract is subject to the applicable provisions of the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) of the City as amended from time to time and can be found at https://www.sonomacity.org/living-wage-law/ and is incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement.
(1) The Contractor assures payment of a minimum wage rate to employees as defined in the LWO and as may be adjusted each July 1 and provision of benefits as defined in the LWO. (2) The Contractor, whether an employer, as defined in the LWO, or any other person employing individuals, shall not discharge, reduce in compensation, or otherwise discriminate against any employee for complaining to the City with regard to the employer’s compliance or anticipated compliance with the LWO.
(3) Any Subcontract entered into by the Contractor relating to this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the LWO.
(4) The Contractor shall, immediately upon execution of Contract, provide notification to all affected employees of the wage required to be paid pursuant to the LWO. (5) The Contractor shall provide, upon demand by City, documents and information verifying compliance with the requirements of the LWO.
(6) The City shall have the authority, under appropriate circumstances, to terminate this contract and otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available if the City determines that the subject Contractor has violated provisions of the LWO.

E. Business Licenses. Except as otherwise allowed by City in its sole discretion, Contractor and all subcontractors shall have acquired, at Contractor’s expense, a business license from the City in accordance with Chapter 5.04 of the Sonoma Municipal Code, prior to City’s issuance of an authorization to proceed with the Services. Such license(s) shall be kept valid throughout the term of this Agreement. City may withhold compensation from Contractor until such time as Contractor complies with this section.

F. City Not Responsible. The City is not responsible or liable for Contractor’s failure to comply with any and all of said requirements.

G. Completion of the Work shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of the City of Sonoma Standard Plans and State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications 2018.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
Agenda Item #9.2:

9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed the day and year first above written.

Contractor City of Sonoma
By: By:

Name: David Guhin
Date: Date:

City Manager
Agenda Item #9.2:

EXHIBIT A

CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL SUPPLEMENT
Agenda Item #9.2:

WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. If any class of employees engaged in work under this contract at the site of the Project is not protected under any Worker’s Compensation law, Contractor shall provide and shall cause each subcontractor to provide adequate insurance for the protection of employees not otherwise protected.

Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any damage resulting from failure of either Contractor or any subcontractor to take out or maintain such insurance.

Date:

Signature
Printed Name
Title
Agenda Item #9.2:

CAMPAIGNCONTRIBUTIONDIS

CLOSUREPROVISIONS
Cities are subject to the campaign disclosure
provisions detailed in Government Code Section
84308.

Please carefully read the following information to
determine if the provisions apply to you. If you
determine that the provisions are applicable, the
Campaign Disclosure Form must be completed and
returned to the City of Sonoma (City)with your
application.

No City councilmember or commissioner shall accept,
solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party1 or agent2 for 12 months subsequent to the
date a final decision is rendered by the City. This
prohibition commences when your application has
been filed, or the proceeding is otherwise initiated.

A party to a City proceeding shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution of more than $250
made to any councilmember or commissioner by the
party, or agent, during the preceding 12 months. No
party to a City proceeding, or agent, shall make a
contribution to a councilmember or commissioner during
the proceeding and for 12 months following the date a
final decision is rendered by the City.

Prior to rendering a decision on a City proceeding, any councilmember or commissioner who received
contribution of more than $250 within the preceding 12
months from any party, or agent, to a proceeding shall
disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding, and shall be disqualified from participating in the
proceeding. However, if any councilmember or
commissioner receives a contribution that otherwise
would require disqualification, and returns the
contribution within 30 days of knowing about the
contribution and the relevant proceeding, that
councilmember or commissioner shall be permitted to
participate in the proceeding.
1 “Party” is defined as any person who files an
application
for, or is the subject of, a proceeding.
2 “Agent” is defined as a person who represents a
party
To determine whether a campaign contribution of more than $250 has been made by you or your agent to a councilmember or commissioner within the preceding 12 months, all contributions made by you or your agent during that period must be aggregated.

Names of current City councilmembers and commissioners are available on the City’s website. If you have questions about Government Code Section 84308, FPPC regulations, or the Campaign Disclosure Form, please contact the City Clerk.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

DISCLOSURE FORM
(a) Document:
□ License
□ Lease
□ Permit
□ Franchise
□ Other Contract
□ Other Entitlement
Name and address of any party, or agent, who has contributed more than $250 to any councilmember or commissioner within the preceding 12 months:

1. 2.

3. (b) Date and amount of contribution:

Date Amount $
Date Amount $
(c) Name of councilmember or commissioner to whom
contribution was made:

1. 2.

3. (d) I certify that the above information is provided to the best of my knowledge.

Agenda Item #9.2:

8/29/2024
1 CITY OF SONOMA
5TH STREET EAST AND EAST

MAC ARTHUR STREET

EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN

SYSTEM REPAIR
September 04, 2024
City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sink Hole at Fifth Street East and East
MacArthur Street • In late March 2024, Public Works crews noticed a sink hole starting to form in the asphalt
roadway at the intersection of Fifth Street East
and East MacArthur Street • Upon further investigation crews determined a void approximately 9’x11’x3.5’deep under the
eastbound lane of traffic. Further excavation
determined the existing Corrugated Metal Pipe
(CMP) was severely deteriorated and unable to
convey stormwater through the intersection
City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024
1 2
Agenda Item #9.2:

8/29/2024
2 STEPS TAKEN TO DATE
• Steps taken April – July to address this problem immediately:
• Exploratory operations to gather data to define scope of work and collect the key critical data necessary to complete the work.
• Worked with City Engineer (GHD) to complete a basic engineered plan for the storm line repair and future connection to the remainder of the storm system at the intersection.

Remaining storm lines in the intersection will require additional work in the future. • Located all known utilities in the area and determined conflicting activities for the construction project. Identified clearance to the PG&E gas line is less than 1’ and coordinated a construction variance with PG&E.
• Procured special order elliptical Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) to replace existing CMP. Also received 15” circular RCP for future connection. • Received cost proposal from Granite, Inc. to complete project. • Received engineer’s construction cost estimate from GHD, Inc.

City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024
CONDITIONS MET FOR EMERGENCY • This was a previously unknown condition, and not budgeted within the operations or capital improvement budget during the budget cycle. • Risk to public services, health, and safety if sink hole widens during 24-25 rainy season • Requires immediate action to address this prior to the onset of the winter rains. • Per California Public Contract Code 20168 and 22050, the City Council can (with 4/5ths vote) declare that public interest and necessity demand immediate expenditure of public money because of an emergency.

City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024 4
3 4
Agenda Item #9.2:

8/29/2024
3 PROJECT BUDGET
• Granite Construction contract $163,250.00
• 10% Contingency $16,325.00
• Cost of Pipe $8,824.41
• Geotechnical Engineer $1,200.00
Total Budget $189,599.41
City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024

RECOMMENDATION
• Recommended Approach: Approve emergency contract with a 4/5ths vote with Construction work commencing early September and concluding mid-late September. This time line will allow for repair prior to raining season. • Alternative Approach Reviewed: Pursue a typical design-bid-build project. This approach would add approximately $40K to the project for design documents and specifications, and the project would not start until 2025. This approach would also require protection of the site during the rainy season to prevent any further damage.

City of Sonoma – Budget Study Session May 30, 2023 6
5 6
Agenda Item #9.2:

8/29/2024
4 Questions?
City of Sonoma – City Council Meeting 09/04/2024
7 Agenda Item #9.2: