Agenda — Sonoma City Council, October 21, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

City Council:

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

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers, 177 First Street West
Monday, October 21, 2024
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131
6:00 PM Regular Meeting

ACCESSING PUBLIC MEETINGS
As a public service to the community, City Council meetings are held in-person, and viewable through a live webcast on the City’s CivicWeb Portal at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/Video.aspx, City of Sonoma YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChZjUrg2rNLYxTgQHhFy-Tg, and televised on Comcast Cable Channel 27. Members of the public can also view the meeting via ZOOM, at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131.

If a technical issue arises with Zoom video or the listening phone dial-in option, the City Council meeting will continue unless a Council Member is participating remotely pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449.

Members of the public who wish to address the Council by providing public comments during the meeting may do so in-person in the Council Chambers at 177 First Street West, where the meeting is being publicly held. As an alternative, members of the public may also provide written public comment submitted via the City’s online Public Comment form at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/CitizenEngagement.aspx or by email to:
[email protected]
PROCESS FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: There will be two opportunities for members of the public to address items not appearing on the agenda. The early public comment period, Agenda Item 1, will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during this time will be allowed to make their comments under the later public comment, Agenda Item 10.

When the Mayor announces these agenda items, please form a line to speak.

In the event a Council Member participates remotely for just cause or an emergency circumstance under Assembly Bill 2449, the City will allow for public comment through the Zoom link.

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

Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and watches while the meeting is in session.

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

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

Page 1 of 199 ends

Page
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

1. PRESENTATIONS

1.1: Proclamation Designating the Month of October 2024 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the City of Sonoma
Proclamation
5 2. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
At this this time members of the public may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. This public comment period will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes.

Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during this time will be allowed to make public comment under Agenda Item 10 - SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT. Please form a line to speak.

Under State Law, unless otherwise permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the merits of the matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. Please begin by stating your name.

3. MEETING DEDICATIONS

4. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Committee Reports - Council Members are appointed to various boards and committees - local, county-wide and regional. Any updates from a council member will be shared at this time.

A list of all appointments is available on our City Website for easy reference.

Council Members may also make appointments to city commissions at this time.

5. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

6. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

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

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

7.2: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of September 2024 (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept report.

Agenda Report - Expenditures - September 2024 - Pdf
6 - 13

7.3: Adopt an Ordinance Establishing Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments (David Ruderman, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Ordinance.
14 - 18

Page 2 of 199 ends

Agenda Report - Ordinance Adoption - Pdf

8. PUBLIC HEARING

8.1: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review and Variance (UA-24-21) Authorizing New Exterior Lighting that Exceeds the Allowed Footcandles Located at 252 West Spain Street (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director) RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution of The City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on September 17, 2024, approving Design Review and Variance for Installation of New Exterior Lighting that Exceeds the Allowed Footcandles (UA-24-21) located at 252 West Spain Street (APN 018-151-011).” Agenda Report - Appeal - 252 West Spain Street - Pdf
19 - 51

8.2: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP-24-1) That Would Have Authorized a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Facility at 301 First Street West Under the Adaptive Reuse Provisions of the City’s Development Code. The Appellant Requests the City Council Approve the Use Permit Amendment and Wine Tasting Use Permit and Give Direction to Staff on Policy Issues Concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on May 16, 2024 Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23- 40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit At 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042).”
Agenda Report - Cooperage Appeal - Pdf
Correspondence Received from APD Preservation
Public Comment Received for October 21 Meeting
Public Comment Received for September 4 Meeting
Public Comment Received for July 17 Meeting
52 - 199

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

10. SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT
At this this time members of the public who did not have the opportunity to speak during the early comment period may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Please form a line to speak.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Page 3 of 199 ends

I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted as legally required. Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk.
*********************************************************************************************************************************** Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to any item of business referred to on the agenda are usually available for public inspection the Wednesday before each regularly scheduled meeting at City Hall, located at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA. Any documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at the City Clerk’s office, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA during regular business hours. If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on the agenda or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing.

City of Sonoma's Commission and Committee Roster: Commission & Committee Roster 6/21/2024 Appointments to Commission/Committees: The Council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Council Members) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

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

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

Page 4 of 199 ends

��
Jrorlamatiou
DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2024 AS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma recognizes that domestic violence affects one in four families in our local community and that nearly all of us know someone who has been abused, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy, dignity, and security, based on the systematic use of emotional, physical, sexual, psychological, and economic control or abuse; and WHEREAS, established in 1976, YWCA Sonoma County is our community's singular and vital resource for local residents experiencing violence in the place we should all feel the most safe, inside our own homes. YWCA operates Sonoma County's ONLY confidential safe house shelter and Sonoma County's ONLY 24/7 domestic violence crisis hotline. YWCA's Counseling Support Services offers trauma-informed individual and support group therapy for victims of trauma and domestic violence including the students at YWCA's therapeutic preschool serving one of our most vulnerable populations: children ages 3-5 years old; and WHEREAS, only an informed community effort will end the cycle of violence for local families, members of our community are encouraged to participate in YWCA's scheduled events and programs to raise much-needed funding to support their vision for every family in Sonoma County to live healthy, productive lives and be safe in their own homes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Gurney, Mayor of the City of Sonoma, along with the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the City of Sonoma.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Sonoma, California to be affixed this 21st day of October 2024.

John Gurney, Mayor �
Agenda Item #1.1:

Page 5 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 21 Oct 2024
Department
Finance
Staff Contact
Prapti Aryal, Finance Director
Agenda Item Title
Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of September 2024 Summary
The attached report shows disbursements for the month of September 2024.

Some departments in Fund 100 (General Fund) have higher percentages of budget vs actual due to the allocation of one-time payments for the annual CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL), as noted during the FY2024-2025 budget process. Paying UAL as a lump sum in July rather than in monthly installments allowed the City to take advantage of a 3.4% discount on interest charges.

Fund 603 (Vehicle Replacement) posted expenditures of $273,070 with the purchase of four vehicles, including two all-electric pickups, and was authorized under Resolution 66-2024.

Fund 630 (Grants Restricted) shows expenditures 328% of budget as a result of receiving and transferring out $1,178,945 in grant funding for the Chase Street Bridge project. The transfer to Fund 301 (City CIP) reduced that fund’s negative balance with more funding expected in the future.

A detailed list of disbursements is available at the web site indicated at the bottom of the report.

Recommended Council Action
Accept report.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Monthly Payables Report, September 2024
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 6 of 199 ends

Disbursement Report September 2024 (incl Fund Balance)
Fund Glossary
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 7 of 199 ends

DISBURSEMENT REPORT SEPTEMBER 2024
Year to Date Monthly Year to Date Annual Percent of Fund Fund Revenue Expenditure Expenditure Budget Budget Balance General Fund 30000 3,021,323 24,262,320 12% 12,883,356
City Council 41001 9,144 31,841 175,144 18%
City Clerk 41002 25,656 79,339 439,186 18%
City Manager 41003 76,166 408,055 1,409,847 29%
Finance 41004 41,004 136,552 686,037 20%
City Attorney 41005 17,585 33,156 272,584 12%
Police 42101 98,314 1,087,456 7,595,839 14%
Fire 42201 588,000 2,641,654 7,936,241 33%
Public Works - Admin 43020 54,059 159,824 680,793 23%
Public Works - Streets 43022 121,141 387,037 1,180,173 33% Public Works - Parks 43023 103,046 534,808 1,651,256 32% Planning 43030 94,853 210,845 1,263,154 17%
Building 43040 34,083 87,201 941,768 9%
Community Activities 43101 38,003 289,122 979,429 30%
Successor Agency 43199 5,095 21,500 174,568 12%
Non-Departmental 43200 70,564 196,071 922,875 21%
Emergency Response 43201 5,208 5,208 - 0%
Transfers - 74,816 809,716 9%
Total General Fund Expenditures 1,381,920 6,384,484 27,118,608 24% Other Funds
Public Education & Gov 202 39 - - 59,061 0% (3,407)
Strong Motion 203 18 - - - 0% 6,521
Asset Forfeiture 211 - - - - 0% 16,833
SLESF C.O.P.S Grant 217 414 - - 100,000 0% 408,968
Bond Property 220 - - - - 0% (19,144)
Maysonnave Property 221 - - - - 0% (15,196)
Schell Drainage 234 78 - - - 0% 62,633
Abandoned Vehicle 240 - 982 1,365 - 0% (28,064)
Streets/Transport/Drain 301 1,182,481 31,697 31,697 499,599 6% (407,183) Gas Tax 302 59,165 3,464 49,662 1,080,940 5% 637,015
SB-1Road Maint 303 25,103 - - 992,000 0% 710,410
Parks & Facilities 304 214 - - 70,000 0% 99,409
Fire Measure H 312 - - - 548,700 0% -
Transportation Measure M 313 390 - - 287,000 0% 234,996 Parks-In-Lieu/Quimby Act 314 398 - - 142,921 0% 329,713 Parks Measure M 315 737 - - 427,000 0% 536,922
Prop 68 Parks 316 - - - - 0% (185,190)
Successor Agency 391 813,947 - 60,869 2,591,338 2% (22,507,127) CREBS 495 - - - - 0% (41,749)
2012 POB 498 - - - - 0% (5,271)
Cemeteries 501 65,219 27,627 87,378 637,126 14% (2,021,899) Cemetery Replacement 502 - - - - 0% 288,613
Cemetery Endowment 504 6,107 - - 50,000 0% 772,729
Water Utility 510 1,787,425 518,480 1,231,396 6,789,397 18% 7,859,926 Water CIP 512 429 - - 950,000 0% 1,793,906
Water Equip Replacement 513 266 - - - 0% 704,114
EMS Equip Replacement 521 - - - - 0% 81,886
Mgmt Information Srvcs 601 126,858 31,522 100,321 608,159 16% 344,653 Vehicle Replacement 603 92,703 273,070 355,570 649,339 55% 1,202,113 Insurance 604 - - - - 0% 49,095
Bulding Maintenance 610 80,574 - - 35,000 0% 3,215,600
Computer Loan 614 30 - - - 0% 63,068
Hardscape Maint 615 11 - - - 0% 25,619
Admin Hearings 620 12 - - - 0% 545
Grants Restricted 630 1,401,869 1,179,945 1,179,945 360,000 328% 223,080 Culture Fine Art 701 14 - - - 0% 11,963
Tree Trust 702 21 - - - 0% 18,840
Public Art 703 9 - - - 0% 44,471
Pool Scholarship 715 - - - 25,000 0% 222,546
Senior Housing 731 58 - - - 0% 249,401
Housing Trust 732 49,650 - - - 0% 2,164,645
IGT 796 1,136 - - 519,613 0% 2,050,562
SVFRA Operations 798 3,648 - 2 - 0% 630,506
TOTAL 8,720,345 3,448,706 9,482,689 44,540,801 21%
Monthly disbursement detail reports can be found at www.sonomacity.org/financial-documents Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 8 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma

CITY OF SONOMA

FUND DESCRIPTIONS
General Fund (Fund 100): The general operating fund of the City is used to account for all financial resources except those that require accounting in another fund.

Public Education & Government (Fund 202): Special revenue fund accumulates fees from telecommunication operators to support public, educational and government telecommunications, including broadcasting public meetings. Costs associated with acquiring equipment, renovating and constructing PEG-related facilities and broadcasting are paid from this fund.

Strong Motion (Fund 203): Accounts for State of California "strong motion" fees paid by building permit applicants. Funds are paid regularly to State Department of Conservation.

Asset Forfeiture (Fund 211): Accounts for funds received from seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, crime. Funds are expended according to legal restrictions.

SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)/COPS (Citizen Option for Public Safety) (Fund 217): Supplemental law enforcement funding is distributed by the State to the County which passes through the funding to local agencies. These funds have traditionally been used to support the costs of the Community Service Officer staff in the Police Department.

Bond Property (Fund 220): The Bond Property, a six acre parcel located at 19990 Seventh Street, was bequeathed to the city in 1977 by Pauline Bond, for the purpose of “creating and maintaining a public park” and is now home to the Sonoma Garden Center. The parcel is leased to the Sonoma Ecology Center who maintains the property and administers public programs at the site. Not Currently Active Fund
Maysonnave Property (Fund 221): The Maysonnave Property, consisting of two parcels of land totaling

1.44 acres located at 291 and 289 First Street East, was bequeathed to the city in 1990 by Henri Maysonave for the purpose of “creating and maintaining a public park”. The parcel at 291 First Street East is leased to the League for Historic Preservation who maintains the property and administers public programs at the site while the parcel identified as 289 First Street East is leased to the Valley of the Moon Petanque Club, which maintains the property and administers public programs at that site. Not Currently Active Fund
Schell Drainage (Fund 234): Accounts for funds used for tracking of mitigation fees for specific projects.

Not Currently Active Fund
Abandoned Vehicle (Fund 240): Accounts for funds received from the Sonoma County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (SCAVA) program and must be expended in compliance with legal restrictions.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 9 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Streets/Transport/Drain (Fund 301): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the General Fund to support improvements to the City's streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and storm drainage system.

Gas Tax (Fund 302): The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes and sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles with allocations dedicated to transportation purposes. Gas taxes can be used for any street or road purpose; however, it is best practice to focus on maintenance and rehabilitation costs only.

SB-1 Road Maintenance (Fund 303): The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) increased per-gallon excise taxes and sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and vehicle registration taxes, stabilized price-based fuel tax rates and provided for inflationary adjustments to rates in future years.

Funds may be used for road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, “complete street” components, and traffic control devices.

Parks & Facilities (Fund 304): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the General Fund to support improvements to the City's 17 parks encompass nearly 40 acres, nine play structures, two public restrooms, Class I bike trails, hiking trails, a duck pond, and a rose garden. Park needs that exceed the capacity of City and contract workers are included in this fund.

Fire Measure H (Fund 312): Sonoma County measure uses a ½ cent countywide sales tax to improve fire services.

Transportation Measure M (Fund 313): The Traffic Relief Act for Sonoma County (Measure M) provides for a ¼ cent sales tax that is apportioned to local jurisdictions to maintain their streets, as well as other County-wide street, highway, transit, and safe bicycle and pedestrian routes.

Parks-In-Lieu/Quimby Act (Fund 314): The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) authorized the City to pass ordinances requiring developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees, which can only be used for new and rehabilitating existing parks and recreational facilities and cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities The City currently has a parkland dedication (exaction) requirement as a condition of approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps or Tentative Parcel Maps.

Parks Measure M (Fund 315): Sonoma County Parks Improvement, Water Quality and Fire Safety Measure (Measure M) is a one-eighth cent sales tax that supports Sonoma County’s regional and city parks
Prop 68 Parks (Fund 316): Known as the California Clean Water and Safe Parks Act, Proposition 68 allocates funds to construct and rehabilitate parks, implement water improvements for safe drinking water, increase recycling and flood protection, and encourage climate change adaptation projects.

Successor Agency (Fund 391): The City of Sonoma has elected to serve as the Successor Agency to the Sonoma Redevelopment Agency, which was dissolved by the State through the Redevelopment Dissolution Act in 2012. The City as Successor Agency receives pass through revenue when property taxes are remitted to the City by the County via RPTTF (Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund). The City then makes authorized payments from Successor Agency for expenses, such as debt service costs, contract services for contracts issued before the dissolution of the development agency, and other expenses, including legal services.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 10 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
CREBS (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds) (Fund 495): Bonds to pay for solar projects at the Police Station and Corporation Yard. Not Currently Active Fund 2012 POB (Pension Obligation Bond) (Fund 498): Bond issued to refund the City’s side fund loan obligations to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). Not Currently Active Fund Cemeteries (Fund 501): Accounts for funding to support the City’s three cemeteries’ operations and maintenance, including burial and inurnment preparation and coordination, cemetery improvements, tree hazard assessment and abatement, grounds maintenance, mausoleum maintenance, road maintenance, and vandalism abatement.

Cemetery Replacement (Fund 502): Not Currently Active Fund Cemetery Endowment (Fund 504): The Cemetery Endowment Fund was created to record the income received from Cemetery sales that is designated as endowment care. The City’s Municipal Code defines endowment care as the general maintenance of the City’s three cemeteries that is necessitated by natural growth and ordinary wear.

Water Utility (Fund 510): This enterprise fund is responsible for the delivery of high quality, dependable water service for a variety of needs including consumption, irrigation, and fire protection. It operates and maintains 3 active City-owned tanks with a combined storage capacity of 5.5 million gallons, 7 production wells and appurtenant treatment facilities, 2 pump stations with a combined 140 horsepower maximum output, 56 miles of active water main ranging from 8” to 14” in diameter, 513 fire hydrants, and approximately 4,500 active service connections Water Construction in Progress (CIP) (Fund 512): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the Water Utility Fund to support improvements to the City's drinking water infrastructure. Projects include replacing aging water mains and appurtenances (e.g. tees, crosses, couplers, saddles, valves), neighborhood-scale water service replacement projects, renewing tank coatings and corrosion control systems, replacing well or pump station equipment, replacing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and equipment, improvements to well and pump station buildings (e.g. replacing roofs or electrical systems).

Water Equipment Replacement (Fund 513): Accounts for costs to replace water equipment. Not Currently Active Fund
EMS Equipment Replacement (Fund 521): Accounts for costs to replace EMS equipment.

Management Information Services (Fund 601): The fund provides a mechanism for funding the operational costs, maintenance, and planned replacement of installed computer systems, equipment, software, telephone systems and other critical electronic office equipment through annual transfers from other City departments and funds.

Vehicle Replacement (Fund 603): Accounts for costs to replace vehicles based on a depreciation schedule. Costs are distributed among user departments and transferred as approved in the annual budget process.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 11 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Insurance (Fund 604): Account from which liability, property, earthquake, vehicle, and other insurance premiums are paid. Funding is transferred from other City departments and funds on a pro rata share.

Not Currently Active Fund
Building Maintenance (Fund 610): The fund allows the City to set aside funding received through annual transfers made by other City departments and funds for future replacement or repair of certain items in City owned and maintained facilities.

Computer Loan (Fund 614): Created by the City Council in 2000 and funded by an initial transfer of $50,000 from the Employee Benefit Fund, this fund provides low interest loans to employees for the purchase of computers for both personal and professional use. Loans must be repaid through payroll deductions within two years.

Hardscape Maintenance (Fund 615): Accounts for the City's hardscape maintenance reserve programs.

Not Currently Active Fund
Administrative Hearings (Fund 620): Accounts for all activities of the City's Administrative Hearings as charged to departments. Not Currently Active Fund
Grants Restricted (Fund 630): The purpose of the fund is to separately track grant monies that are received and spent for capital improvement projects.

Culture Fine Art (Fund 701): Accounts for assets held to be used for cultural fine art programs. Not Currently Active Fund
Tree Trust (Fund 702): Accounts for assets held to be used for planting and replacement of trees. Not Currently Active Fund
Public Art (Fund 703): Accounts for assets held to be used for public art displays. Not Currently Active Fund
Pool Scholarship (Fund 715): In 2014, the City entered an agreement with Sonoma Valley Health and Recreation Association to support the construction of a swimming pool within the Sonoma Valley. The City’s financial commitment is for a total of $250,000 to be paid in 10 annual installments of $25,000 for the value of free and reduced-fee services to be provided to Sonoma Valley residents Senior Housing (Fund 731): Sonoma Creek Senior Housing is a thirty-four unit rental apartment complex for very low income senior citizens located on Oregon Street and administered by the Board of Directors of the Sonoma Community Housing Corporation (SCHC), a non-profit housing corporation created by the City’s Community Development Agency (CDA). The Board of the SCHC is comprised of two City Councilmembers, the City Manager, a staff member designated by the City Manager and a public member. The operation of the apartment complex is contracted out to Hank Fisher Properties, a rental management firm, with the resident managers being employed by the firm. All accounting and finance for the complex is handled through the rental management contract. Rental income is used to repay the indebtedness issued for the purchase of the complex and to cover annual maintenance and other operational costs. Not Currently Active Fund
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 12 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Housing Trust (Fund 732): The fund accumulates and distributes funding in accordance with the City Council’s Affordable Housing Plan. The main source of funding is from General Fund transfers of one percent of the Transient Occupancy Tax.

IGT (Intergovernmental Transfer) (Fund 796): State of California program that provides an opportunity to receive federal matching funds to support health services for Medi-Cal Managed Care beneficiaries served by the Fire Department.

SVFRA (Sonoma Valley Fire Rescue Association) Operations (Fund 798): Accounts for operational activities in which revenues and expenses are split between the City and SVFD.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 13 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 21 Oct 2024
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
David J. Ruderman, City Attorney
Agenda Item Title
Adopt an Ordinance Establishing Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments
Summary
This item was introduced at the Regular Meeting of October 14, 2024.

Assembly Bill 2257 (2024) (adding Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2) provides the City with a new tool to defend against challenges to fees, charges, and assessments adopted under Proposition 218 (Cal. Const., Art. XIII D). If the City follows certain procedures, a ratepayer who fails to submit a written objection before the close of the Prop. 218 protest hearing will be barred from challenging the fee, charge, or assessment later on in court.

The California Constitution grants the City additional authority to enforce any local, police, sanitary, or other ordinance not in conflict with general laws, and to establish and operate public works upon conditions and under regulations that the City may prescribe. (Cal. Const., Art. XI, §§ 7, 9.) Based on this authority, the ordinance also requires objections be timely submitted to challenge fees or charges adopted under Article XIII C of the California Constitution, any assessment on real property, or the methodology used to develop any fee, charge, or assessment.

This ordinance establishes the process the City must follow to limit challenges in this way. The City must:

1. Make the proposed fee, charge, or assembly publicly available at least 45 days before the deadline for submitting written objections;

2. Post a written basis for the proposed fee, charge, or assessment on the City's website and include al ink to that website on public hearing notices regarding the proposed adoption of the proposed fee, charge, or assessment;

3. Mail the written basis for the proposed fee, charge, or assessment to ratepayers or property owners upon request;

4. Provide at least 45 days for ratepayers or property owners to submit written objections to the fee, charge, or assessment;

5. Respond in writing to any timely submitted objections with an explanation for keeping or or changing the proposed fee, charge or assessment;

6. Present any timely submitted objections and responses thereto the City Council for its consideration, either before or during the public hearing on the proposed fee, charge or assessment;

7. Include on its public hearing notices a statement in bold-faced type of 12 points or larger:
a. that all written objections must be submitted to the City Clerk by the end of public comment period at the hearing, that a failure to timely object in writing bars any right to challenge that fee, charge, or assessment in court, and that any such action will be limited to issues identified in such objections; and Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 14 of 199 ends

b. All substantive and procedural requitements for submitting an objection tot he proposed fee, charge, or assessment.

This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 21065 and 15061(b)(3) as the establishment of an administrative remedies procedure will not result in a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Recommended Council Action
Introduce and waive first reading of ordinance establishing an administrative remedies procedure for challenges to fees, charges, and assessments.

Alternative Actions

1. Introduce a modified version of the Ordinance.

2. Do not introduce the ordinance and provide direction to staff.

3. Council's discretion.

Financial Impact
There are no financial impacts at this time.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Ordinance
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 15 of 199 ends

1 City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE # _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING AN

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGES TO FEES, CHARGES,

AND ASSESSMENTS
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Sonoma:

Section 1. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is authorized by the City’s authority under California Constitution, article XI, sections 7 (police power) and 9 (utility power) as well as Government Code section 53759.1.

Section 2. CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 1.03 of Title 1 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new section 1.03.030 to read as follows:

Section 1.03.030 — Exhaustion of administrative remedies for challenges to fees, charges, and assessments on real property.

A. Scope. The duty to exhaust administrative remedies imposed by this section extends to:

1. any fee or charge subject to articles XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution,

2. any assessment on real property levied by the city, and

3. the methodology used to develop and levy such a fee, charge, or assessment.

B. “Hearing” as used in this section means the hearing referenced in paragraph 4 of subsection D of this section.

C. Duty to Exhaust Issues. No person may bring a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with the California Constitution or other applicable law for any new, increased, or extended fee, charge, or assessment levied by the city, unless that person submitted to the city clerk a timely, written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment specifying the grounds for alleging noncompliance. The issues raised in any such action or proceeding shall be limited to those raised in such an objection unless a court finds the issue could not have been raised in such an objection by those exercising reasonable diligence.

D. Procedures. The city shall:

1. Make available to the public any proposed fee, charge, or assessment to which this section is to apply no less than 45 days before the deadline for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to submit an objection pursuant to paragraph 4 of this subsection D.

2. Post on its internet website a written basis for the fee, charge, or assessment, such as a cost of service analysis or an engineer’s report, and include a link to the internet website in the written notice of the Hearing, including, but not limited to, a notice pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 4 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 16 of 199 ends

376725.2 2

3. Mail the written basis described in paragraph 2 of this subsection D to a ratepayer or property owner on request.

4. Provide at least 45 days for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to review the proposed fee or assessment and to timely submit to the city clerk a written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance. Any objection shall be submitted before the end of the public comment portion of a Hearing on the rate, charge or assessment.

5. Include in a written notice of the Hearing, a statement in bold-faced type of 12 points or larger that:
a. All written objections must be submitted to the city clerk by the end of public comment period at the Hearing and that a failure to timely object in writing bars any right to challenge that fee, charge, or assessment in court and that any such action will be limited to issues identified in such objections. b. All substantive and procedural requirements for submitting an objection to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment such as those specified for a propertyrelated fee under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 6(a) or for an assessment on real property under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 4(e).

E. Council Consideration; City Responses. Before or during the Hearing, the city council shall consider and the city shall respond in writing to, any timely written objections. The city council may adjourn the Hearing to another date if necessary to respond to comments received after the agenda is posted for the meeting at which the Hearing occurs. The city’s responses shall explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed fee, charge, or assessment in response to written objections, including any reasons to reject requested amendments.

F. City Council Determinations. The city council, in exercising its legislative discretion, shall determine whether:
a. The written objections and the city’s response warrant clarifications to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment.
b. To reduce the proposed fee, charge or assessment.
c. To further review the proposed fee, charge, or assessment before determining whether clarification or reduction is needed.
d. To proceed with the Hearing, to continue it, or to abandon the proposal.

SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 17 of 199 ends

376725.2 3
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published pursuant to Government Code section 36933.

INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of __________ 2024.

FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Sonoma was at a meeting held on the _____ day of ______ 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINING:
______________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Sonoma )
City of Sonoma )
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing ordinance was introduced in a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the 14th day of October 2024, and was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the _____ day of _____ 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 18 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 21 Oct 2024
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review and Variance (UA-24-21) Authorizing New Exterior Lighting that Exceeds the Allowed Footcandles Located at 252 West Spain Street
Summary
The project site is located on an approximately 127,132 square foot lot on the north side of West Spain Street, between Third Street West and Second Street West. The project site has approximately 250 feet of frontage along West Spain Street with two curb cuts and driveways leading to site parking. The project site contains multiple buildings of varying heights for use by First Congregational Church, Congregation Shir Shalom and Old Adobe School. The historic church building is locally listed; however, the other buildings and site is not deemed historic.

At the hearing held on September 12, 2024, the City of Sonoma Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Variance (link to Staff Report and Video) approval for replacement of 5 wall mounted fixture to the existing building and the addition of 8 10-foot light poles containing 1-2 mounted fixtures for each pole at the First Congregational Church of Sonoma. As stated in the Staff Report, the current lights do not provide enough lighting in the existing parking lot. All new fixtures were proposed to be 3000k and contain internal screening in order to direct light and limit light spillage beyond the project’s boundaries. The applicant also provided a photometric plan identifying the foot candles and light spread, demonstrating the intensity of lighting that would emit given the Variance to exceed the allowed footcandles.

As part of the approval, the Planning Commission moved to add two conditions of approval limiting the new parking light’s operational hours to be consistent of the hours of operation provided in the existing Use Permit and the existing lights be lowered to the maximum height allowed of 15 feet. Staff was able to locate two use permits limiting the lighting hours: Old Adobe School 7am-6pm (no longer active), and Burlingame Hall 9am-9pm weekdays and 9am-12pm Saturdays. However, no use permit was found for the church and synagogue.

Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.54.060 allows a Variance to be granted by the Planning Commission to provide relief from the lighting requirements in the Development Code. The Planning Commission may approve the request for the Variance based on the findings prescribed in Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.45.060 (E). The Planning Commission’s findings for the approval are attached.

On September 30, 2024, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission approval. The appellant claims the applicant’s narrative incorrectly describes certain aspects of the project and surrounding properties in a way that implies fewer impacts; that the Park Villa Association’s homes are two story, not “single-story residences” as described in the narrative; and that screening is not provided by trees as stated. Rather, “the views are not blocked but clearly visible.” The Appellant claims that the light posts will “increase the evening lighting while Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 19 of 199 ends

in use and impair the peaceful dark sky that the Park Villas Homeowners Association enjoys across the General Vallejo State Park.” The Appellant requested the following changes to the project approval:
 Reduce height of light poles from 10 feet to 8 feet in height  Reduce brightness levels of lights on light poles
 Have lights on only when evening events or activities are “in-session.” Recommended Council Action
Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution of The City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on September 17, 2024, approving Design Review and Variance for Installation of New Exterior Lighting that Exceeds the Allowed Footcandles (UA-24-21) located at 252 West Spain Street (APN 018-151-011).”
Alternative Actions
1) Affirm the appeal in part or whole, set aside the decision of the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a Resolution, with findings reached by the City Council to do so. 2) Request additional information from the appellant to substantiate and support arguments and continue the matter to a future hearing date.
3) Remand the project back to the Planning Commission, with specific direction on what the Planning Commission must consider. The Planning Commission may take final action, or the City Council may direct that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.

Financial Impact
NA
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Draft Council Resolution - Deny Appeal
UA-24-21 PC Resolution Final
UA-24-21 Filed Appeal
Church Lighting Plans
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 20 of 199 ends

1 City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ____ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING THAT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWED FOOTCANDLES (UA-24-21) LOCATED AT 252 WEST SPAIN STREET (APN 018-151-011)
WHEREAS, Thomas Free Electric submitted an application for a Variance and Design Review on May 28, 2024, to install new exterior lighting that exceeds the allowed footcandles located at 252 West Spain Street (APN 018-151-011); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2024, to consider the merits of the Variance and Design Review application and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that it could make the findings necessary for approval and approved Design Review and Variance; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, Jonathan Wong (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission requesting alternative specific conditions/actions; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Appeal on October 21, 2024.

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

I. Record

1. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project includes, but is not limited to:
a. The technical reports and all other documents relied upon for the proposed Categorical Exemption;
b. The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission relating to the Project; c. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by the staff, applicant, public, environmental consultants and sub consultants relating to the Project;
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Project;
e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other Cityadopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 21 of 199 ends

2 including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

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

II. Decision
A. On the basis of the record before it, the City Council hereby DENIES the appeal filed by the Appellant and affirms the Planning Commission’s decision to APPROVE the Project with conditions imposed therein for the reasons stated in the Planning Commission’s Resolution of September 17, 2024, approving the application.

B. It is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the applicant did not appeal the Exemption.

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

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this ___________________, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Page 22 of 199 ends

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # ___-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA APPROVING THE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (UA-24-21) TO

INSTALL NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING THAT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWED
FOOTCANDLES LOCATED AT 252 WEST SPAIN STREET (APN 018-151-011),

INCLUDING ACTION TO APPROVE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, (CLASS 1 – EXISTING

STRUCTURES)
WHEREAS, Thomas Free Electric, submitted an application for a Variance and Design Review on May 28, 2024, in order to install new exterior lighting that exceeds the allowed footcandles located at 252 West Spain Street (APN 018-151-011); and WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma (“City”) determined that the Project was Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), per Section 15301, Class 1 because it allows for the addition of safety protection devices for use in conjunction with existing structures and facilities and the parking lot lighting is being provided for safety purposes;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Class 1 Categorical Exemption prior to taking any action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2024, to consider the merits of the Variance and Design Review application and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and declares as follows:

I. Record

Page 23 of 199 ends

relating to the Project;
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Project;
e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other City-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

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

II. Variance
As set forth in Sonoma Municipal Code (SMC) § 19.54.060, Variances, in order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning Commission must make the following findings:

1. The adjustment authorized by the variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
The variance would allow for new pole and wall mounted light fixtures to be installed at the First Congregational Church, Congregation Shir Shalom and Old Abobe School parking lot, which is consistent with the use designated in the General Plan. The new light fixtures meet all of the requirements except for the allowed footcandles at the base of a pole mounted light fixture. There are no applicable specific plans for the site.

2. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (i.e., size, shape, topography, location or surroundings), such that the strict application of the requirements of this development code deprives the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 24 of 199 ends

owners in the vicinity and within the same zoning district; Safety and security are important and necessary for this property. Due to the location of the parking lot and the buildings, there is little to no light on the site. There is programming on the site at night and many of the users are elderly and young children.

Strict application of the light footcandles would require additional lights and poles to maintain the light spread and maintain safety on the site.

3. Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the variance is sought; Granting of the variance is necessary of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners. There are a number of private and public parking lots with lighting that was installed prior to this ordinance that enjoy this privilege. The lighting will be required to be turned off by 10pm.

4. The adjustment authorized by the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district;
The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. There are other parking lots in the vicinity that require lighting for enhanced safety. The project proposes the minimum number of light fixtures to light the parking lot.

5. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

The project would not present any issues related to public health, safety and welfare. The proposed lighting is focused on the parking lot to provide a safe path of travel. There is no light spillage onto the adjacent public adjacent properties.

III. Design Review
As set forth in § 19.54.080 (H)(1), in order to approve an application for Design Review, the Planning Commission must make the following findings:
a. The Project complies with applicable policies and regulations, as set forth in this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions), other city ordinances, and the general plan;
The proposed project complies with applicable policies and regulations of the Sonoma Municipal Code, city ordinances, and the General Plan, except for the requested variance to exceed the light footcandles for the proposed lighting.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 25 of 199 ends

b. On balance, the project is consistent with the intent of applicable design standards set forth in this development code; and
The proposed project is consistent with the intent of applicable design standards set forth in the development code and where the project is divergent from the design standards, a Variance is requested. The proposed light fixtures and poles are dark in color and will blend with the environment.
c. The project responds appropriately to the context of adjacent development, as well as existing site conditions and environmental features.

The proposed project would continue to use the existing use and scale of the property and adjacent development, continuing site conditions nearly as existing.

As set forth in SMC § 19.54.080 (H)(2), in order to approve an application for Design Review for properties that are located within the Historic Overlay District, the Planning Commission must make the following findings:
a. The project will not impair the historic character of adjacent historic resources; The project will not impair the historic character of adjacent property as the proposed project proposes minimal physical changes.
b. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties;
The proposed project does not involve modifications to the historic resource that is listed on the Local Historic Resources List and the proposed lights are located in the parking lot and courtyard and will be no taller than 10 feet, shorter than the historic church. c. The project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines set forth in Chapter 19.42 SMC (Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone); and The proposed project is not seeking a designation as a local historic resource, amendment or rescission of an existing designation, adaptive reuse of a historic structure or new infill or addition to historic resource. Therefore, the project substantially complies with all applicable guidelines set forth in SMC Chapter 19.42.
d. The project substantially complies with any applicable preservation plan or other guidelines or requirements pertaining to a local historic district as designated through SMC

19.42.020 and adopted by the city of Sonoma.

There are no applicable preservation plans or other guidelines pertaining to the local historic district that apply to the proposed project.

IV. Indemnity and Time Limits
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 26 of 199 ends

1. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s decision at issue herein, including any approval of any portion of the project or the environmental review document(s) for the Project. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the developer, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

2. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the developer desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.

3. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding describer in no. A or B above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the developer of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the City, (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonable withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the developer in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the developer.

4. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, indemnifies the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions.

5. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.

6. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of dedications, reservations, and other exactions.

The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which the Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 27 of 199 ends

applicant may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

V. Project Approval
Based on the Findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby grants approval of a Variance and Design Review as set forth in the project narrative and project plans dated September 11, 2024, and attached hereto, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 17th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Vice Chair Dambach
Attest
Natalie Lundeen
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 28 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma

CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Church Parking Lot Lighting, UA-24-21
252 West Spain Street
September 17, 2024
Planning:

1. This Variance and Design Review approval authorizes the installation of new exterior lighting that exceeds the allowed footcandles located at 252 West Spain Street (APN 018-151-011).

Plans submitted for Building Permits shall be in conformance with the approved project plans (dated September 11, 2024) except as noted below:
a. Limit the lighting hours to the Use Permit: Old Adobe School 7am-6pm; Burlingame Hall 9am-9pm weekdays and 9am-12pm Saturdays
b. The existing lights be lowered to the maximum height allowed of 15 feet.

2. Any permit or approval not exercised within two years of approval shall expire and become void.

The permit shall not be deemed “exercised” until the permittee has 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.

Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Division
Timing: Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit

3. Indemnity, Fee Notice, and Time Limitations:
a. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s decision at issue herein, including any approval of any portion of the project or the environmental review document(s) for the Project. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the developer, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.
b. The applicant/developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (included but not limited to any environmental document or study), of made necessary by said legal action and the developer desires to pursue securing such approval, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.
c. In the event that a claim, action, or proceeding described in subsection number a or b above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the developer of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the City, (ii) approve Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 29 of 199 ends

all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the developer in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the applicant/developer.
d. The applicant/developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, indemnifies the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions. e. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.
f. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun.

If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Division after review by City Attorney Timing: Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit

4. Building Permit applications shall substantially conform to the project that was approved by the planning permit. All Building Permit submittals shall be accompanied by an itemized list of any changes from the project approved by the planning permit. The list shall detail the changes and indicate where the changes are shown in the plan set. Construction involving modifications that do not substantially conform to the approved project, as determined by the Planning Department staff, may be required to be halted until proper authorization for the modifications is obtained by the applicant.

5. All Building Department requirements shall be met, including applicable Building Code requirements.

Enforcement Responsibility: Building Division
Timing: Ongoing throughout the project
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 30 of 199 ends

6. All construction equipment shall be maintained and operated so as not to generate unacceptable noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Stationary construction equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be situated as far as possible from inhabited areas, and equipment not actively in use shall be shut down to reduce unnecessary noise. The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturer-approved mufflers/baffles. Noise-producing construction activities and materials delivery shall comply with the limitations of the City’s Noise Ordinance, including limiting noise producing construction activities and deliveries to the following days and hours:

MONDAY – FRIDAY: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

SATURDAY: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

SUNDAY/CITY-DESIGNATED HOLIDAYS: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Enforcement Responsibility: Code Enforcement
Timing: Ongoing during construction

7. The following dust control measures shall be implemented as necessary during the construction phase of the project: 1) all exposed soil areas (i.e. building sites, unpaved access roads, parking or staging areas) shall be watered at least twice daily or as required by the City’s construction inspector; 2) exposed soil stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily; and 3) the portion of Rosalie Drive providing construction vehicle access to the project site shall be swept daily, if visible soil material is deposited onto the road.

Enforcement Responsibility: Building Inspector; Public Works Inspector Timing: Ongoing during construction

8. Exterior lighting shall conform to the California Energy Standards and standards and guidelines contained under 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. Lights shall have timers that reduce or turn off the light fixture or fixtures when businesses are closed, residents are not commonly active, and when nocturnal animals and insects are commonly active, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. every day.

Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit

9. No structures of any kind shall be constructed within the public easements dedicated for public use, except for structures for which the easements are intended, unless an encroachment permit is obtained.

Enforcement Responsibility: Planning Division; Public Works Timing: Prior to the issuance of any building permit
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 31 of 199 ends

REQEWED
.. ForCin/Use SEE)3U202/; Clty
. Of Sonoma
. . DateReceg:\’/;a%Y p) 6‘ W Ct; SONG /7 Plannmg Appeal Applicatlon By :Etiy M2“
.. City Appeal Procedures can be found in Sonoma MunicipalCode Chapter 19.84. . The fee to ?le an appeal must accompany this form. Reso 32—2021Major $500 Resident, $1000 Non—resident °t. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk withinten (10) calendar days of the action. - . Appeals must address issues raised or decisions made at previous hearings. Appeal hearings cannot be used as a forum to introduce new issues.
° In order for your appeal to be valid this form must be filled out completely.

Feel free to attach additional sheets or supporting documentation as may be necessary.

APPELLANT lNFORMATlON: (Please Print)
Name: JonathaIlWong Name: N/A
Address:1,54West Spain St, Sonoma, CA 95476Address:
phone; 415-992—1751
j Phone:

WVe the undersigneddo hereby appeal the decision of the:

L Planning Commission Design Review Commission
City Planner or Department Staff Other:

First Congregational Church, Congregation Shir Shalom and Old Adobe School Lighting Regarding: Case Number: UA-24-21
(Title of project or application)
Located at: 252 West Spain Street
' (Address)
Made on: September 17, 2024
(Date decision was made)
|/We hereby declare that INVe are eligible to file an appeal because:
(Refer to Section 19.84.30—A. Eligibility,on the reverse) Appeal Fee Acct?! 10000000'000-30102 The Park Villas Homeowners Association (PVA) is eligible to file an appeal as an aggrieved party to the referenced project—Our two-story wesf-Tacing homes are located—directly across the General’VailejoTS?te Park where we enjOy a peaceful, unimpeded night sky. We appeal due to the disruption by the proposed additional Wu! enjoyment oFtne dark sky.

4. The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:

Please refer to the attached supporting document additional pages.

WVe request that the Appeal Body take the following specific action(s):

Please refer to the attached supporting documentadditional pages. .

Signed: * September 30, 2024
Signature Date
l
Signature Date
* On behalf of the Park Villas Homeowners Association, 154 West Spain Street, Sonoma, CA 95476 Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 32 of 199 ends

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTTO ACCOMPANY

CITYOF SONOMA PLANNING APPEALAPPLICATION
Proiect: First CongregationalChurch, Congregation ShirShalom/W: UA-24- 21/ ‘ Appeal Submitted by: Jonathan Wong on behalf of the Park Villas Homeowners Association, 154 West Spain Street, Sonoma CA 95476
The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:

The facts of the case are stated in the "City of Sonoma Special Planning Commission, Staff Report,” (Staff Report) prepared date September, 12, 2024, staff contact, is Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director.

The basis for the appeal are: The staff report indorrectly states - "The rear lot is screened by trees along the north and surrounded by open hay fields. Single-story residences 75 yards away have views to theparkinglot blocked by backyard fences and landscape foliage. " (page 9/4/24")
As you can clearly see from the attached document, including the photo view from our two— story Park Villas Association west-facing homes we are not "single-story residences”, and we can clearly see from our second story bedrooms the church's back parking lot and specifically (as indicated within the yellow rectangular box) the proposed locations of the six 10~f00t~tall light posts. Thus, the views are not blocked but clearly visible.

Due to the visibility of the lighting from our west—facing second story windows, the proposed six iO-foot-tall light posts will increase the evening lighting while in use and impair the peaceful dark sky that the Park Villas Homeowners Association now enjoy across the General Vallejos State Park.

Specific Actions Requested:
1) Reduce the height of the referenced project' 5 10-foot- tall back parkinglot light poles to eightfeet, and
2) Reduce the level of brightness of each light attached to the light poles, and 3) Limit the hours when the lights are turned on to only those hours when evening events or activities are actually in-session.

These three actions will reduce the impact of the lighting on the Park Villas Homeowners Association west facing homes, and still allow lighting for the back parking lot thus providing the safety and security intended as the central goal of the project.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 33 of 199 ends

8 Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 34 of 199 ends

q
‘3‘UR?
‘i‘2 {'2‘} I
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 35 of 199 ends

:5
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 36 of 199 ends

Filename: C:\Users\anna.murphy\OneDrive - RAB Lighting\Desktop\Temp Folder\First Congregational Church of Sonoma\Working Files\AGI\First Congregational Church of Sonoma Layout 01426898 D.AGI Scale: as noted
Date:9/11/2024
Filename: First Congregational Church of Sonoma Layout 01426898 D.AGI Drawn By:

PLOT TO 11"X17"PAGE
The Lighting Analysis, EZLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design") provided by RAB Lighting Inc. ("RAB") represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upondesign parameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others have not been field verified by RAB and therefore actual measured results may vary from theactual field conditions. RAB recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation.RAB does not warranty, either implied or stated, actual measured light levels or energy consumption levels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design.RAB does not warranty, either implied or stated, nor represents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design as compliant with any applicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those expressly stated on drawings created and submitted by RAB. The Lighting Design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational and convenience purposes only, is not intended for construction nor as a part of a project's construction documentation package, and should not be relied upon for any purpose.Immediately prior to any party ordering RAB products used in the Lighting Design, the ordering party must verify that the lumen output of the fixtures being ordered (as shown on RAB's website) match the lumen output shown in the Lighting Design. Occasionally, Lighting Designs previously provided use fixtures that are then updated prior to an order and such updates could change the lumen output of the fixture. This inturn, could impact the installed lighting performance that differs from the Lighting Design.

A. Zuchelli
Prepared For:Healy Mattos Inc
PROJECT # : 235580
23898 Foley StHayward, CA 94545
Job Name:First Congregational Church of SonomaSonoma, CALighting LayoutVersion D CASE # : 01426898
Scale: 1 inch= 40 Ft.
10ft
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 32028024020016012080400
AA2 AA2
A-WM
A-WM
AA2
AA2
AA2
AA2
A-WM
A-WM
AA2+HSS
AA2+HSS
A-WM+HSS

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 3.6 9.2 5.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.4 5.0 8.9 7.1 2.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.1 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.1 2.2 3.4 5.7 5.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.5 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.6 8.1 10.8 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 3.1 10.2 18.9 8.9 2.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 4.6 2.3 0.8 0.7 1.9 4.3 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.5 5.1 7.6 8.7 4.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.7 11.9 6.1 2.0 1.7 4.5 11.3 7.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.4 4.2 10.0 8.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.9 17.3 8.8 3.1 2.7 6.9 16.6 8.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.5 5.3 15.3 15.3 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 6.0 7.4 4.2 2.1 2.0 3.7 7.2 7.9 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.7 4.5 9.1 10.9 4.6 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.9 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 4.0 2.8 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.7 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.8 4.0 7.9 10.6 6.8 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.4 3.3 4.9 6.2 4.4 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.4 4.3 13.0 16.6 3.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 5.3 4.8 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.5 4.0 8.7 10.4 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.8 3.2 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.5 2.4 4.8 8.9 10.5 5.0 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.6 2.3 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.3 2.7 8.2 17.6 9.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.1 2.4 6.1 12.5 4.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 3.3 6.2 6.1 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 3.0 8.9 10.8 3.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 2.0 5.5 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 11
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 11
1 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 55
5 5
5 5
3 3
3 Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 37 of 199 ends

A. Zuchelli
PROJECT # : 235580 Prepared For:

Healy Mattos Inc23898 Foley StHayward, CA 94545
Sonoma, CALighting LayoutVersion D
CASE # : 01426898
Job Name:First Congregational Church of Sonoma
Top View : Grayscale Rendering
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 38 of 199 ends

A. Zuchelli
Prepared For:Healy Mattos Inc23898 Foley St
PROJECT # : 235580
Hayward, CA 94545
NOTES:The actual illumination values measured in the field will vary.* Photometric model elements such as buildings, rooms, plants, furnishings or any architectural details which impact the dispersion of light mustbe detailed by the customer documents for inclusion in the RAB Lighting Design. The owner/contractor/customer/end-user must provide accurateand complete construction drawings that reflect what will be the final construction RAB is not responsible for any inaccuracies caused by incomplete,inaccurate, or outdated information provided by the owner/contractor/customer/end-user.* The light loss factor (LLF) is a product of many variables. RAB's standard is to use the initial 1.0 LLF in accordance with most municipallighting ordinance light trespass requirements, unless otherwise noted.* Illumination values shown (in footcandles) are the predicted results for planes of calculation either horizontal, vertical or inclined as designatedin the calculation summary. Meter orientation is normal to the plane of calculation.* The calculated results of this lighting simulation represent an anticipated prediction of system performance. Actual measured results mayvary from the anticipated performance and are subject to means and methods which are beyond the control of RAB Lighting Inc.* Mounting height determination is job site specific, our lighting simulations assume a mounting height (insertion point of the luminaire symbol) to be taken at the top of the symbol for ceiling mounted luminaires and at the bottom of the symbol for all other luminaire mounting configurations.* RAB disclaims all responsibility for the suitability of existing or proposed poles and bases to support proposed fixtures. This is the owner's,installer's and/or end-user's responsibility based on the weight and effective projected area ("EPA") of the proposed fixtures and the owner'ssite and soil conditions, wind zone, and many other factors. A professional engineer licensed to practice in the state the site is located should be engaged to assist in this determination.* The landscape material shown hereon is conceptual and is not intended to be an accurate representation of any particular plant, shrub, bush, or tree, as these materials are living objects, and subject to constant change. The conceptual objects shown are for illustrative purposes only.* RAB Lighting Inc. luminaire and product designs are protected under U.S. and International intellectual property laws. Patents issued or pendingmay apply. Please see www.rablighting.com/ip.* The Lighting Analysis, EZLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design") provided by RAB Lighting Inc. ("RAB") represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon design parameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others have not been field verified by RAB and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions.RAB recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation.* RAB does not warranty, either implied or stated, actual measured light levels or energy consumption levels as compared to those illustrated by theLighting Design.* RAB does not warranty, either implied or stated, nor represents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design as compliantwith any applicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those expressly stated on drawings created and submitted by RAB. The LightingDesign is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational and convenience purposes only, is not intended for construction nor as apart of a project's construction documentation package and should not be relied upon for any purpose.* Immediately prior to any party ordering RAB products used in the Lighting Design, the ordering party must verify that the lumen output of the fixturesbeing ordered (as shown on RAB's website) match the lumen output shown in the Lighting Design. Occasionally, Lighting Designs previously provideduse fixtures that are then updated prior to an order and such updates could change the lumen output of the fixture. This in turn, could impact the installedlighting performance that differs from the Lighting Design.

Job Name:First Congregational Church of Sonoma CASE # : 01426898 Sonoma, CALighting LayoutVersion D Luminaire ScheduleSymbol
Luminaire Tag SummaryTag
Calculation SummaryLabel Qty
A-WM
Expanded Luminaire Location SummaryLumNo Tag
X
Qty Tag Label Arrangement Lum. Lumens Arr. Lum. Lumens LLF Y MTG HT Orient
Description Lum. Watts Arr. Watts Total Watts
CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min
BUG Rating MTG HT
Max/Min Description PtSpcLr
4 A-WM+HSS
Tilt
1 AA2+HSS 407.083 266.949 10
PtSpcTb Meter Type
CalcPts - Property Line Illuminance Fc 0.00 0.0
1 AA2 12AA2+HSS 2
239.625 0
2 AA2 425.258 231.721 10 248.108 02 AA2 424.703 233.022 10

0.0 N.A. N.A. Readings taken at 0'-0" AFG 10 N.A. Horizontal CalcPts - Site Illuminance
2 AA2+HSS ALEDS4TY - 40W +

ALEDSHS
Single 5135 5135 1.000 Type IV Pole Mount with
House Side Shields

40.2 40.2 80.4 B1-U0-G2 10
6 AA2 ALEDS4TY - 40W X2 2 @ 90 degrees 5468 10936 1.000 Type IV Pole Mount X2 @90° 40.4 80.8 484.8 B1-U0-G2 101 A-WM+HSS ALEDS4TSFY - 40W + ALEDSHS + MAB
Single 5135 5135 1.000 Type IV Slipfitter Mount
with House Side Shields and Wall Bracket

40.2 40.2 40.2 B1-U0-G2 18
4 A-WM ALEDS4TSFY - 40W +
MAB
Single 5468 5468 1.000 Type IV Slipfitter Mount to
Wall Bracket

40.4 40.4 161.6 B1-U0-G2 18, 30
518.108 0
146.107 10 480.005 0
15 A-WM 329.951 207.298 18 273.835 016 A-WM 331.66 208.338 18 32.837 017 A-WM 382.084 173.43 30 38.987 018 A-WM 382.214 171.122 30 318.142 019 A-WM+HSS 312.494 100.622 18 36.064 0Total Quantity: 19 Fc 0.57 18.9 0.0 N.A. N.A.
3 AA2 441.625 199.631 10 248.833 03 AA2 441.053 200.925 10 518.833 04 AA2 448.598 146.025 10 201.638 04 AA2 449.159 147.324 10 471.638 05 AA2 431.468 111.866 10 192.425 05 AA2 432.23 113.058 10 462.425 06 AA2+HSS 408.854 76.31 10 90 013 AA2 181.642 146.081 10 57.094 013 AA2 181.939 144.698 10 327.094 014 AA2 245.825 144.741 10 210.005 014 AA2 246.191 Readings taken at 0'-0" AFG 10 10 Horizontal
StatArea - Parking Lot Illuminance Fc 1.52 17.6 0.0 N.A. N.A. Readings taken at 0'-0" AFG Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 39 of 199 ends

ALEDS4TSFY
Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2024 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice

Page 1 of 3 ends

Color: Bronze Weight: 14.7 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Driver Info
Type Constant Current
120V 0.67A
208V 0.40A
240V 0.34A
277V 0.30A
Input Watts 81.1/57.2/40.4W
LED Info
Watts 80W
Color Temp 3000K (Warm)
Color
Accuracy 82 CRI
L70
Lifespan 100,000 Hours
Lumens 10,172/7,517/5,468 lm
Efficacy 125.4/131.4/135.3
lm/W
Technical Specifications
Field Adjustability
Field Adjustable (Wattage):

Field adjustable light output in 3 discrete steps:

Small Housing: 80W/60W/40W (factory default 80W)
Compliance
UL Listed:

Suitable for wet locations
IP Rating:

Ingress protection rating of IP66 for dust and water
IESNA LM-79 & LM-80 Testing:

RAB LED luminaires and LED components have been
tested by an independent laboratory in accordance
with IESNA LM-79 and LM-80.

Dark Sky Conformance:

Dark Sky Approved in 3000K. Conforms to (allows for
conformance to) the IDA's fully shielding
requirement, emitting no light above 90 degrees
(with the exclusion of incidental light reflecting from fixture housing, mounts, and pole).

Light Usage for Night Applications:

This product has received the Design Lights
Consortium's LUNA listing for 3000K Models.

Designed to meet LUNA 5.1 requirements.

LUNA Product Code: S-FMQH1N
DLC Listed:

This product is listed by Design Lights Consortium
(DLC) as an ultra-efficient premium product that
qualifies for the highest tier of rebates from DLC
Member Utilities. Designed to meet DLC 5.1
requirements.

DLC Product Code: S-FMQH1N
LED Characteristics
LEDs:

Long-life, high-efficacy, discrete, surface-mount
LEDs
Color Consistency:
7-step MacAdam Ellipse binning to achieve
consistent fixture-to-fixture color
Color Stability:

LED color temperature is warrantied to shift no more
than 200K in color temperature over a 5-year period
Color Uniformity:

RAB's range of Correlated Color Temperature follows
the guidelines of the American National Standard for
(SSL) Products, ANSI C78.377-2017.

Electrical
Driver:
40W: Constant Current, Class 2, 120-277V, 50/60 Hz,
120V: 0.34A, 208V: 0.20A, 240V: 0.17A, 277V: 0.15A
60W: Constant Current, Class 2, 120-277V, 50/60 Hz,
120V: 0.50A, 208V: 0.30A, 240V: 0.25A, 277V: 0.22A
80W: Constant Current, Class 2, 120-277V, 50/60 Hz,
120V: 0.67A, 208V: 0.40A, 240V: 0.34A, 277V: 0.30A
Dimming Driver:

Driver includes dimming control wiring for 0-10V
dimming systems. Requires separate 0-10V DC
dimming circuit. Dims down to 10%.

THD:

2.32% at 120V, 7.28% at 277V
Power Factor:

99.9% at 120V, 96.5% at 277V
Surge Protection:

Line to Line: 10kV
Line to Ground: 6kV
Performance
Lifespan:
100,000-Hour LED lifespan based on IES LM-80
results and TM-21 calculations
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 40 of 199 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Technical Specifications (continued)
Wattage Equivalency:

Equivalent to 250W Metal Halide
Construction
IES Classification:

The Type IV distribution is especially suited for
mounting on the sides of buildings and walls, and
for illuminating the perimeter of parking areas. It
produces a semicircular distribution with essentially
the same candlepower at lateral angles from 90° to
270°.

Cold Weather Starting:

The minimum starting temperature is -40°C (-40°F)
Ambient Temperature :

Max Power Temp Rating: 40°C (104°F)
Middle Power Temp Rating: 52°C (125°F)
Low Power Temp Rating: 58°C (137°F)
Housing:

Die-cast aluminum
Mounting:
2 3/8" slipfitter mount with stainless steel hardware
Tilt Increment:

Rotates in 5 degree increments
Reflector:

Aluminum reflector with white polycarbonate
Vibration Rating:
3G vibration rating per ANSI C136.31
Effective Projected Area:
1 Fixture: 0.39
2 Fixtures at 90°: 0.62
2 Fixtures at 180°: 0.79
3 Fixtures at 90°: 1.01
4 Fixtures at 90°: 1.01
Gaskets:

High-temperature silicone gaskets
Finish:

Formulated for high durability and long-lasting color
Green Technology:

Mercury and UV free. RoHS-compliant components.

Optical
BUG Rating:
40W: B1 U0 G2
60W: B1 U0 G2
40W: B1 U0 G2
Other
Warranty:

RAB warrants that our LED products will be free from
defects in materials and workmanship for a period of
ten (10) years from the date of delivery to the end
user, including coverage of light output, color
stability, driver performance and fixture finish. RAB's warranty is subject to all terms and conditions found
at rablighting.com/warranty.

Buy American Act Compliance:

RAB values USA manufacturing! Upon request, RAB
may be able to manufacture this product to be
compliant with the Buy American Act (BAA). Please
contact customer service to request a quote for the
product to be made BAA compliant.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 41 of 199 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Dimensions Features
0-10V dimmable standard
IP66 Rated
100,000-Hour LED lifespan
10-Year, No-Compromise Warranty
Ordering Matrix
Family Housing Size Distribution Mounting Color Temp Finish Voltage Options ALED S 4T SF Y
M = Medium (150W/90W/78W)
L = Large (260W/220W/170W)
XL = Extra Large
(385W/345W/300W)
S = Small (80W/60W/40W)
2T = Type II
3T = Type III
4T = Type IV
5T = Type V
AT = Auto Dealership
Optic
Blank = Universal
Pole Mount
SF = Slipfitter
WM = Wall Mount
Blank = 5000K
Cool
Y = 3000K
Warm
N = 4000K
Neutral
Blank =
Bronze
W = White
B = Black
Blank = 120-277V,
0-10V Dimming
/480 = 480V, 0-10V
Dimming 1
Blank = No Option
/7PR = 7 Pin Twistlock
Receptacle
/WS2 = Wattstopper,
20ft lens
/WS4 = Wattstopper,
40ft lens 2
1 480V available in Medium, Large & Extra Large fixtures only 2 Wattstopper option available in Large & Extra Large fixtures only Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 42 of 199 ends

ALEDSHS
Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2024 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice

Page 1 of 1 ends

Color: Bronze Weight: 1.0 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Technical Specifications
Performance
Description:

ALED house side shield with 4 screws
Compatible Products:

ALED Small Field Adjustable
Construction
Dimensions (LxWxH):
10 3/8" x 10 1/4" x 6"
Finish:

Formulated for high durability and long-lasting color
Other
Buy American Act Compliance:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 43 of 199 ends

MAB
Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2024 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice

Page 1 of 2 ends

Bullhorn bracket safely supports HID floodlights. Great with Floodzilla, Megaflood and Flexflood models.

Color: Bronze Weight: 10.7 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Technical Specifications
Construction
Finish:

Weather resistant polyester powder, bronze
Bullhorns:
1 Tenon for slip fitters. Right angle bracket. Bullhorns fit 2 3/8" (6cm) O.D. tenons and accommodate 2 3/8"
(6cm) slip fitters. Steel tubing.150" and.200" thick
welded with (4) 3/8" bolts for securing to pole.

Slipfitters & Wall Brackets:
3/16" thick steel with 1/2" nuts and bolts
Maximum Weight:
90 lbs
EPA Maximum Capacity:

4.0 per arm
Other
Buy American Act Compliance:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 44 of 199 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Dimensions Features
Easy, secure floodlight mounting
Double Reinforced weld joints
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 45 of 199 ends

ALEDS4TY
Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2024 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice

Page 1 of 3 ends

Color: Bronze Weight: 13.2 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Field adjustable light output in 3 discrete steps:

Small Housing: 80W/60W/40W (factory default 80W)
Compliance
UL Listed:

Suitable for wet locations
IP Rating:

Ingress protection rating of IP66 for dust and water
IESNA LM-79 & LM-80 Testing:

RAB LED luminaires and LED components have been
tested by an independent laboratory in accordance
with IESNA LM-79 and LM-80.

Dark Sky Conformance:

Light Usage for Night Applications:

This product has received the Design Lights
Consortium's LUNA listing for 3000K Models.

Designed to meet LUNA 5.1 requirements.

LUNA Product Code: S-FMQH1N
Trade Agreements Act Compliant:

This product is a product of Cambodia and a
"designated country" end product that complies
with the Trade Agreements Act
DLC Listed:

DLC Product Code: S-FMQH1N
LUNA:

This product has received the Design Lights
Consortium's LUNA listing for 3000K Models.

Designed to meet LUNA 5.1 requirements.

LUNA Product Code: S-FMQH1N
LED Characteristics
LEDs:

Long-life, high-efficacy, discrete, surface-mount
LEDs
Color Consistency:
7-step MacAdam Ellipse binning to achieve
consistent fixture-to-fixture color
Color Stability:

LED color temperature is warrantied to shift no more
than 200K in color temperature over a 5-year period
Color Uniformity:

RAB's range of Correlated Color Temperature follows
the guidelines of the American National Standard for
(SSL) Products, ANSI C78.377-2017.

Driver includes dimming control wiring for 0-10V
dimming systems. Requires separate 0-10V DC
dimming circuit. Dims down to 10%.

THD:

2.32% at 120V, 7.28% at 277V
Power Factor:

99.9% at 120V, 96.5% at 277V
Surge Protection:

Line to Line: 10kV
Line to Ground: 6kV
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 46 of 199 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Technical Specifications (continued)
Performance
Lifespan:
100,000-Hour LED lifespan based on IES LM-80
results and TM-21 calculations
Wattage Equivalency:

Equivalent to 250W Metal Halide
Construction
IES Classification:

Cold Weather Starting:

The minimum starting temperature is -40°C (-40°F)
Ambient Temperature :

Max Power Temp Rating: 40°C (104°F)
Middle Power Temp Rating: 52°C (125°F)
Low Power Temp Rating: 58°C (137°F)
Housing:

Die-cast aluminum
Mounting:

Universal mounting arm compatible for hole spacing
patterns from 1" to 5 1/2" center to center. Round
Pole Adaptor plate included as a standard. Easy slide
and lock to mount fixture with ease.

Reflector:

Aluminum reflector with white polycarbonate
Vibration Rating:
3G vibration rating per ANSI C136.31
Effective Projected Area:
1 Fixture: 0.35
2 Fixtures at 90°: 0.54
2 Fixtures at 180°: 0.7
3 Fixtures at 90°: 0.9
4 Fixtures at 90°: 0.9
Gaskets:

High-temperature silicone gaskets
Finish:

Formulated for high durability and long-lasting color
Green Technology:

Mercury and UV free. RoHS-compliant components.

Optical
BUG Rating:
40W: B1 U0 G2
60W: B1 U0 G2
40W: B1 U0 G2
Other
Warranty:

Buy American Act Compliance:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 47 of 199 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Dimensions Features
0-10V dimmable standard
IP66 Rated
100,000-Hour LED lifespan
10-Year, No-Compromise Warranty
Ordering Matrix
Family Housing Size Distribution Mounting Color Temp Finish Voltage Options ALED S 4T Y
M = Medium (150W/90W/78W)
L = Large (260W/220W/170W)
XL = Extra Large
(385W/345W/300W)
S = Small (80W/60W/40W)
2T = Type II
3T = Type III
4T = Type IV
5T = Type V
AT = Auto Dealership
Optic
Blank = Universal
Pole Mount
SF = Slipfitter
WM = Wall Mount
Blank = 5000K
Cool
Y = 3000K
Warm
N = 4000K
Neutral
Blank =
Bronze
W = White
B = Black
Blank = 120-277V,
0-10V Dimming
/480 = 480V, 0-10V
Dimming 1
Blank = No Option
/7PR = 7 Pin Twistlock
Receptacle
/WS2 = Wattstopper,
20ft lens
/WS4 = Wattstopper,
40ft lens 2
1 480V available in Medium, Large & Extra Large fixtures only 2 Wattstopper option available in Large & Extra Large fixtures only Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 48 of 199 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

Color: Bronze Weight: 1.0 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Technical Specifications
Performance
Description:

ALED house side shield with 4 screws
Compatible Products:

ALED Small Field Adjustable
Construction
Dimensions (LxWxH):
10 3/8" x 10 1/4" x 6"
Finish:

Formulated for high durability and long-lasting color
Other
Buy American Act Compliance:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 49 of 199 ends

PS4-11-10D2
Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2024 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice

Page 1 of 2 ends

Square steel poles drilled for 2 Area Lights at 180°. Designed for ground mounting. Poles are stocked nationwide for quick shipment. Protective packaging ensures poles arrive at the job site good as new.

Color: Bronze Weight: 72.8 lbs
Project: Type:

Prepared By: Date:

Technical Specifications
Compliance
CSA Listed:

Suitable for wet locations
Construction
Shaft:
46,000 p.s.i. minimum yield.

Hand Holes:

Reinforced with grounding lug and removable cover
Base Plates:

Slotted base plates 36,000 p.s.i.

Shipping Protection:

All poles are shipped in individual corrugated
cartons to prevent finish damage
Color:

Bronze powder coating
Height:
10 ft
Weight:
73 lbs
Gauge:
11 Wall Thickness:
1/8"
Shaft Size:
4"
Hand Hole Dimensions:
3" x 5"
Bolt Circle:
8 1/2"
Base Dimension:
8"
Anchor Bolt:

Galvanized anchor bolts and galvanized hardware
and anchor bolt template. All bolts have a 3" hook.

Anchor Bolt Templates:

WARNING Template must be printed on 11" x 17"
sheet for actual size. CHECK SCALE BEFORE USING.

Templates shipped with anchor bolts and available
online.

Pre-Shipped Anchor Bolts:

Bolts can be pre-shipped upon request for additional
freight charge
Max EPA's/Max Weights:
70MPH 28.8 ft/800 lb.
80MPH 21.6 ft/510lb.
90MPH 16.5 ft/510 lb.
100MPH 12.9 ft/510 lb.
110MPH 10.3 ft/500 lb.
120MPH 8.3 ft/495lb.
130MPH 6.7 ft/495 lb.
140MPH 5.5 ft/485 lb.
150MPH 4.5 ft/480 lb
Other
Terms of Sale:

Pole Terms of Sale is available online.

Buy American Act Compliance:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 50 of 199 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Dimensions Features
Designed for ground mounting
Heavy duty TGIC polyester coating
Reinforced hand holes with grounding lug and removable cover for easy wiring access
Pole caps, base covers & bolts are sold separately
Custom manufactured for each application
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 51 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 21 Oct 2024
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP-24-1) That Would Have Authorized a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Facility at 301 First Street West Under the Adaptive Reuse Provisions of the City’s Development Code. The Appellant Requests the City Council Approve the Use Permit Amendment and Wine Tasting Use Permit and Give Direction to Staff on Policy Issues Concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Summary
Continued Discussion
This project is a continuation of the prior appeal hearing on September 4, 2024, for a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Permit (WTUP-24-1) that sought authorization for a vacation rental and wine tasting facility at 301 First Street West under the Adaptive Reuse provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code (SMC). The City Council requested additional information before making a final decision on the appeal and continued the hearing to October 2, 2024. Because the October 2, 2024, meeting was cancelled, staff re-noticed the public hearing for October 21, 2024.

Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
The City Council asked staff to research the use of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance over time and provide additional information regarding its application. When reviewing earlier findings made under the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, staff found the ordinance had undergone multiple iterations. Initially, the ordinance required four findings between 2003-2009. In 2009, City Council amended the regulations to require proprieties seeking to be used as a vacation rental be listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. The City Council also amended the ordinance to require an additional finding to approve a vacation rental: the Planning Commission must find that the alteration or adaptive reuse would:

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.

Staff reviewed prior uses of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance and prepared a table (attached), which identifies the decision for each proposal that could be found. The table indicates the site address, zoning designation, approval date and corresponding ordinance, each property’s prior and proposed uses, whether it would have structural improvements, Planning Commission decisions, and City Council decisions if appealed.

Of the nine sites allowed to be used as vacation rental through adaptive reuse, only two have been approved since the new finding was added in 2009.[1] First, in 2011, the Planning Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 52 of 199 ends

Commission approved a wine bar and gift shop at 180 East Napa. It then approved a vacation rental after the remodel had been completed to convert the structure back to a living space in 2013. Second, in 2014, the Planning Commission denied a request for two vacation rentals at 162-166 West Spain Street, but the City Council overturned that decision and approved the vacation rentals on appeal. There, the applicant provided evidence that substantial construction work was needed to justify adaptive reuse.

Overall, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance was used to approve changes to uses over time for the same property, not all of which required improvements to the historic structures.

Vacation Rentals
Staff also investigated whether an applicant could use the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance since Vacation Rentals are no longer an allowed use in the City as of 2017. In looking at the history of Ordinance 11-2017, which banned new vacation rentals, the City Council and Planning Commission discussed allowing vacation rentals through the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in June and September 2017 respectively. No modification to the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance was incorporated in the final ordinance.

Findings Required
Under SMC Section 19.84.040, processing of appeals, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission based on findings of fact. “The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal and verify the compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this development code.” SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive reuse), attached, allows historic structures to be used for purposes not otherwise allowed in the base zone if granted a conditional use permit with additional findings as set out in this code section in connection with the adaptive reuse of the property as well for a Wine Tasting Use Permit and a Vacation Rental. Staff found that the proposed project qualifies to use the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b) because it is listed as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District and was found to be individually eligible for the State Register. In 2018, the original project was approved and allowed the retail use through the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. In 2024, the Planning Commission heard a proposed project to amend the prior approval to allow vacation rental and wine tasting in addition to the retail use.

On April 18, 2024, staff discussed concerns raised and provided findings of approval and conditions of approval for the project in the staff report (Link to Staff Report and Video). After hearing the item, the Planning Commission determined the proposed uses of a vacation rental and wine tasting facility are not compatible with the surrounding residential uses due to their operational characteristics including noise and increased congestion. Staff returned to the Planning Commission with findings of denial. (Both findings are attached).

The Planning Commission also determined it could not make the additional finding for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental. The Planning Commission determined that, because the restoration and renovation was completed in 2023, it could not find the project would "restore and rehabilitate a historic structure 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". This finding was not applicable in 2018 because no vacation rental was proposed.

The Appellant claims in its appeal that the Planning Commission’s determinations contradict SMC Section 19.42.030. The Appellant claims the adaptive reuse ordinance does not “preclude adding other allowable uses to a historic property’s original adaptive reuse permit following the Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 53 of 199 ends

granting of the initial use permit or completion of the initial project.” They additionally state that the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting uses are compatible with the neighborhood because “[t]he ice house is part of a dynamic mixed use neighborhood which includes restaurants, high occupancy sporting events, picnics, wine tasting, public assembly, residential and farmers market uses less than a five-minute walk from the Ice House front door.” [1] The attached table also indicates one project was approved under the 2009 version of the adaptive reuse ordinance in 2012 at 143 West Spain Street. However, there, the applicant sought an adaptive reuse permit to change from an existing vacation rental use to office and wine tasting uses. The City therefore did not need to apply the additional finding regarding vacation rentals at that time.

Recommended Council Action
Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on May 16, 2024, Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23- 40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit At 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042).” Alternative Actions

1. Affirm the appeal in part or whole, set aside the decision of the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a Resolution, with findings reached by the City Council to do so.

2. Request additional information from the appellant to substantiate and support arguments and continue the matter to a future hearing date.

3. Remand the project back to the Planning Commission, with specific direction on what the Planning Commission must consider. The Planning Commission may take final action, or the City Council may direct that the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.

Financial Impact
N/A
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Draft Resolution Denying Appeal
Planning Commission Resolution of Denial
Appeal Application
SMC 19.42.030
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Implementation
Findings Comparison
Public Comment received can be found on the CivicWeb Portal:
https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 54 of 199 ends

1 City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON MAY 16, 2024 DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO THE USE PERMIT (UA 23-40) AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT (WTUP 24-1) APPLICATIONS OF MICHAEL ROSS TO ALLOW A VACATION RENTAL AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT AT 301 FIRST STREET WEST (APN 018-161- 042)
WHEREAS, Michael Ross submitted an application for a Use Permit on December 26, 2023 and a Wine Tasting Use Permit on January 18, 2024 at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2024, to consider the merits of the Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project. The Planning Commission determined that it could not make the findings necessary for approval and provided direction to staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution for denial; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2024, staff presented a resolution for denial that was approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2023, Leslie McQuown, Owner (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow a vacation rental and a wine tasting permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Appeal on July 17, 2024, and was continued to September 4, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a continued public hearing for the Appeal on September 4, 2024, and requested staff return with additional information regarding the previous use of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance and continued the hearing to October 2, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council meeting on October 2, 2024 was cancelled and staff noticed the public hearing for the Appeal on October 21, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Appeal on October 21, 2024.

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

I. Record

Page 55 of 199 ends

2 b. The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission relating to the Project; c. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by the staff, applicant, public, environmental consultants and sub consultants relating to the Project;
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Project;
e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other Cityadopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

II. Decision
A. On the basis of the record before it, the City Council hereby DENIES the appeal filed by the Appellant and affirms the Planning Commission’s decision to DENY the Project for the reasons stated in the Planning Commission’s Resolution of May 16, 2024, denying the application and the following:

1. The Project is not consistent with the Municipal Code;

2. The appeal lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims made therein, including those regarding the character of the surrounding neighborhood;

3. The project does not meet the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, Adaptative Reuse Findings or the Wine Tasting Use Permit.

B. It is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 56 of 199 ends

3 not apply to "projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(b)(5); see also, Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 908; Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.).

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

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this ___________________, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 57 of 199 ends

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # -2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO THE USE PERMIT (UA 23-40) AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT (WTUP 24-1) APPLICATIONS OF MICHAEL ROSS TO ALLOW A VACATION RENTAL AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT AT 301 FIRST STREET WEST (APN 018-161-042).

WHEREAS, Michael Ross submitted an application for a Use Permit on December 26, 2023 and a Wine Tasting Use Permit on January 18, 2024 at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161- 042); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2024, to consider the merits of the Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project. The Planning Commission determined that it could not make the findings necessary for approval and provided direction to staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution for denial.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and declares as follows:

I. Record

1. to the Project includes, but is not limited to:
a. The technical reports and all other documents relied upon for the proposed Categorical Exemption;
b. The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission relating to the Project; c. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by the staff, applicant, public, environmental consultants and sub consultants relating to the Project;
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Project;
e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other City-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including, Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 58 of 199 ends

but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of documents and other materials are located at Sonoma City Hall, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476.

II. Use Permit Approval Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary for approval of a Use Permit under section 19.54.040.E of the Development Code, specifically:

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximity to several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it also abuts residential development. The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with singlefamily homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a single-family home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity as required under SMC §

19.54.040(E)(3).

III. Adaptive Reuse Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make all necessary findings to approve the adaptive reuse of an historic structure under section 19.42.030.E of the Development Code, which would be required for the proposed uses in addition to those findings required under SMC §

19.54.040 (Use permits). The alteration or adaptive reuse would not:

Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 59 of 199 ends

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
The property recently underwent extensive renovations under a Use Permit the Planning Commission granted in May 2018 for the restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive reuse of the historic Ince House Building and barn. Because those renovations have been completed, the proposed project consists of a proposed expansion of allowed uses that are not compatible with the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would not enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts
The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not stabilize and improve the Historic Train District and neighborhood. The proposed project would expand non compatible commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and therefore this finding cannot be made.

3. Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting phases of the city encourage design styles and construction methods and materials that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood(s)
The project site and Cooperage building are contributing elements to the Historic Train District. However, no construction is proposed at this time. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not preserve the architectural design or construction methods. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

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 The proposed project qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. The Cooperage building and the adjoining barn have been found to be historically significant and recently underwent a major renovation and seismic retrofit to the unreinforced masonry structure. The recently completed renovation resulted in the stabilization and strengthening of the Cooperage building and the barn which Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 60 of 199 ends

enabled them to be used in an economically beneficial manner, rather than allowing their continued deterioration. At this time, the applicant requests to expand the allowable uses on site to add the use of the second floor as a vacation rental and the lower level as a wine tasting facility in order to help recoup unexpected expenses associated with the renovations. However, the proposed expansion of use would not restore or rehabilitate a historic structure or property that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration. The restoration was completed and the structure is not in a state of disrepair. The proposed expansion of use is not required to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition. Therefore, this finding cannot be met.

IV. Wine Tasting Use Permit Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make all necessary findings to approve a Wine Tasting Use Permit under section 19.50.120.A.5 of the Development Code. b. The proposed use is allowed with a WTUP within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations of this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions)
Pursuant to SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse), the adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zoning may be allowed subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The proposed project would qualify to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. However, as discussed above, the required findings of project approval cannot be met for the adaptive reuse as the renovation has been completed and the proposed expansion of use would not be required to stabilize the property and protect the Historic Train District. c. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximity to several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut residential development. The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with singlefamily homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a singlefamily home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 61 of 199 ends

f. The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the area residents, or result in an undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages in the area
The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is located on the same street as several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it abuts residential development. Overall, the proposed location is not compatible with the neighborhood as the surrounding uses are residential.
g. The proposed use is located at an appropriate distance from:
i. Potential sensitive or incompatible uses such as religious facilities, schools, public parks and playgrounds, and other similar uses; and ii. The size and proposed activity level of the use will be compatible with the uses, and/or character of, the surrounding area
The proposed site is not located near any religious facilities or schools but is across the street from Depot Park. As discussed above, the site is surrounded by residential development and the proposed wine tasting use is not compatible with the site.

V. Indemnity and Time Limits
A. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the decision at issue herein, including any approval of any portion of the project or the environmental review document(s) for the Project. This indemnification shall include costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the developer, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

B. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the developer desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.

C. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding describer in no. A or B above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the developer of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 62 of 199 ends

City, (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonable withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the developer in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the developer.

D. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, indemnifies the indemnification provisions.

E. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.

VI. Project Denial
Based on the determinations set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies approval of a Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit as set forth in the project narrative dated March 6, 2024 and project plans dated December 9, 2023.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, it is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed not apply to "projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(b)(5); see also, Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 908; Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma on May 16, 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recuse:

Chair Barnett
Attest
Natalie Lundeen
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 63 of 199 ends

City of Sonoma
Appeal Application Form
7 A copy of the rights of appeal and the City’s appeal procedures may be found Ohm The fee to file an appeal must accompany this form ’
, Appeals must be ?led with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the action Appeals must address issues raised or decisions made at previous hearings. Appeal hearings cannot be used as a forum to introduce new issues
- In order for your appeal to be valid this form must be filled out completely.

Feel free to attach additional sheets or supporting documentation as may be necessary.

APPELLANT INFORMATION: (Please Print)
Leslie McQuown Name:
19320 Carriger Rd.. Sonoma, CA 95476 Address'
Name:

Address:
(707) 935-6520 Phone: Phone:
/We the undersigned do hereby appeal the decision of the:

I Planning Commission Design Review Commission
City Planner or Department Staff Other:

Adoption of Res. #02024 denying amendment to CUP and a WTUP (Title of project or application)
Located at: 301 First Street West, Sonoma
(Address)
Regarding:

Made on: May 16, 2024
(Date decision was made)
lNVe hereby declare that |/We are eligible to file an appeal because:
(Refer to Section 19.84.30-A, Eligibility,on the reverse) The appellant has an ownership interest in the real property that is the subject of the resolution being appealed.

The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:

See Attachment "A",incorporated here by reference.
lNVe request that the Appeal Body take the following specific action(s):

Approve the requested amendment to CUP and approve the requested Wine Tasting Use Permit and give direction to staff on policy issues concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

Signed; W WWW May 28, 2024
Signature Date
Sig nature Date
G:\FORMS\Applications\Appeal Form.doc
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 64 of 199 ends

Sonoma MunicipalCode Chapter 19.84

APPEALS

19.84.010 Purpose of chapter. Determinations or actions of the city planner and city commissions may be appealed as provided by this chapter. (0rd. 2003—02§ 3, 2003).

19.84.020 Appeal subjects and jurisdiction. Determinations and actions that may be appealed, and the authority to act upon an appeal shall be as follows:

A. Code Administrationand Interpretation. The following determinations and actions of the city planner and department staff may be appealed to the planning commission or the design review commission, as applicable, and then to the council:

1. Determinations on the meaning or applicability of the provisions of this development code that are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with staff;

2. Any determination that a permit application or informationsubmitted with the application is incomplete, in compliance with state law (Government Code Section 65943); and

3. Any enforcement action in compliance with Chapter 19.90 SMC, Enforcement of Development Code Provisions.

B. Land Use Permit and Hearing Decisions Decisions of the city planner on zoning clearances may be appealed to the planning commission or the design review commission, as applicable. Decisions by a commission may be appealed to the council. (0rd. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

19.84.30 Filing of appeals.

A. Eligibility.An appeal may be filed by:

1. Any person affected by an administrative determination or action by the city planner, as described in SMC 19.84.020(A); 2 In the case of a land use permit or hearing decision described in SMC 19.84.020(B), by anyone who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing in connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the city in writing of the nature of their concerns before the hearing;

3. Except as othen/vise provided by law or ordinance of this city, any member of the city council may, at his/her discretion, appeal any final decision of any city commission board or official, to the city council. Ifan appeal is made by a council member, there shall be a presumption applied that the reason for the appeal is because the appealed decision or interpretation has significant and material effects on the quality of lifewithin the city of Sonoma. No inference of bias shall be made because of the appeal and no other reason need be stated by the council person in his/her notice of appeal. Appeals made according to this subsection shall not be subject to any fees.

B. Timing and Form of Appeal. Allappeals shall be submitted in writing on a city application form, and shall specificallystate the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal. Appeals shall be filed in the office of the city clerk within 15 days followingthe final date of the determination or action being appealed.

C. Fee. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee set by the city councils fee resolution, except as provided for in subsection (A)(3) of this section.

D. Scope of Land Use Permit Appeals. An appeal of a decision by the city planner or commission on a land use permit shall be limitedto issues raised at the public hearing, or in writing before the hearing, or information that was not known at the time of the decision that is being appealed.

E. Effect of Filing an Appeal. The filing of a valid appeal shall have the effect of staying the issuance of any permit untilsuch time as the matter on appeal is resolved. (Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

19.84.040 Processing of appeals.

A. Scheduling of Hearing. After an appeal has been received in compliance with the procedures listed in SMC 19.84.030(B), Timing and Form of Appeal, the appeal shall be transmitted to the city planner who shall place the item on the next available commission agenda, or the city clerk shall schedule the matter for the next available council agenda, as applicable to the appeal.

B. Report. After the appeal hearing has been scheduled, the city planner shall prepare a report on the matter, and forward the report to the appropriate appeal body.

C. Joining an Appeal. Only those persons who file an appeal withinthe 15—dayappeal period in compliance with SMC 19.84.030(A), Eligibility,shall be considered the appellants of the subject permit. Any person who wishes to join an appeal shall follow the same procedures for an appellant in compliance with subsection (A) of this section. No person shall be allowed to join an appeal after the end of the 15—day appeal period.

D. Action and Findings.

1. General Procedure. The appeal body shall conduct a public hearing in compliance withChapter 19.88 SMC, Public Hearings. At the hearing, the appeal body may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. a. The appeal body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision, or determination that is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact about the particular case. The findings shall identifythe reasons for the action on the appeal and verify the compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this development code.
b. When reviewing a decision on a land use permit, the appeal body may adopt additional conditions of approval that may address other issues or concerns than the subject of the appeal.

2. Appeals to the City Council. a. By an Appellant. A decision by a commission may be appealed to the city council as provided by SMC 19.84.030, Filing of appeals.
b. Council's Decision Is Final. The decision of the council on an appeal shall be final. c. Tie Vote. A tie vote by the city council with regard to an appeal shall result in the affirmation of the decision of the body whose decision was appealed.

E. Effective Date of Appeal Decision. A decision by the commission is effective on the sixteenth day after the decision, when no appeal to the decision has been filed with the council. A decision by the council is effective as of the date of the decision. A final decision by the city council with regard to an appeal shall take the form of a resolution. (Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

G:\FORMS\AppIications\Appeal Form.doc
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 65 of 199 ends

Attachment “A”
To the Appeal of Leslie McQuown
The appellant is Leslie McQuown. Pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code ("SMC”) Section

1.24.010, “Any person dissatisfied with any final decision of any city commission, board or official may appeal such final decision to the city council. Only final decisions may be appealed to the city council.” On May 16, 2024, the Planning Commission took final action adoption Resolution No. -2024, “AResolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24—1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161—042)” (the "Resolution”). Mr. Ross filed the respective applications on behalf of Mrs. McQuown. She has an ownership interest in the subject property, and is dissatisfied with the Planning Commission’s decision.

The basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission, in its decision, has set precedent for the interpretation of the City’sAdaptive Reuse Ordinance, SMC Section 19.42.030 (the “ARO”).

The ARO is quite literally the only tool the City has to help foster the restoration and renovation of historic structures in the City. The Commission’s decision is contrary to the best interests of historic preservation in the City. The City Council is the appropriate body to set policy in this regard. Additionally, and most importantly to the appellant, her application for a vacation rental and wine tasting use permit should be approved.

The reasons for the appeal are set forth in this Attachment “A”;the transcript of the Planning Commission proceeding submitted concurrently with this appeal (Attachment “8”); testimony to be provided at the Council’s hearing on the appeal; and such other correspondence and materials as the appellant may submit in advance of that hearing. The requisite appeal fee is being submitted to the City Clerk with this appeal.

In order to demonstrate that the Commission’s decision should be reversed as unjust and inappropriate, we have excerpted the Commission’s findings as to adaptive reuse and the WTUP and provided our response.

Resolution Section II — CUP Findings.

In Section ll of the Resolution, the Commission determined that it could not make Use Permit approval findings under section 19.54.040.E(3) ofthe SMC, specifically that “[t]he location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.”
Because the language from the Resolution mirrors the same mischaracterization of the neighborhood discussed as to other Resolution sections copied below, we do not repeat that language here. As discussed in more detail under the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance findings below, the neighborhood in which the property is located is a vibrant, mixed-use area with considerable commercial and public-oriented uses. With appropriate conditions of approval (as originally recommended by City staff), the uses sought under the proposed permits willbe compatible with surrounding uses.

Resolution Section lll — Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Findings.

Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 66 of 199 ends

In Section lll of the Resolution, the Commission determined that it could not make the required findings under the ARC, as follows:

Resolution excerpt. “The property recently underwent extensive renovations under a Use Permithe Planning Commission granted in May 2018 for the restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive reuse of the historic lnce [sic] House Building and barn. Because those renovations have been completed, the proposed project consists of a proposed expansion of allowed uses that are not compatible with the surrounding uses Therefore the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would not enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.” Appeal ResjiIonse‘
Unlike the PiaIIIIiIIII CoInnIisszsion’I; detern'Iination, the City of Sonoma Adaptive Reuse Ordinance 'tEi.42.tiIiItidoes not by its terms preclude adding other allowable uses to a historic I‘Iroperty‘s original adaptive reuse use permit following the granting of the initial use permit or completion of the initial project.

The SlVlCdoes not require Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply for 100% of allowabie uses at the time of initial subrnittal. AI'Ipiyingthis logic would compel Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply fOI tOOO/noftall allowable uses attthe initial use permit submittal to maintain flexibility in the ftmin) n3 I:I:IIIIIiziIIgtthe pots ntiol tOI untoies een ciIrz‘sIunI tances during construction This appioach would I.InI“;IeI es.saiiiy magnify the numbei of potential impacts at the initialsubmittal and lead to denial of AOR applications by the Planning Commission. Insinuating this “Catch 22" into the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance would be a significant disincentive for the private sector to invest in, protect, enhance, and preserve historic structures in the City of Sonoma. "the ARC) is the City oi Sonorna’s only policy incentive supporting the private sectors investment in the pI'Iszservritionand repair of historic structures. Historic renovation projects are fraught with complexity and unI‘liscovered costs that are simply not foreseeable at the time of use permit approvzztl cost:swhich only the property ownei Ir~nuIt bear. Owners are entitled to request an amendment land , quuiie the tiexibiiityt 0 seek appioval of additional allowable uses for these historic properties. the City can then approve such additional uses in its discretion. instead, the Planning Commission’s decision unilaterally bars even the possibility of any such request.

2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic distriCts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts.

Resolution Excerpt: “The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not stabilize and improve the HistoricTrain District and neighborhood. The proposed project would expand non-compatible commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and therefore this finding cannot be made."
Appeal Response:

Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 67 of 199 ends

The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting uses are compatible with the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. The Ice House has been a commercial building on this block for over tot) years, significantly predating many nearby residential uses. The second floor of the structure was a bed and breakfast prior to this owner. The lce House is part of a dynamic mixed— use neigl’iborhood which includes restaurants, high occupancy sporting events, picnics, wine tasting public assembly, residential and farmers market uses less than a five—minutewalk from the lce l~louse front door, The west end of Der-mtPark and ball field is one of the most intensively used outdoor spaces in the City of Sonorna. Hundreds of people enjoy and use this area every week, On the Fourth of July weekend, thousands of people gather in this neighborhood.

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).

Resolution Excerpt: “The project site and Cooperage building are contributing elements to the Historic Train District. However, no construction is proposed currently. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not preserve the architectural design or construction methods. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.”
Appeal ROijJOlrse:

This adaptive ri-i'use [.)l<j)jti3t‘.l approved by the 20'l8 use permit saved the Cooperage Building, assured its future existence, and j:‘)reservr;><:l its diverse architectural design as a contributor to the ireigl'rbort'rooitl.The SMC does not require Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply for 100% of allowable uses at the time of initialsubmittal. The proposed modifications in use are necessary now to provide the applicant future flexibility of use should she desire to retain the property and add value sl’rould she sell the property to attest the extensive costs of preservation The Planning Commission‘s determination that the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is static and applicable only to a single use permit application does not address the complexity and cost of historic preservation. it sends an entirely wrong signal to anyone contemplating historic preservation: you have one shot at getting your uses correct ~ and don’t come back for anything else regardless of what unforeseen circumstances you might face.

The following additional finding is required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental:

Resolution Excerpt: “The proposed project qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the HistoricTrain District. The Cooperage building and the adjoining barn have been found to be historically significant and recently underwent a major renovation and seismic retrofit to the unreinforced masonry structure. The recently completed renovation resulted in the stabilization and strengthening of the Cooperage building and the barn which enabled them to be used in an economically beneficial manner, rather than allowing their continued deterioration.

Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 68 of 199 ends

At this time, the applicant requests to expand the allowable uses on site to add the use of the second floor as a vacation rental and the lower level as a wine tasting facility to help recoup unexpected expenses associated with the renovations.

However, the proposed expansion of use would not restore or rehabilitate a historic structure or property that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration. The restoration was completed, and the structure is not in a state of disrepair. The proposed expansion of use is not required to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition. Therefore, this finding cannot be met.”
/\ppez;il I'Qespt‘nise:
the ARC does not place a time value on when allowable uses can or cannot be added to an adajittiVe reuse use jt>ermit It the owner could have predicted the future, the original use permit would have included the wine tasting and vacation rental uses. The estimated economic benefits necessary to even ren’iotely offset the costs of preservation at the time of the initial use permit approval were unknown. As a reminder, the restoration just got underway at the li>eginningof the Clovid pandemic. This was a period of intense societal stress and was incredibly costly and cliszzrujt.)tiveto construction projects in Sonoma and across the nation, Applying a “one and done“ :zipproacl’ito establisl'iing the econoi'nics of preservation projects does not reflect it‘ioreality ot complex historic preservation processes.

Resolution Section IV. Wine Tasting Use Permit Findings. in Section IVof the Resolution, the Planning Commission determined that it could not make all necessary findings to approve a Wine Tasting Use Permit under section 19.50.120.A.5 of the SMC.
b. The proposed use is allowed with a WTUP within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations of this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions).

Resolution excerpt: “Pursuant to SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse), the adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zoning may be allowed subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The proposed project would qualify to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. However, as discussed above, the required findings of project approval cannot be met for the adaptive reuse as the renovation has been completed and the proposed expansion of use would not be required to stabilize the property and protect the HistoricTrain District.”
Appeal Response
The ARC) does not j,>lacea time value on when allowable uses can or cannot be added to an adaptive reuse use permit. The ARO benefits do not stop at construction completion. Not all ARO allowable uses were believed to be necessary at the time of the initial use permit Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 69 of 199 ends

stirilitmtionThe ice House is now a contributor to the rhetoric Train District only because the current owner stabilized and preserved it for the future. The spirit of the ARC) is to protect Sonoiria’s l'tlStOl'tti; legacy. it is conceivable at sent the current owner‘s commitment to strengthen and restore the structure, following another major earthquake the Ice House could have been a pile of rocks on the ground.
c. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity.

Resolution excerpt: “The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximityto several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut residential development.

The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with single family homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a single family home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.”
Appeal Response:

This denial poinl miscl‘taracterizes the nature of the neighborhood. As previously explained (and repeated here), First Street West north of the Plaza is a dynamic mixed—useneighborhood which includes residential, restaurant, sporting events, picnic, wine tasting, public assembly, residential and laimers ntarket uses less than a five—minutewalk from the Ice House front door.

This area oi Depot Park is one of the most intensively used outdoor spaces in the City of Sonoma. l~tundre s ol people enjoy and use this area every week. On the Fourth of July weekend, thousands of people gather in this neighborhood. Adding two quiet uses to the Ice House would have minimal if any ii’npact to this busy neighborhood. f. The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the area residents or result in an undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages in the area.

Resolution excerpt: "The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is located on the same street as several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it abuts residential development.

Overall, the proposed location is not compatible with the neighborhood as the surrounding uses are residential.”
Appeal Response:

As above. this point miscl‘raracterizes the nature of the neighborhood. The project is compatible with the ireighborhood. While the property is located adjacent to rnulti—familyresidential to the south, a thCEtl’ttlot and single family residential to the north, the neighborhood is incredibly varied up and rilowrtthe block. The proposed use pales in comparison to the intensity of use i
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 70 of 199 ends

already adjacent to the residential uses just to the north, The potential acoustic impacts of vacation rental and wine tasting uses can be attenuated and controlled by conditions of approval.

9. The proposed use is located at an appropriate distance from: i. Potential sensitive or incompatible uses such as religious facilities, schools, public parks and playgrounds, and other similar uses; and ii. The size and proposed activity level of the use will be compatible with the uses, and/or character of, the surrounding area.

Resolution excerpt: “The proposed site is not located near any religious facilities or schools but is across the street from Depot Park. As discussed above, the site is surrounded by residential development and the proposed wine tasting use is not compatible with the site.” Appeal Response:
this is the same point discussed above under (9), and we incorporate our response under (g) here by reference,
Conclusion.

The subject property is located in a busy, mixed-use area of the City. The requested uses are compatible with other uses in the vicinity with appropriate conditions of approval. The ARO does not preclude amendments to previously issued use permits. We respectfully request that the City Council approve the requested permits and provide any direction it may wish to staff on policy issues with the ARO.
l
I
l
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 71 of 199 ends

10 ll
l2
13 14
15 l6
l7
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTACHMENT "B"
City of Sonoma Planning Commission
Item 4.2
301 First Street West in Sonoma
April 18, 2024

Page 1 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 72 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right, we're
now going to move on to item 4.2, which is
discussion, consideration, possible action to
adopt a resolution approving the use permit and
wine tasting use permit application of Michael
Ross, no stranger to this Commission, to allow a
vacation rental and wine tasting facility 301
First Street West. And now we'll have the staff
report, please.

ASSOIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

Thank you, Commissioners. I'm going to start
with a little bit of history on the property.

It's been before the commission and design review
multiple times in the last five or so years.

The primary permit that is governing
the property at the moment is a May 2018 adaptive
reuse permit that authorized the restoration,
seismic, retrofit, and adaptive reuse of the
Cooperage and the barn.

What is approved in the 2018 use permit
is limited retail use of the first floor,
residential use of the second floor, the use of
the existing barn to convert it to an accessory
dwelling unit, and also approve the use of
seismic retrofit credits for parking.

Page 2 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 73 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 There are specific conditions of
approval to the 2018 use permit that are
identified below. Most specific to our
discussion this evening is the first one about
the limited retail use on the ground floor, the
hours of operation, and the fact that there is a
condition of approval that states that further
use of the property for a short—term vacation
rental shall be prohibited.

In general, the process that we're
going through this evening is similar to what we
do for many use permits that they come before the
Commission for conditions of approval to be
amended. And that is in line with our standard
practices that we do for a restaurant, for wine
tasting use permits, and things like that.

So, the project site as it stands today
it's a 7,500 square foot parcel that is developed
with a 5,000 square foot historic two—story
building. There is a 1,600 square foot barn,
part of that barn is an 800 square foot ADU as
well as a common fitness area. And I believe the
detached garage was taken down, so my apologies
for that.

Page 3 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 74 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 2%
25 The property is a contributing resource
to the Sonoma Depot Historic District as a
commercial building. And so, that’s really the
nexus for the adaptive reuse provision which is
contained in our historic resource code, or
excuse me, or historic preservation code in the
Sonoma Municipal Code which is 1942.

So, the first story was constructed in
1906 and the second story in 1923. There are
three tandem uncovered parking spaces that were
approved through that use permit in 2018. The
applicant is currently before the Planning
Commission to request an amendment to the 2018
use permit to expand to have a wine tasting
facility on the lower floor as well as a vacation
rental on the upper floor.

So, the vacation rental component would
be a short—term rental it —— totaling 2,500
square feet approximately. There are two
bedrooms as well as the library that would be
accessible for a vacation rental. And the
narrative states that guests would be limited to
one to six people.

Our code does have specific
requirements for vacation rentals that have

Page 4 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 75 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
limits on the number of people who can stay based
on the number of bedrooms, and that's been
included as a condition of approval.

Regarding the wine tasting use permit.

The Proposal is to have shared space with that
existing allowed retail use on that lower floor,
and that it would be sort of a shared space with
retail as well as a wine tasting facility. And
that would be the whole lower floor that's being
requested at 2,532 square feet.

The requested hours of operation are 9
to 7:00 p.m., six days a week and anticipated two
to four employees. Staff has recommended a
condition of approval to shorten the hours of
operation for the wine tasting facility to shut
that down at 5:00.

The adaptive reuse provision of the
code is in Chapter 19.42.030, and it has created
a permitting process to allow the adapter for use
of historic structures that are not otherwise
allowed in the zoning district. And just for
everyone's edification the zoning for this
property is medium density residential.

And that really is kind of the crux of
the issue this evening that we have a

Page 5 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 76 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
residentially zoned property that historically
has been used for commercial and trying to
balance the competing needs of the neighbors and
the property and respecting the historic nature
of the structure as well.

So, the —~ there is only certain
structures can utilize this provision of the
code. They have to be officially designated for
the state or national register, or they can have
potential historic value. Vacation rentals
cannot be structures that just have historic
value, they have to be officially designated.

This property does qualify as a contributing
element to our Historic Train District.

So, our code breaks down allowable
residential uses and non—residential uses. We're
talking with commercial uses today. So, what is
allowed under the code is to request in a zoning
district that doesn't normally allow it the use
of a bed and breakfast, a hotel, limited retail,
mixed use, professional and service—oriented
offices, restaurants, vacation rentals, and wine
tasting facilities.

In order to try to balance the request
of the applicant with the constraints of the
Page'6
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 77 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 neighborhood, there are recommended conditions of
approval for the Planning Commission to consider.

The commercial use of the ground floor
would be restricted to retail and wine tasting as
proposed. I mentioned the limiting wine tasting
hours to 5:00 p.m. Continuing the ban on special
events and live music that's in the 2018 use
permit.

And there's also additional
requirements for on—site bike parking and for
complimentary bikes for the vacation rental to
try to address parking and congestion in the
downtown. We also have a requirement for a
property management plan to govern how the rental
would be managed and to help provide a point of
contact for the neighbors to address concerns.

In order for the Planning Commission to
approve the project this evening, findings need
to be made for the use permit, the adaptive reuse
permit, as well as the wine tasting use permit.

And I'll just take a second to run through them.

For the use permit we have four findings that
need to be made.

One that the proposed use is consistent
with the general plan and the specific plan.

Page 7 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 78 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
That the proposed use is allowed with a
conditional use permit. The location, size,
design, and operating characteristics are
compatible with existing and future land uses in
the vicinity. The proposed use will not impair
the architectural integrity and character of the
zoning district.

And then, we have six additional
findings for the adaptive reuse. And what what's
being requested is that the 2018 adaptive reuse
permit be amended and that's really one of the
topics of conversation this evening is how do we
address this request that has not been before the
Planning Commission before.

The 2018 permit has been vested it
obtained building permits and there's been
building permit final for the entire building at
this point. So, the findings for adaptive reuse
or does the project enhance, perpetuate,
preserve, protect, and restore the historic
districts neighborhood sites, structures, and
zoning districts which contribute to the
aesthetic and cultural benefit of the city.

Stabilize and improve the economic
value of historic districts, neighborhoods,

Page 8 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 79 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
sites, structures, and zoning districts.

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.

Promote and encourage continued private
ownership and utilization of structures now so
owned and used. Substantially comply with the
applicable Secretary of the Interior standards
and guidelines for the treatment of historic
properties. And there‘s a final finding that is
required for the adaptive reuse for a vacation
rental.

And that is to 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 the adaptive reuse
are necessary to stem further deterioration,
correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition
as implemented in the conditions of project
approval.

Page 9 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 80 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 I think the Commission is fairly
familiar with the wine tasting use permit
findings of approval, so I won't dwell on those.

But we're really looking for —~ the question
comes down to are there potentially sensitive or
incompatible uses. And in architecture ——
there's not —— no changes to the architecture.

So, staff has provided recommendation
and resolution to support approval of the project
and also has provided alternative recommendations
for discussion of the Planning Commission. The
first recommendation is to approve the project as
proposed. And also, the number two option is to
recommend modifications or to provide direction
to staff to deny the amendment to the use permit
or a council —— Commission discretion. So,
staff's available for questions.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, thank you.

Before we move to staff questions, I'll pose my
now perennial question on applications which is
if any members of the Commission have had exparte
communications with interested parties on this
project?
Now would be the opportunity to
disclose those conversations. Which should

Page 10 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 81 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
include generally who you met with, the general
topic of conversation, and whatever else that you
feel the other members of the Commission and the
public would like to know about your
conversation.

COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: I have
spoken with Jim Bohar about a month ago regarding
the neighborhood ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: He's not an
interested party.

COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: Okay.

I've met with Tom Thornley on two separate
occasions. The first was following the Sonoma
League for historic preservation award ceremony
where I briefly spoke to you. And the second
time was up at the property on Brazil Avenue that
you're working, that Tom's working on, and we did
discuss this project briefly. I have seen the
property when it was on Broker Tour as well.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Barbose?
COMMISIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Apparently
not since neighbors don't count?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: NO, my
understanding and you can correct me if I'm

Page 11 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299~5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 82 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wrong. And we have Mr. Ruderman on Zoom, do we
not Natalie?
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUNDEEN:

Yes.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. My
understanding that the definition of an
interested party is a party with a financial
interest in an application or a project. Now,
if Mr. Ruderman is listening, he can correct me.

I don't see him on my screen.

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID RUDERMAN: That is
correct. Can you not hear me?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Yes, I can hear
you.

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID RUDERMAN: Okay.

Yeah, that is correct. It includes people who
have a financial interest as that term is defined
in the Political Reform Act. So, that would be
individuals who own property within 500 feet of
the site ~—
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: SO, that it would
also include neighbors within 500 feet? They
would be considered —— MR. RUDERMAN: Correct.

Page 12 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 83 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: —— interested
parties. Okay. So, I was wrong.

MR. RUDERMAN: Correct.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Mr. Bohar does
qualify.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.

Well, I spoke with Jim Bohar yesterday and he
shared with me a number of concerns that he had
about this project. And I can elaborate on those
but it‘s basically opposition to the wine tasting
and the vacation rental.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Others?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I Spoke
with Mr. Bohar I believe it was Monday around the
exact same topics, his issues around neighborhood
compatibility. And he introduced me to his
neighbor the gentleman here in the brown blazer
in front whose name I'm forgetting, Michael
Heplan.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right.

COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: That is
it.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: And I also had a
conversation with Mr. Bohar in which he expressed
his concerns about the project as a neighbor.

Page 13 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 84 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Anyone else? Okay. Well, now we'll go back to
the questions for staff regarding the staff
report.

By the way I asked that —~ I asked our
development director to have Mr. Ruderman present
at the meeting because I believe that there are
potentially some issues that require a legal
analysis to be able to deal with some of these
application requests. So, keep in mind that we
have our city attorney, land use attorney present
and you can ask him questions that come up in the
discussion as well. Okay. Any questions for
staff on this by members? Yes.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Yeah, I'm
struggling to understand the discrepancy between
the 2018 permit. In particular item C which says
no food shall be prepared and I don't didn't see
that on a condition for approval in this. And
secondly E that says there will not be vacation
rentals. So, I'm wondering if the adaptive use
clause was available in 2018 why it wasn't used
and how do we —— how can we resolve these?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
was a use. So, that was the mechanism for the
approval in 2018.

Page 14 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 85 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER DONNA CAMBACH: SO, but
there are some conditions then —— ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

There were there were conditions. I wasn't ~— I
wasn't there at the time. My understanding for
the kitchen, the limitation on the kitchen, is
because it's not a commercial kitchen. So, it
was not permitted through the county through
Environmental Health Services.

And so, in order to use it for a
commercial purpose they need to go through
additional permitting.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Sure. I
guess that's knowing now that the adaptive reuse
was used in 2018 again, I'm questioning what's
different now?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Because they
went a vacation rental now. And —~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINATIERNEY:

Yes, they put —— they're asking for modifications
to expand the uses on the lower floor to allow
the wine tasting use permit and to allow the

Page 15 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 86 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
vacation rental on the Upper Floor instead of it
being a primary residence.

COMISSIONER DONNA DAMBACH: And then,
again, this the preparation of food was
explicitly called out in 2018 but I didn't notice
it in the new proposal.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
don't think we have changed anything with there,
it might have been moved down but the there is a
condition of approval that would require them to
obtain all applicable permits. And so, in order
to use the kitchen, it's a health department
issue, it's not a use permit issue.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Okay. Thank
you.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Any other
questions? Mr. Barbose.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I find
myself struggling to grasp the historical
underpinnings for the adaptive reuse here. This
isn't listed in any official registry either
state or local, is it?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
is eligible for listing in the state as part of
the Train District.

Page 16 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 87 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Eligible
but not listed.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: It's listed locally.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

It's listed locally.

COMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: And Where
is that?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: On
the city council adopted, what year the train
District, '22 ——
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: We
did the Train District.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: In 2022?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
think so.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: SO, What
was the historical underpinning for the adaptive
reuse in 2018?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
—— there was an —— the analysis was based on the
League For Historic Preservation survey in 2018.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Which said
what?

Page 17 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 88 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

That it is historic. So, it's the way and I'll
let Jennifer comment on how it goes from there
and what the differences are, it's more her area
of expertise.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: So, I did not look at the original
application and their —— and how they applied it.

My understanding is that prior to the city
undertaking an actual survey and completion of
the survey for the Train Historic District, the
League had done the survey. There's, sorry I get
them confused I apologize in advance, or the
Historical Society did the original survey. And
it's been done. So, this was the Cooperage in
the past used to make wine barrels, but then even
prior to that it was used for warehousing for the
train'station.

So, that history was already
established and that would be my understanding is
that's what they probably used in the
determination that it was eligible at that time
for listing. The ordinance itself has not
changed since 2016. We did look that up to see

Page 18 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 89 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
if things had changed since then. But it is now
a listed property.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: IS there
any way to know what the Commission was thinking
when it previously said no short—term rentals?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

Oh, so I believe that the historic resource
evaluation should be in the agenda packet. I'm
double—checking. And my under —— I obviously was
not there at the time, but the vacation rental
ban had already taken place. And so, my
understanding and I venture the Applicant can
comment too.

And this is just historically how we
handled projects at the time was if something
wasn't allowed we tried to specifically state it
in the conditions of approval. So, there have
been numerous use permits that have had to come
through the Planning Commission. One that comes
to mind is Vello where it said there shall be no
alcohol.

And we've had numerous use permits
where there were kind of restrictions that maybe
didn't necessarily need to be there. My guess is
just that the culture at the time we had the

Page 19 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 90 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 vacation rental ban that was enacted in 2017, and
that you know the provision is to try to support
housing and not vacation rentals. But that's
just my best guess.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay, I
have one last no I have one last question and
that is what is the current status of the cities
allowing short~term vacation rentals? Are there
any circumstances under which people get those
put in the adaptive reuse to the side?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

So, they're banned citywide. The existing
permitted vacation rentals we have a list. Some
of them were legal non—conforming, some of them
obtained use permits, those are allowed to
continue provided they meet certain parameters.

They have to maintain a business license, pay
TOT, there's you know 10 or 15 requirements.

They are transferable from property
owner to property owner and then the only way to
get a new one is really through the adaptive
reuse provisions.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thank you.

Page 20 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 91 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Any other,
we're in the questions section of the program,
not comments.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

And I would, if I could just direct so the DPR
forms for the Train District are in the agenda
packet if anyone is interested in seeing those.

CHAIR LARRY BARNiTT: Okay. Any other
questions specifically for staff? No. Okay.

Then we will open this up for public comment.

How many people are interested in speaking
tonight?
All right, we're going to give the
Applicant a little more time because there may be
questions from the Commission for the Applicant
and in general, I would ask members of the public
who want to address the Commission to try to keep
your comments to 3 minutes. I am not going to
ask that the timer be used, but I will be
watching.

And if you start to go on too long, I’m
going to interrupt you. But I don't like the
timer. So, let's start the public hearing. And
Mr. Ross.

Page 21 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 92 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MICHAEL ROSS: Good evening. I'd like
to present a brief PowerPoint presentation if
possible. And hopefully, it'll present.

Excellent.

Well, first off, I'd like to thank you
all for this opportunity. I'm here on behalf of
the owner, Leslie, and Mac McQuown. I am the
architect for the project. And before I make
this presentation, I would like to thank this
Commission as well as the Design Review
Commission and the Sonoma League For Historic
Preservation for all of its support for this
project over the years.

And we really believe this project has
been a wonderful addition now that it's complete
and the construction's over to the neighborhood.

And I'd like to provide a little bit of context
in the spirit of this request tonight.

Our Michael Woods real estate land use
attorney is going to speak to the consistency
with the development code and Tom Thornley the
contractor for the project that did an excellent
job for it will provide an overview of some of
the complexities and the issues that were
encountered during the construction process.

Page 22 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 93 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 But first of all, I'd like to address
the notion that Commissioner Barbose raised
about is this a historic building or not. And
in 2018 the owner commissioned Juliana Inman
architect and resource, historic resource
consultant for it.

And there's an HRE, historic resource
evaluation that was the basis of the 2018
proposal. And that found and I'm quoting here
that "the HRE found the icehouse building to be
an altered vernacular two~story stone and wood
frame building which exhibited good physical
integrity and was eligible," quote ”to retain its
1978 listing in the California Register Of
Historic Resources."
So, in that regard it's a historic
building in addition to it being a major
contributing factor to the Railroad Historic
District. Okay. So, the reasoning for this
application is during the construction period the
cost of the preservation and of the project was
considerable in time and money totaling
approximately $6 million above the other cost for
the project.

Page 23 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 94 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The award—winning outcome, however, was
phenomenal. And the property is now for sale and
the goal of this application is to partially
offset the cost of preserving it that were
encountered along the way. And there were issues
that were totally unknown in 2018 that were
discovered a afterwards during this construction
period that if we would have known then what we
know now we probably would have asked for the
wine tasting use permit as well as the vacation
rental.

So, I know this is an odd thing to come
back retroactively and ask you for this
consideration, but it's really as a method to
increase the value potentially of the property to
assist in its resale.

And we believe that it's a modest
change in use. It's all indoors, it's probably
in the most acoustically attenuated building in
Sonoma. These thick, thick stone walls, no
outdoor use is being proposed, no food service is
being proposed, and we see the upstairs vacation
rental actually being linked to who the potential
owner of whoever the winery is and that there's
synergy between those two spaces. Okay?

Page 24 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 95 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
l7
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 So, I'm going to provide an overview
some of this. You may already know so please
bear with me. In the 1900s the stone building
that we now call the icehouse was formerly known
as the Cooperage. It was built in 1906, the
stone building, the upper floor was not built
until 1923.

The upper floor is a wood frame stucco
clad residence. At that point there was living
above and work below, not unlike what were we're
proposing here, the potential to live above and
work below. The icehouse was —— has been in
continuous commercial use for approximately 114
years.

It has been used as an ice
manufacturing plant, a Cooperage, a brewery, an
armory, a US Naval Training Center, a garage, and
recently as an artist studio and bed and
breakfast. The bed and breakfast was eventually
shut down because it was an unreinforced masonry
building. In '19 or excuse me in 2014 a 6.0
earthquake severely damaged this building. The
Nappa earthquake we all remember it.

And at this point the building actually
needed rescue more so than preservation and it

Page 25 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 96 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
l7
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 was in danger of collapse should another
earthquake come. The use was vacated and boarded
up, it was temporarily shored and stabilized, and
in 2018 we requested the use permit, and we thank
you for approving that.

And what we're asking you for now is
for us to modestly expand that use permit. All
other conditions of approval of the use permit
remain unchanged excepting for the indoor wine
tasting use permit and the ability to have the
vacation rental upstairs.

So, what are the complexities that we
found along the way? Tom can speak to this a
little later, but one of the first things that
were discovered is that there is an artesian well
that was under the structural slab. There was an
event where the jackhammer fell through and
almost the laborer too. It's 22 feet deep and
it's filled with water.

And we decided to preserve it and it
was a costly endeavor. And since this is a
public access first floor with the current use
permit, we thought it would actually be something
that would be unique that people could understand
that this building wasn't actually a Cooperage

Page 26 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 97 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 like we all call it, but it was actually an ice
making facility in the early 1900s.

I still don't understand the magic of
making ice back then, but this was the well that
_provided the water and now it's on —— preserved
and on display in the building. Other things
that were discovered along the way were severely
contaminated soils that needed to be removed,
abated, and cleaned, encapsulated.

And a very complex seismic
strengthening program. Couple this with COVID
and the time stretched out, the costs went up,
and the owner's idea about the project and her
desire to retain it started to change.

And now the building is up for sale,
but it leaves behind this legacy. This is the
space now after it's been retrofitted. This is
the area that would be for the wine tasting room.

This is its location as a key anchor in the City
of Sonoma Historic Train District. This is the
building today. State park on the side. And
some of the after pictures of this really
ambitious and fully committed preservation of a
historic building.

Page 27 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 98 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 So, if you think about it, it's the
private sector or nonprofits that are driving the
preservation of historic buildings in Sonoma.

And if this Commission can assist the private
sector to do it, I believe it is an excellent
thing for all of us to consider. Because it
takes a special type of owner who can actually
acquire a building like this, invest very heavily
in it, and leave behind good work like this.

And just by adding two small uses, the
wine tasting use and the vacation rental, it will
improve the ability for this project to go on to
the next owner and allow it to be part of the
public domain where people can enjoy it, come in
have a glass of wine, and not disturb the
neighbors.

So, I'm here asking your, with great
respect, for your decision here because I know
it's a relatively complicated one, asking your
approval of this amendment to the change of the
use permit. So, I'm available to answer any
questions and with that I would like to introduce
Michael Woods.

Page 28 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 99 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Before we do that
let's see if there's any questions for you. Mr.

Barbose.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Well, if
we sort of look around town it seems like we've
had a lot of tasting rooms fall by the wayside.

Not being in the wine business, I can only
surmise that the cost of the plaza rents versus
the income generated by the tasting room leads
the owners to abandon that as a commercial
venture.

So, I'm just wondering given all the
money that's been put into this, and the
relatively small scale of this tasting room, how
is this tasting room going to recoup any.
significant sums that seemingly weren't available
to all these people who have gone out of
business?
MICHAEL ROSS: Right. Great question.

In a way what we're doing is describing an
imaginary buyer right now. And we see this as —— would be a trophy location for highlighting a brand and it's not necessarily about driving
revenue out of that room. It's really about

Page 29 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 100 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 anchoring the brand with quality which this
building is, and this property is.

And so, I see it more about brand
strengthening than driving revenue from glasses
of wine or sales.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thank you.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Other
questions? I've got one. I noticed in your
survey of photographs an outdoor swimming pool
and what looks to be the area that surrounds it.

Is your application proposing that this area is
not allowed to be used?
MICHAEL ROSS: That swimming pool is
going to be associated with the residential uses
on the property which would be the ADU and the
upstairs unit well.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Will the up ~—
but when you say residential uses are you saying
that the pool would not be available to vacation
rental guests?
MICHAEL ROSS: No, I'm not saying that.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay.

MICHAEL ROSS: I'm saying that would be

Page 30 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 101 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: So, there is an
outdoor potential for outdoor activities on this
property —— MICHAEL ROSS: What ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: ~— at the pool?
MICHAEL ROSS: Commissioner Barnett, I
actually would say that that is something that
would need to be approved through the property
management plan. And since I haven't been privy
to what that might be but currently, I was going
to say that the pools associated with the
residential uses.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, but there
at present there is no residential use and the
Respondent —— and the ADU may end up being a
residential use and have the use of the pool.

But the upstairs of the unit is the future
residential use being proposed now for vacation
rental use in the meantime.

So, I'm just looking for clarity on
what in fact the activity level on this property
will be for up to six people and while and —— and
so, you're saying that that hasn't been defined
yet.

Page 31 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 102 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MICHAEL ROSS: I think it's a valid
question and it hasn't been defined yet, so thank
you for the question. But I'm sure that we could
provide feedback on it or consider a restriction
on that use.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Barbose.

MR. BARBOSE: I'm sorry I forgot my
other question that I wrote down. It has to do
with the artesian well. And it looks like the
shaft of it was somehow reinforced or concrete
was put in that so you can and lighting so you
can look down in it. Is that correct?
MICHAEL ROSS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Was there
a sort of a less costly solution to —— what to
do about the artesian well?
MICHAEL ROSS: Abandon it, and backfill
it, put a concrete slab on top of it.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: And just
in terms of price difference on those two what do
you estimate that was?
MICHAEL ROSS: I have no idea.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Are we
talking millions?

Page 32 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 103 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 MICHAEL ROSS: No. The total cost of
the renovation is best addressed by Tom Thornley.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.

MICHAEL ROSS: But the cost of cleaning
up the soil, removing it, trucking it off very
long distances, the testing, the seismic retrofit
there is —~ this is a very complicated project
that required a lot of care, and it got it.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thanks.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay and anyone
.I.
else with a question? I've got one more. You
made the statement that you might have altered
your proposed uses in 2018 if you knew then what
you know. Now, did I understand that correctly?
MICHAEL ROSS: Yeah, I was trying to —— we didn't go for a wine tasting use permit because the use of property at the time was
twofold. One it was going to be the second
residence of the owner and downstairs was going
to be a lifestyle retail shop.

And so, that was the desire of our
Applicant at the time. And but those —— that use
has changed. She has changed her mind, and she
now has decided to sell the property.

Page 33 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 104 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: NO, I understand
that. My question is I guess I took as the
implication of your comment that what you knew
then versus what you know now was more related to
the nature of the workthat had to be done, not
the not the choice lifestyle choices of the
property owner.

MICHAEL ROSS: Yeah.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Did I understand
that correctly?
MICHAEL ROSS: That's exactly correct.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. SO, then
my follow—up question to that is when did you
realize how expensive this project was actually
going to be and why did the applicant not come
forward sometime between now and six years ago to
request a modification of the application?
Because at some point in time you all
went my God this project is costing 10 times what
we thought it was going to be or whatever it was.

And so, I'm wondering why the ~~ why now at the
very end when the building is completed and the
rehabilitation completed and all this money
spent, why now is it that the request for the

Page 34 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 105 of 199 ends

10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 addendum or the change in the application now
instead of earlier?
MICHAEL ROSS: I think that's a great
question of the owner. I could surmise that she
was dedicated to completing the work and getting
it done so it could maximize the value of the
property. And also, provide her an opportunity
to say should I stay, or should I not stay? You
know there's private decision—making that happens
with everybody. But this decision wasn't made
until after the project was over.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: I see. Okay,
thank you. Yes.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: I have one
follow—up question, you know, along the same
lines. Because as I look at the breakdown of
costs that was provided by the Thornley
Construction, many of the costs are things that
would logically be rolled into the first permit.

You know, the seismic stabilization and
a lot of the asbestos. So, I'm, again, I'm I
understand the COVID shut down that was 50k, but
I'm just curious you know what percentage are we
talking about here? You know it looked —— it
seems like a lot of the sunk costs were already

Page 35 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 106 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
known because of what was permitted and the
request for that. So, if you have any color on
that I'd appreciate it.

MICHAEL ROSS: I think he cost question
should be addressed to Tom who's available here
tonight specifically. But on a project like this
it's near impossible to predict the future. And
—— or the levels of complexity that that's
associated with an old stone building.

And so, it's not surprising for me in
today's marketplace to see the cost of
construction double and like this one, and it
did. And now that it's for sale if we can assist
the sales to offset some of these costs that's
why I'm here. And I really believe that even
with granting this request, it's going to be a
good neighbor, it's not going to be the type of
loud and rowdy restaurant or something. It's
just quiet wine tasting inside of a large stone
building.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Any other
questions? Seeing none, thank you, Michael.

MICHAEL ROSS: Thank you.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Tom, did you want
to come up or was Mr. Woods going to proceed you?

Page 36 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 107 of 199 ends

10 ll
12 l3
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MICHAEL WOODS: Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, Michael Woods. I'm an attorney
representing the property owners. I live on
First Street West my office is at 846 Broadway
here in town. Commissioner Barnett following up
on one of your questions regarding the timing of
the decision making on the project.

There were truly unforeseen conditions
that came about during construction. One of
those was discovering oil, not a good thing in
this context. We found out that there had been a
dry—cleaning plant not far from the property to
the south in the early part of the 20th century
and there had been a fuel oil driven boiler just
across the property line that leaked.

And so, we found hydrocarbons in the
water and brought in the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Once you're under their
jurisdiction you're not going to stop the project
and come to the Planning Commission, frankly, and
ask for an amendment to the use permit.

You really couldn't have done that at
that time. There was a need to approach the
remediation in a way that was consistent with the
Water Board's jurisdiction and that's what we did

Page 37 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 108 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 at very considerable cost. During some of the
soil's remediation efforts I recall that the rear
building was actually elevated several feet into
the air and put on blocks and then chained back
to the earth in order to prevent it from blowing
away.

I mean these kinds of circumstances
came up during construction and Tom knows about
those better than I do. But I guess I would just
point out that there were sort of a cascading
range of issues that came up on the project
during construction that ultimately led the owner
to change course.

And the reason why there was no
discussion about a use permit for wine tasting or
for a vacation rental in 2018 was because that
wasn't part of the owner's plan. As Michael
indicated Mac and Leslie were planning to make
this a second residence here in the valley. They
had their own plans. Leslie had her own plans
for a lifestyle store on the ground floor.

And I think this cascading range of
events that occurred during construction affected
their decision as to whether they wanted to
continue owning the property or not. And they

Page 38 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 109 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 reached the decision that they would not. I
don't think that the use permit for the tasting
room is going to be an economic driver in the
sense of how much money would sales produce from
a given tasting?
I think the closest parallel to this,
at least in my experience, is the Vallejo—
Castenada Adobe that was approved under the
adaptive reuse provisions for an historic
structure back I think it was in 2012, 2013. And
at that time, we had 25 or 30 neighbors who were
very opposed to the project.

They were concerned about potential for
noise, potential for parking issues, they were
concerned I think that the operation of a tasting
room on the north side of West Spain Street
adjacent to Girl in the Fig that they'd had
issues with over the years would be replicated by
Three Sticks at the Vallejo—Castenada Adobe and
that wasn't the case.

Since that project was approved
consistent with the adaptive reuse findings, I
think there's been one neighbor that's expressed
concerns over the years. Hard to avoid something
like that on occasion, but by and large the

Page 39 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 110 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 conditions of approval that allowed investment in
that property saving that Adobe from ruin, that
allowed private tastings by appointment only,
strictly controlled and regulated has worked.

The building was preserved, and the
property has operated as more of a, I think, and
I don't I'm not speaking for the owners at this
point, but I think more as a branding kind of an
exercise and kind of a lifestyle choice where
someone that's interested in those wines also has
a destination location to go for a special
occasion for a wine tasting.

So, it's not what drives the economics
of an individual glass being poured or a bottle
being sold, it's much more organic, I would
expect, in the context of a brand overall. So, I
looked at the findings in the staff report for
compliance with the adaptive reuse ordinance. I
thought they were well drafted and compelling.

I think we meet all of the findings.

And obviously, it's in the Commission's
discretion to determine that, but I think you've
got a solid situation here with the conditions of
approval to where you can approve this consistent
with the adaptive reuse findings.

Page 40 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 111 of 199 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 I think it's important too to consider
just briefly what signal do we send to property
owners who are involved in historic renovation or
restoration in the City of Sonoma. If you're in
a project and you're trying to get it done,
perhaps you're hoping that you would be able to
come back to the Commission at some point and say
look an amendment would be appropriate here and
would help us recoup some of our costs that we
expended on an extraordinarily expensive project.

I don't think we want to send the
signal that you should shut the project down
until you come in and see what approvals you can
get, because that suggests that you're not going
to complete the historic restoration. And I
don't think that's a signal that we want to send.

So, I would recommend obviously on
behalf of the owner and request that you move
forward with approval. Happy to answer any
questions if I can.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Yeah, I've got
one, two. Are you implying that this property
has become a financial hardship to the owner?
MICHAEL WOODS: Yes.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: You are?

Page 41 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 112 of 199 ends

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

Page 42 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 113 of 199 ends

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.

Page 43 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 114 of 199 ends

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

Page 44 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 115 of 199 ends

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

Page 45 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 116 of 199 ends

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

Page 46 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 117 of 199 ends

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.

Page 47 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 118 of 199 ends

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.

Page 48 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 119 of 199 ends

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.

Page 49 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 120 of 199 ends

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

Page 50 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 121 of 199 ends

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.

Page 51 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 122 of 199 ends

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

Page 52 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 123 of 199 ends

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

Page 53 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 124 of 199 ends

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.

Page 54 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 125 of 199 ends

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

Page 55 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 126 of 199 ends

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.

Page 56 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 127 of 199 ends

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,

Page 57 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 128 of 199 ends

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

Page 58 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 129 of 199 ends

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

Page 59 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 130 of 199 ends

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

Page 60 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 131 of 199 ends

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.

Page 61 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 132 of 199 ends

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.

Page 62 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 133 of 199 ends

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

Page 63 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 134 of 199 ends

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

Page 64 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 135 of 199 ends

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

Page 65 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 136 of 199 ends

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

Page 66 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 137 of 199 ends

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

Page 67 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 138 of 199 ends

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.

Page 68 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 139 of 199 ends

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.

Page 69 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 140 of 199 ends

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

Page 70 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 141 of 199 ends

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

Page 71 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 142 of 199 ends

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

Page 72 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 143 of 199 ends

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.

Page 73 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 144 of 199 ends

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.

Page 74 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected] 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 145 of 199 ends

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.

Page 75 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 146 of 199 ends

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

Page 76 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 147 of 199 ends

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

Page 77 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 148 of 199 ends

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.

Page 78 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 149 of 199 ends

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

Page 79 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 150 of 199 ends

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?

Page 80 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 151 of 199 ends

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

Page 81 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]~299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 152 of 199 ends

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

Page 82 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:

Page 153 of 199 ends

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 ——

Page 83 ends

Sonoma City CouncilOctober 21, 2024

Sonoma City Council
October 21, 2024