Agenda packet — Sutter Creek City Council, March 16, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, March 16, 2026 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available in person and LIVE on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSutterCreek.

You can also watch the meeting on Zoom (please note Zoom participation is only available for viewing. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81391466458?pwd=4jXmBm1AP5bEbiID3iDwuxk4GpreRY.1 Or Dial by phone: 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 816 8589 0182 Passcode: 186036 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

3. Public Forum
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda.

Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2. Public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.

4. City Manager’s Report
This section is an opportunity to provide Council members with a brief status update on staff activities. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.

5. Presentations
1 A. Introduce New City Employee - Sutter Creek Police Department - Officer Kristina Stevens Sutter Creek Police Department (SCPD) Chief Jim O'Connell to introduce and administer the Oath of Office for new City employee / SCPD Officer Kristina Stevens.

6. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2026 Recommendation: By motion, approve minutes as presented.

7. Consent Agenda
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and shall be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.

8. Ordinances and Public Hearing
A. Discuss Moratorium on Review, Processing, or Approval of New Temporary Residential Uses Recommendation: Consider, introduce, waive the reading by substitution of title, and adopt Ordinance No. 25-26-XX - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek Imposing A Moratorium on the Permitting of Temporary Residential Uses within City Limits.

9. Administrative Agenda
A. Approve Updated Impact Fees based on New Nexus Study Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 25-26-xx approving the Nexus Study and the updated development impacts fees to take effect on July 1, 2026.

B. City of Sutter Creek Master Fee Schedule
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 25-26-xx, thereby approving the City of Sutter Creek Master Fee Schedule which would take effect on July 1, 2026.

C. Review and Accept the Annual Progress Report on Housing to the California Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Recommendation: Review and Accept the Annual Progress Report to Housing and Community Development (HCD).

D. Continue City Council Discussions from the February 2, 2026 and March 2, 2026 Regular Meetings Regarding Parameters of a Citywide Short Term Rental (STR) Ordinance Recommendation: Resume review, discussion, and consideration regarding the parameters of a ShortTerm Rental (STR) Ordinance; and provide direction regarding said Ordinance. Materials from February 2, 2026 and March 2, 2026 regular meetings of the City Council are provided.

10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present updates on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.
2 11. City Attorney’s Report
This section provides an opportunity for the City Attorney to report on any activities or upcoming legislation of importance to the City. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.

12. Information and Correspondence
A. Monthly Report - City Clerk (February 2026)
B. Monthly Report - City Treasurer (February 2026)
C. Monthly Report - Engineering (February 2026)
D. Monthly Report - Finance (February 2026)
E. Monthly Report - Planning (February 2026)
F. Monthly Report - Marketing / Social Media (February 2026) G. Monthly Report - Police (February 2026)
H. Monthly Report - Public Works (February 2026)
I. Correspondence Received from the Public

13. Closed Session
None.

14. Report from Closed Session
None.

15. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is April 6, 2026.
3 City Council Meeting Minutes (Draft)
Monday, March 02, 2026 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available in person and LIVE on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSutterCreek.

1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting

Present: Mayor Claire Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, Council Members Susan Feist, Dan Riordan and James Swift.

Absent: Council Member Susan Feist and Council Member Dan Riordan City Treasurer: Victoria Runquist
Staff: Tom DuBois - City Manager, Derek Cole - City Attorney, Erin Ventura - Contract City Planner, Jim O’Connell - Police Chief, Mason Peters - Finance Supervisor, Dan Lafontaine - Public Works Director, and Pam Caronongan - City Clerk Mayor Gunselman called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mayor Gunselman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4 Section 6, Item A.

3. Public Forum
Seven (7) public comments were received.

1. Cindy Edwards - expressed concern regarding the safety of the pavements, especially for wheelchair users.

2. Kenny New (ACTC consultant) - shared that the ACTC recently purchased a new paving machine, which would mean that efforts on fixing the roads throughout the County will start very soon.

3. Valerie Spake (representing the office of California Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil) - provided an update regarding Senate Bill 1084 (Firesafe Home Tax Credit Act), Senate Bill 1118 (Generator / Back-Up power Tax Credit Act), and an upcoming mobile office hour at the City of Jackson on March 24, 2026 from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM.

4. Pete Jensen - spoke regarding two topics: (1) high-pressure water leak between Main Street on Nickerson and Elm would cause more erosion on the road if not fixed as soon as possible, and (2) in favor of having a cannabis dispensary in the City.

5. Laura Hardcastle - spoke repairs done on a road nearby her home had already eroded, which is the same road mentioned by Mr. Jensen.

6. Charlotte Griswold - spoke regarding two topics: (1) potholes that need fixing, especially since such potholes have caused problems for motorists, and (2) inquired as to when would the cannabis dispensary be opening in Sutter Creek, and if there is already a determined location for them.

7. Pam Mitzy - shared her concern regarding three topics: (1) Robert Schell’s place at Sutter Hill and its condition, (2) Section 8 homeless facility at Sutter Hill, and (3) no to cannabis dispensaries in Sutter Creek.

4. City Manager’s Report
City Manager DuBois provided his report to the City Council. Aside from responding to inquiries and requests for clarification from City Council, City Manager DuBois also provided a reply to public comments pertaining to pavements and road repairs, the high-pressure water leak between Main Street on Nickerson and Elm, and a cannabis dispensary in Sutter Creek.

City Manager DuBois’ report (slide presentation) can be accessed through this link:
https://www.cityofsuttercreek.org/media/10246

5. Presentations
Jeni de Walt, Director of Child Development for the Amador Child Care Council (ACCC) provided a presentation regarding ACCC’s mission and services.

Director de Walt’s report (slide presentation) can be accessed through this link:
https://www.cityofsuttercreek.org/media/10241
5 Section 6, Item A.

6. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of Feb 2, 2026
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.

The following modifications will be made to the draft minutes:

In Agenda Item No. xx - Cannabis, Vice Mayor Sierk requested to remove the word “narrow” from the draft minutes, although this was what was said, meaning not a lot of changes (not importance).

For Agenda Item No. xx - (page 8), Mayor Gunselman requested correction on the number reported under “Motion Carried.”
Motion made by Commissioner Swift, seconded by Vice Mayor Sierk to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2026 with the modifications noted above.

AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, and Council Member Swift ABSENT: Council Member Feist and Council Member Riordan ABSTAIN: None
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 3-0

7. Consent Agenda
A. Amador County Recreational Agency (ACRA) Dissolution Recommendation: Motion to approve the Termination and Dissolution Agreement for the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA).

Motion made by Vice Mayor Sierk, seconded by Council Member Swift to approve all Consent Agenda items.

AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, and Council Member Swift ABSENT: Council Member Feist and Council Member Riordan ABSTAIN: None
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 3-0

8. Ordinances and Public Hearing
A. Short-Term Rental (STR) Moratorium Extension
Recommendation: Consider extending, for 10 months and 15 days, a moratorium on the review, processing, or approval of new short-term rentals (STRs) to give the City sufficient time to formulate a permanent ordinance regulating such rentals.

City Attorney Cole provided a brief presentation and recommended pulling this Item from the agenda since four-fifths of the City Council was not present, and continuing the discussion at the next regular meeting of the City Council. City Attorney Cole added due to timing, the City must restart the process.
6 Section 6, Item A.

B. Uniform Building Code Adoption
Recommendation: Waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce Ordinance No. xxx, thereby adopting by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and other Uniform Codes with local amendments and thus amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.030 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code.

City Attorney Cole provided the report and responded to inquiries and requests for clarification from the City Council. City Attorney Cole explained the “adoption by reference” process as well as the local amendments based on Sutter Creek’s unique geography.

Motion made by Vice Mayor Sierk, seconded by Council Member Swift to waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce Ordinance No. xxxx, which if adopted would “adopt by reference” the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and other Uniform Codes with local amendments and thus amend Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.030 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code.

AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, and Council Member Swift ABSENT: Council Member Feist and Council Member Riordan ABSTAIN: None
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 3-0

9. Administrative Agenda
A. Continuation from February 2, 2026 City Council Discussion on Parameters of a Short Term Rental Ordinance
Recommendation: Resume review, discussion, and consideration regarding the parameters of a ShortTerm Rental (STR) Ordinance; and provide direction regarding said Ordinance. Supplement provided as well as the original materials from February 2, 2026 regular meeting of the City Council.

Contract City Planner Erin Ventura provided a brief presentation. Contract City Planner Ventura and City Manager DuBois responded to questions and requests for clarification from the City Council.

Contract City Planner Ventura led the discussion regarding the “decision points” or options that were brought up during the February 2, 2026 regular meeting. Since two members of the City Council were not present, the quorum kept the discussion brief.

Mayor Gunselman opened the floor for public comment. Eight (8) public comments were received:

1. Brian Comnes - spoke about having “caps” on STR, “no” to Air B&Bs on certain residential zoning, and how fines on non-compliance could be viewed as a cost of doing an STR/Air B&B business.

2. Kenny New - spoke about how the City should do its best to protect the pride and image of Sutter Creek, and to be cautious as the City considers its treatment on STRs and Air B&Bs.

3. Pete Jensen - expressed his concerns on how many violations occur on STR properties and thereby disrupting the neighbors.
7 Section 6, Item A.

4. Charlotte Griswold - inquired regarding the conditional use permit (CUP) process on STR properties. City Attorney Cole and Contract City Planner Ventura replied that the permits are non-transferrable.

5. Laura Ha - spoke regarding the following: (1) noise issues due to STRs, (2) “no” to turning the STR permitting process into an administrative one, (3) the Planning Commission and the City Council would be the right legislative bodies making these decisions pertaining to STR permitting.

6. Barbara Comnes - spoke regarding vacancy rates of hotels and other similar establishments in commercial zones, and to use that information as part of considering policies regarding STRs.

7. Barry Damiani - spoke against having the STR permit process become an administrative one.

8. Jason Carpenter - spoke regarding vacancy rates of hotels and similar establishments, and the justification of making room for more STR and Air B&B businesses.

After receiving public comment, the City Council briefly resumed discussions with staff.

Via consensus, the City Council decided to continue this Agenda Item for discussion at the next regular meeting of the City Council once all members are in attendance.

B. Discussion regarding the Elected Office of the City Treasurer Staff recommend that the City Council:

1. Discuss and provide direction regarding a November 3, 2026 ballot measure to make the office of the City Treasurer appointive; and

2. Direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution(s) to, upon voter approval, assign the statutory duties and title of "City Treasurer" to the Finance Supervisor.

City Manager DuBois provided the report regarding this agenda item. City Manager DuBois informed the City Council that he had spoken with City Treasurer Runquist, with the latter sharing with him that she does not intend to run for re-election in the upcoming November 3, 2026 municipal election.

City Manager DuBois discussed the “pros and cons” of converting the City Treasurer from an elected to an appointed office.

City Treasurer Runquist shared her opinion stating that the City Treasurer position should remain an elected one due to the oversight provided. Mayor Gunselman asked City Treasurer Runquist regarding the City Treasurer duties and responsibilities.

Guest speaker Cathy Castillo (former Sutter Creek City Treasurer) shared her insights regarding staff’s recommendation. Former City Treasurer Castillo spoke against converting the City Treasurer into an appointed position, citing the loss of oversight and accountability.

Mayor Gunselman posed questions to City Treasurer Runquist and City Manager DuBois regarding the reporting and day-to-day duties of the City Treasurer and the financial-related duties of City staff. City Treasurer Runquist and City Manager DuBois provided their respective responses to inquiries and requests for clarification.
8 Section 6, Item A.

One (1) public comment was received:

1. Carolyn - agreed with former City Treasurer Castillo, and spoke against converting the City Treasurer into an appointed position.

No motion was made to direct staff to prepare a resolution which would convert the City Treasurer position from an elected position to an appointed position.

The motion did not pass.

C. Bryson Park Improvements
Recommendation: Review, consider, and provide direction regarding proposed improvements to Bryson Park; and if supportive, approve applications for grant funding.

Public Works Director Dan Lafontaine and Executive Director Bradley Booker from the Amador Trail Stewardship (ATS) presented before the City Council regarding a grant opportunity from the Amador Community Fund (ACF). If awarded, the ACF grant would be appended with in-kind donations for the layout/design work from the Amador Trail Stewardship as well as soil import and equipment rental from Campbell’s Construction towards the construction of a pump track at a 700-foot section of Bryson Park.

The site amenity would include a pump track, strider track, and bicycle optimized features to enhance Bryson Park.

Public Works Director Lafontaine, ATS Executive Director Booker, and City Manager DuBois responded to questions and requests for clarification from the City Council. Questions regarding lighting at the site, hours of site availability, noise, features and amenities to be built as part of the project, and notification of the neighboring residents before construction begins were raised.

The City Council expressed features that they wish to see in the park. Executive Director Booker and staff noted the feedback from the City Council.

Zero (0) public comment was received.

Motion made by Council Member Swift, seconded by Vice Mayor Sierk directing staff to apply for the $10,000 ACF grant.

AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, and Council Members Feist, Riordan, and Swift ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 3-0
D. Surveillance Technology Policy
Recommendation: Discuss and Consider an Ordinance on surveillance technology Via consensus, the City Council decided to continue this Agenda Item for discussion at the next regular meeting of the City Council once all members are in attendance.

10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
9 Section 6, Item A.

None.

11. City Attorney’s Report
City Attorney Cole stated that he had nothing to report.

12. Information and Correspondence
A. Council Correspondence
The City Council received all correspondence. No comment or feedback was made.

13. Closed Session
None.

14. Report from Closed Session
None.

15. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is March 16, 2026.

Mayor Gunselman adjourned the meeting at 8:43 PM
10 Section 6, Item A.
1 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
FROM: DEREK COLE, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: MORATORIUM ON REVIEW, PROCESSING, OR APPROVAL

OF NEW TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USES
Background and Analysis
The City has in recent years allowed several temporary residential uses to be approved. In recent months, the City Council has become aware of concerns about the continued permitting of such uses in the absence of specific controls and regulations. In response, the proposed urgency ordinance would impose a moratorium on the continued processing or approval of permits for temporary residential uses.

A four-fifths vote of the Council is required to approve the proposed moratorium. Should fourfifths of the City Council vote to enact the urgency ordinance, the ordinance would become effective immediately, but only for a period of 45 days unless extended The ordinance may be extended two additional times, as follows: (1) for an extension of 10 months and 15 days, and (2) for an extension of an additional year. The ordinance may remain in effect for no longer than two years. The purpose of this overall two-year period is to allow the City Council to consider and formulate a permanent ordinance while the moratorium is in effect.

If the Council approves the ordinance, it should give direction regarding the scheduling of any further meeting to continue the urgency ordinance beyond the initial 45-day period. Without an extension, the initial moratorium would expire on April 30, 2026.

Fiscal Impact
There is no material financial impact associated with the adoption of the proposed moratorium.

Item ___
11 Section 8, Item A.
2 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Recommendation
The City Council should consider the adoption of an ordinance imposing a moratorium on the review, processing, or approval of new temporary residential uses within City limits.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance Imposing Moratorium on Approval or Processing of Temporary Residential Uses
12 Section 8, Item A.

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __-26

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER

CREEK IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING OF TEMPORARY

RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN CITY LIMITS
WHEREAS, the City Council has become aware of the potential adverse impacts of temporary residential uses within City limits;
WHEREAS, the Sutter Creek Zoning Code currently allows parties to apply for, and receive approval of, conditional use permits that allow, among other things, for the short-term rental of residences throughout City limits;
WHEREAS, the City Council has become aware, through concerns recently raised by several members of the public, that the continued permitting of temporary residential uses, which currently number at about 20, without the formulation of adequate regulations, may be contrary to the historic character of the City’s residential areas and may lead to compatibility issues that affect the use and enjoyment of residential property;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Sutter Creek’s police power, the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858 provides that, without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance and for the purpose of protecting the public safety, health and welfare, the City Council may adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with “a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time”; and WHEREAS, consistent with the above authority, the City Council desires to adopt a moratorium on the permitting of temporary residential uses within city limits to allow for evaluation of their impact on the residential quality of neighborhoods and for adequate time to adopt a permanent ordinance establishing temporary residential use regulations.

WHEREAS, for the reasons more fully described within, the City Council determines, by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote, that this urgency ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance, is a reasonable and necessary measure designed for the immediate preservation and protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the community; and is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM FINDINGS.
13 Section 8, Item A.

Page 2 of 3 ends

A. Without the imposition of a temporary moratorium on temporary residential uses, the City may be required to process certain conditional use permit applications even though its existing conditions require updating based on study and analysis that results in recommendations of new standards and best practices for such uses.

C. There is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents, thereby necessitating the immediate enactment of this urgency moratorium, in that the approval of any additional temporary residential uses would be required to be processed under the City’s existing conditions, without taking into consideration the potential negative impacts of such uses on the residential quality of neighborhoods.

D. The adoption of this urgency moratorium is necessary to protect the City and its residents from the overgrowth of temporary residential uses, which can be contentious in certain neighborhoods and also infringe on the rights of neighbors.

E. Imposition of the moratorium will allow the City sufficient time to conclude the preparation of a comprehensive ordinance for the regulation of temporary residential uses moving forward. While the moratorium is in effect, the City seeks to consider a permanent ordinance that will balance the needs and rights of property owners and neighbors, ensure the health and safety of guests and residents, support tourism in a balanced way, and be economically beneficial to the City.

SECTION 2. IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM.

For so long as this Ordinance is in effect, including through any extension, the City shall not receive, accept, process, or approve any application for any conditional use permit or other Cityissued authorization concerning any temporary residential uses. For purpose of this ordinance, “temporary residential use” means any use of existing, residentially-developed property of any kind that would authorize the temporary occupation of any residential structure for less than 30 days
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDING.

The City Council determines that the provisions of this ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the instant ordinance involves continuing administrative activities and thus is not a project, as CEQA defines, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. To the extent the adoption of this Ordinance constitutes a project, the City Council finds pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) that the project is exempt from environmental review because it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this urgency ordinance would not have any significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 4. REPORT.

The City Manager, or designee, is authorized and directed to prepare the report required by paragraph (d) of California Government Code Section 65858 describing the measures taken to 14 Section 8, Item A.

Page 3 of 3 ends

alleviate the condition which led to adoption of this Ordinance for presentation to the City Council no later than ten days prior to the expiration of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE REQUIRED.

This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least a fourfifths (4/5) vote of the total members of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five (45) days from the date of adoption, unless extended by the City Council as provided in California Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 6. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Sutter Creek.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March 26 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Claire Gunselman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________ _________________
Pam Caronongan, City Clerk Date
15 Section 8, Item A.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ______________________________________________________________________________

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
FROM: TOM DUBOIS, CITY MANAGER and ERIN VENTURA, PLANNER SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 2026 NEXUS STUDY AND UPDATE TO

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 25-26-XX approving the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) Nexus Study and approval of new development impact fees charged on new development within the City.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Sutter Creek has engaged Goodwin Consulting Group to prepare a Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Nexus Study to update the City's development impact fee program.

Legal Requirements (AB 1600 & AB 602) California law requires that development impact fees bear a "reasonable relationship" (or nexus) between the fee's use, the need for the public facility, and the type of development project. State law requires agencies to identify a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between an impact fee and new development, and to make findings regarding (a) the purpose of the fee; (b) what mitigation projects the fee will be used to fund; (c) the nexus between the needed mitigation projects and the type of development that will be charged a fee; and (d) the nexus between the amount of the fee and the cost of the needed mitigation.

Additionally, AB 602 (effective 2022) mandates that residential fees be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed unit. The City recently adopted its Capital Improvement Plan, and it remains current.

The 2026 Nexus Study calculates fees for five specific categories:
● Police Facilities: Funds stations, vehicles, and equipment. ● General City Facilities: Consolidates the former Historical, City Hall, and Corporation Yard fees into a single streamlined category.
16 Section 9, Item A.
2 ● Parks and Recreation: Funds parkland acquisition and improvements. ● Transportation: Funds roadway capacity, intersections, and circulation improvements. ● Drainage (New): A new component to address storm drainage infrastructure needs directly related to future development, calculated based on impervious surface area.

DISCUSSION:

At the February 2, 2026 meeting of the City Council, council gave direction to staff to adopt fees of $12 sq ft for residential, $13 sq ft for commercial and $9 sq ft for industrial uses, and directed staff to move forward with the public noticing of the new development impact fees. The individual fees were proportionally decreased (as is required) and noticed to the public. The Council will not be adopting the maximum supportable fee and is proposing to adopt the following:

Next Steps
If the City Council chooses to accept the Nexus Study and adopt updated Impact Fees, the new fees will go into effect July 1, 2026 after adoption.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Nexus Study by Goodwin Consulting Group 17 Section 9, Item A.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 25-26-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK

APPROVING THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE UPDATE STUDY DATED JANUARY 13, 2026, ADOPTING NEW AND AMENDED CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES, MAKING

A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT, AND REPEALING PRIOR RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING OR

MODIFYING CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES
WHEREAS, the Goodwin Consulting Group has prepared the Capital Facilities Fee Update Study dated January 13, 2026 (the “Study”). The Study identifies capital infrastructure, equipment, and other physical needs necessary to accommodate build out of the community under the City’s General Plan;
WHEREAS, The Study describes the benefit and impact areas on which capital facilities fees are to be imposed and collected, describe the reasonable relationship between the capital facilities fees and the various types of new development, analyze the need for new public facilities and improvements which will be necessitated by new development, set forth a methodology for determining the relationship between new development, the needed public facilities, and the estimated cost of those improvements, and otherwise satisfy the requirements of the law, and Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”), with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the Study projects developmental growth in the City based on the City’s General Plan, adopted specific plans and other development approvals, and provides the basis for calculating and adopting development impact fees in the following categories: (1) police facilities, (2) general City facilities, (3) parks and recreation facilities, (4) transportation improvements, and (5) drainage improvements; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of facilities and improvement costs contained in the Study, taken together with the methodology established by the Study, demonstrates the specific costs associated with providing adequate public facilities commensurate with projected levels of new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Study provides the documentation, detail, and other information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the development impact fees for police facilities, general City facilities, parks and recreation facilities, transportation improvements, and drainage improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Study describes the benefit and impact area on which the capital facilities fees are to be imposed, lists the specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fees, describe the estimated cost of providing the improvements and facilities, describe the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees and the various types of new development; and otherwise satisfy the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and 18 Section 9, Item A.
2 WHEREAS, the facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, and also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the type of development for which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the capital facilities fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the March 16, 2026 Regular City Council meeting, at which time further testimony was presented and the public hearing was closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, held on March 16, 2026, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the capital facilities fees established herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fees established herein, and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek hereby orders as follows:

SECTION 1: ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The findings and recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: ADOPTION OF THE STUDY
The City Council hereby approves the Capital Facilities Fee Study prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group and dated January 13, 2026, and the findings contained therein. The City Council further adopts the methodology set forth in the Study for calculating and collecting the capital facilities fees adopted herein. A copy of the Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

SECTION 3: ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City Council hereby approves and adopts the development impact fees for police facilities, general City facilities, parks and recreation facilities, transportation improvements, and drainage improvements in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and 19 Section 9, Item A.
3 incorporated herein by reference. Specifically, the City Council adopts the fees in the amounts shown as “Adopted Capital Facilities Fee”, which are lesser than the maximum amounts shown as the “Maximum Supportable Capital Facilities Fee.”
SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION, ADJUSTMENT, AND COLLECTION

OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The capital facilities fees established in Exhibit A, “Adopted Capital Facilities Fee,” are hereby adopted, and shall be calculated, adjusted, and collected in accordance with City ordinances and the Studies. The amount of the capital facilities fees may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (or any successor index).

SECTION 5: IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The capital facilities fees established herein shall be due and payable in accordance with Government Code Section 66007.

SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The capital facilities fees established by Section 4 of this Resolution shall be effective on July 1, 2026, which is more than 60 days following the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 7: APPEAL OF FEE IMPOSITION
Any applicant who is subject to payment of the capital facilities fees established herein may file an appeal in accordance with Chapter 2.53 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code, as that Chapter may be amended from time to time.

SECTION 8: REPEAL OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ADOPTED BY

PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS
Any and all provisions of any prior resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying capital facilities fees in the categories established in the Study and set forth in Exhibit A, which duplicate or conflict with the provisions of this Resolution and Exhibit A, are hereby repealed and replaced with the fees set forth in Exhibit A and the terms and conditions established by this Resolution upon the effective date of the new development impact fees, as provided for in Section 6 of this Resolution.

SECTION 9: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
the adoption of the Study and the capital facilities fees specified in this Resolution were reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that adoption of the Studies and the capital facilities fees specified in this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because 20 Section 9, Item A.
4 these actions involve the amendment of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the Studies or the adoption of new and amended development impact fees. Therefore the adoption of the Studies and the development impact fees does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4).

SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY
if any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 16th day of March, 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman Mayor
______________________________________
Pam Caronongan, City Clerk
21 Section 9, Item A.
5 EXHIBIT A
22 Section 9, Item A.
23 Section 9, Item A.

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK

CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE (CFF)

PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary........................................................................................................i I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 II. Development Estimates and Land Use Categories............................................................ 4 III. Capital Improvement Program......................................................................................... 7 IV. Fee Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................... 8 V. Police Fee and Nexus Findings...................................................................................... 12 VI. General City Facilities Fee and Nexus Findings............................................................. 14 VII. Parks and Recreation Fee and Nexus Findings............................................................... 16 VIII. Transportation Fee and Nexus Findings......................................................................... 18 IX. Drainage Fee and Nexus Findings.................................................................................. 20 X. Capital Facilities Fee Summary ..................................................................................... 22 XI. Implementation and Ongoing Administration ................................................................ 23

APPENDIX
Capital Facilities Fee Program Calculation Tables
24 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Sutter Creek (City) is a historic foothill community with a compact development pattern shaped by its Gold Rush origins and long-standing emphasis on preservation and managed growth. Founded in 1848 as a mining center, the City developed with a concentrated downtown core supported by surrounding residential neighborhoods and limited infrastructure networks.

These early land use and infrastructure decisions continue to shape present-day planning conditions.

Recent growth in the City has emphasized controlled residential development, historic preservation, and economic activity tied to tourism and local services. Development has occurred primarily through modest infill, small residential subdivisions, and the adaptive reuse of historic structures. However, public facilities and infrastructure have remained constrained by capacity, geography, and cost considerations.

This planning context informs this Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Nexus Study (Nexus Study). While future growth is expected to be modest, new development will incrementally increase demand for public facilities and services. This study evaluates the relationship between projected development, facility needs, and the proportionate share of costs attributable to new development, consistent with California impact fee law and the City’s goal of maintaining adequate public facilities while preserving community character.

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Data from the California Department of Finance indicates that the City had an estimated population of 2,538 residents and 1,433 residential units as of January 1, 2025. The City’s General Plan provides for the development of up to 6,775 additional residential units and approximately 82 acres of non-residential development, including retail commercial, office/professional, and industrial uses.

At General Plan buildout, total development is projected to include 8,208 residential units, accommodating an estimated 17,360 residents and supporting approximately 3,232 jobs. The demographic and land use assumptions underlying these residential and non-residential projections are summarized in Table 1 in the Appendix of this Nexus Study. General Plan buildout represents a long-term planning scenario and assumes land in the City over a long term horizon could eventually develop to the maximum levels allowed under the City’s General Plan. The development projection is used in the Nexus Study to evaluate the maximum potential demand that future development could place on public facilities and infrastructure and to ensure that growth-related costs are planned for in a fair and proportional manner. 25 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page ii

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
This report identifies various public facilities needed to serve future development in the City. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the City’s primary tool for planning, prioritizing, and financing investments in public infrastructure and facilities. CIP facilities and costs were determined by City staff based on the City’s long range needs. The City’s CIP includes:
• Police Facilities;
• General City Facilities;
• Parks and Recreation Facilities;
• Transportation Improvements; and
• Drainage Improvements
City staff has performed an extensive review of its CIP that provides construction cost estimates and identifies the facilities that will be required to serve existing and future development through buildout of the General Plan. Table ES-1 below summarizes costs included in the City’s CIP by facilities type as well as those being allocated to future development through General Plan buildout. The total cost allocated to future development is used to determine the fee amount for each component.

Table ES-1
CIP Summary /1
Funded by Other Costs
Fee Funding Total CIP Allocated to
Program Source Cost Future Dev't Difference
(a) (b) (c = a + b) (d) (e = d - a)
Police Facilities $74,000 $0 $74,000 $12,629,213 $12,555,213 General City Facilities $11,297,080 $112,500 $11,409,580 $27,593,015 $16,295,935 Parks and Recreation Facilities $7,676,825 $77,500 $7,754,325 $50,024,250 $42,347,425 Transportation Improvements $13,243,245 $3,780,800 $17,024,045 $109,117,043 /2 $95,873,799 Drainage Improvements $2,308,000 $0 $2,308,000 $57,168,791 /2 $54,860,791 Total $34,599,150 $3,970,800 $38,569,950 $256,532,312 $221,933,163 /1 Includes priority and additional projects in the City's CIP. /2 Includes updated street and drainage costs needed to serve development at buildout, as provided by City staff. 26 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page iii

SUMMARY OF CFF COMPONENTS
Table ES-2 summarizes the maximum supportable fees for each component, as calculated in this Nexus Study. The maximum supportable fee represents the highest development impact fee that can be justified based on the cost of public facilities needed to serve future development and the proportionate share of those costs attributable to new growth, as calculated in this Nexus Study.

These fees have been calculated using adopted service standards, identified capital improvement costs, and appropriate demand factors, and reflect the amount necessary to fund growth-related infrastructure without charging new development for existing deficiencies. The maximum supportable fee does not establish the fee that must be adopted; rather, it sets an upper limit under State law, allowing the City flexibility to adopt a lower fee amount based on policy considerations, market conditions, or implementation objectives.

Table ES-2
Maximum Supportable Capital Facilities Fee
While the Police, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation fee components represent updates to existing impact fees, the Drainage fee is a new component of the Fee Program and has been added to address storm drainage infrastructure needs that are directly related to future development. In addition, the General City Facilities fee consolidates the City’s existing Historical, City Hall, and Corporation Yard fee components into a single, streamlined category. Lastly, the former Program Update and Administrative fee components have been combined into a single Administrative Fee to simplify implementation and ongoing administration of the Fee Program.

CFF COMPARISON – PROPOSED (MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE) VS EXISTING FEES Table ES-3 provides an illustrative per-unit conversion comparison of the CFF components presented in this Nexus Study to the City’s fee rates for fiscal year 2024-25. The calculated maximum supportable fees for the Police, General City Facilities, and Transportation components are higher than their current counterparts and range from 26% higher to 148% higher for residential developments. However, the calculated maximum supportable Parks and Recreation fee is approximately 46 percent lower than the City’s current rate, which includes a regional fee component collected on behalf of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA). In fall 2005, ACRA announced its dissolution, and the future disposition and applicability of these regional fees remain uncertain.

Gen City Parks & Administrative Total
Land Use Police Facilities Rec Transportation Drainage Fee (3.50%) CFF Per Residential SF
Residential $0.79 $1.73 $3.25 $5.61 $3.26 $0.55 $16.15
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial $0.36 $0.79 $0.00 $25.24 $6.61 $1.17 $34.60
Office $0.66 $1.44 $0.00 $18.70 $6.61 $0.99 $29.19
Industrial $0.20 $0.43 $0.00 $7.29 $4.13 $0.43 $12.71
27 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page iv Table ES-3
Fee Comparison - Illustrative Per-Unit Conversion
Maximum Supportable Capital Facilities Fee
Gen City Parks &
Land Use Police Facilities Rec Transportation Drainage
Per Unit (Assuming 2,270 SF per Unit)
Residential $1,801 $3,936 $7,384 $12,737 $7,407
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial $0.36 $0.79 $0.00 $25.24 $6.61
Office $0.66 $1.44 $0.00 $18.70 $6.61
Industrial $0.20 $0.43 $0.00 $7.29 $4.13
Existing Capital Facilities Fee (7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025)
Gen City Parks &
Land Use Police Facilities Rec /1 Transportation Drainage Per Unit
Residential $1,431 $3,070 $13,701 $5,134 n/a
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial $0.28 $0.51 n/a $10.27 n/a
Office $0.50 $0.93 n/a $5.65 n/a
Industrial $0.15 $0.29 n/a $3.08 n/a
Difference (%)
Gen City Parks &
Land Use Police Facilities Rec Transportation Drainage
Per Unit
Residential 26% 28% -46% 148% 0%
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial 28% 54% 0% 146% 0%
Office 32% 55% 0% 231% 0%
Industrial 32% 49% 0% 137% 0%
/1 Excludes regional fees collected on behalf of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA), which announced its dissolvement in the fall of 2025.
28 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page v IMPACT FEE NEXUS REQUIREMENTS (AB 1600) AND ASSEMBLY BILL Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, created Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. AB 1600 requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. b. The need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
c. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

AB 602 added Government Code §66016.5 and related transparency requirements. Below are some of the most significant requirements imposed by AB 602:

New Requirements For Nexus Studies
• Nexus studies must identify the existing level of service (LOS) for public facilities; if a new LOS is identified, explain why the new level of service is appropriate • If a nexus study supports an increase to existing fee, the public agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fee revenue collected under the original fee
• Large jurisdictions, for example, counties that have a population greater than 250,000 residents, must adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study • Nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development that is proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development or the nexus study must make findings that an alternative fee calculation methodology creates a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development
New Transparency Requirements For Public Agencies
• Fees must be posted to the public agency’s website within 30 days of any change in the fees
• Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are required pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 • Public agencies must post to their website all nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies that were conducted on or after January 1, 2018 29 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page vi New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
• Nexus studies must be updated at least every 8 years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022
• Nexus studies and impact fees must be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice (this is an increase from the current 10 days)
• Members of the public may submit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insufficient; the public agency must consider all such evidence As stated above, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate that all fee components of the Fee Program comply with the requirements set forth in the AB 1600 and AB 602 laws. The assumptions, fee methodology, facility standards, costs, and cost allocation factors that were used to establish the nexus between the fees and the development on which the fees will be levied are summarized in this report.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The fees calculated in this Nexus Study are reflected in current year dollars. The fees may be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternate sources (i.e., state or federal grants), revised costs, or changes in demographics. In addition to such periodic adjustments, the fees must be inflated each year by a predetermined index, such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, that is identified in the ordinance or resolution authorizing levy of the fees. It is important to note that failure to annually adjust the fees to reflect the inflation of facilities costs will result in future funding shortfalls of the facilities. 30 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Sutter Creek (City) is a historic foothill community with a compact development pattern shaped by its Gold Rush origins and long-standing emphasis on preservation and managed growth. Founded in 1848 as a mining center, the City developed with a concentrated downtown core supported by surrounding residential neighborhoods and limited infrastructure networks.

These early land use and infrastructure decisions continue to shape present-day planning conditions.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
As development continues within the City, new capital facilities will be required to meet the demands of future development. Capital facilities will be funded through a development impact fee program (Fee Program). The Fee Program, as discussed in this report, will apply to all future development within the City. This Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) will be the basis for the City’s Fee Program. This Nexus Study develops separate impact fees for various capital facilities including the following categories:
• Police Facilities;
• General City Facilities;
• Parks and Recreation Facilities;
• Transportation Improvements; and
• Drainage Improvements
The City retained Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. to assist prepare the Nexus Study. The Fee Program will be implemented by the City Council through the adoption of this Nexus Study. The Fee Program is compliant with the requirements set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600, and ensures that a nexus exists between future development within the City and (i) the use of the fee, (ii) the need for the proposed CFF facilities, and (iii) the amount of the CFF assigned to future development. This Nexus Study demonstrates that a reasonable relationship exists 31 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 2 between each fee component and the cost of the facilities attributable to each type of development for each fee component.

IMPACT FEE NEXUS REQUIREMENTS (AB 1600) AND ASSEMBLY BILL 602 Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, created Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. AB 1600 requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put

On September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 was signed into law and became effective starting January 1, 2022. The law establishes additional procedural and transparency requirements on public agencies when establishing new fees or increasing existing development impact fees. AB 602 amends Government Code Sections 65940.1 and 66019 and adds Government Code Section 66016.5 and Health and Safety Code Section 50466.5. Below are some of the most significant requirements imposed by AB 602:

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 3 • Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are required pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 • Public agencies must post to their website all nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies that were conducted on or after January 1, 2018 New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
• Nexus studies must be updated at least every 8 years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022
• Nexus studies and impact fees must be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice (this is an increase from the current 10 days)
• Members of the public may submit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insufficient; the public agency must consider all such evidence As stated above, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate that all fee components of the Fee Program comply with the requirements set forth in the AB 1600 and AB 602 laws. The assumptions, fee methodology, facility standards, costs, and cost allocation factors that were used to establish the nexus between the fees and the development on which the fees will be levied are summarized in this report.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this report has been organized into the following sections:

Section II Defines the demographic and land use development assumptions used in the detailed calculations in this Nexus Study.

Section III Provides a summary of the overall CIP costs as well as the amounts anticipated to be funded by the Fee Program.

Section IV Provides a detailed explanation of the fee methodology used to calculate the various individual fees of the Fee Program.

Sections V thru IX Provides a detailed discussion of the applicable fee calculation for the various City facilities.

Section X Summarizes the individual fee rates calculated in this Nexus Study.

Section XI Explains future fee adjustments, fee implementation, annual administrative duties, fee credits or reimbursements and other relevant items.
33 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 4 II. DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES AND LAND USE CATEGORIES

LAND USE CATEGORIES
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that a reasonable relationship exist between the need for public facilities and the type of development on which an impact fee is imposed. The need for public facilities is related to the level of service demanded, which varies in proportion to the number of residents or employees generated by a particular land use type. Therefore, land use categories have been defined in order to distinguish between relative impacts on facilities.

Each component of the CFF Program has been calculated using demand variables appropriate to each facility type. For housing development projects, fees are calculated on a per-residential square foot basis to comply with AB 602. Non-residential development is assessed on a per– building square foot basis. The following land use categories are established for purposes of the Fee Program:

Residential: encompasses all residential development categories, including (i) detached single family dwelling, (ii) duplex units that comprise two attached units sharing one common wall, (iii) multi-family residential development categories, and (iv) age-restricted uses and residential retirement communities, as described in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, which are restricted to adults or senior citizens only. 34 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 5 Figure 1
General Plan Area
35 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 6 Retail Commercial: Retail and service businesses, including, but not limited to, retail stores, clothing stores, book stores, video rental stores, drug stores, professional services (i.e., barber shops, dry cleaners), hospitals, movie theaters, appliance and electronics stores, home supply stores, tire stores, auto parts stores, auto service centers, oil change service centers and other businesses providing retail-based autorelated products and services, restaurants, supermarkets, gas stations, day/child care facilities, private schools, motels/hotels, congregate care facilities, and health clubs
Office/Professional: Includes, but is not limited to, buildings in which professional, banking, insurance, real estate, administrative or in-office medical or dental activities are conducted
Industrial: Includes, but is not limited to, warehouses, mini-storage facilities, manufacturing, heavy and light industrial uses, processing, fabricating, assembly, refining, repairing, packaging, or treatment of goods, material, or produce, sheet metal and welding shops, wholesale lumber yards, contractor yards, auto wrecking yards, etc.

The City will make the final determination as to which land use category a particular development will be assigned. The City is authorized to determine the land use category that corresponds most directly to the development. Alternatively, the City may determine that no land use category adequately corresponds to a unique development in question and may determine an applicable ad hoc impact fee for the development.
36 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 7 III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This report identifies various public facilities needed to serve future development in the City. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the City’s primary tool for planning, prioritizing, and financing investments in public infrastructure and facilities. CIP facilities and costs were determined by City staff based on the City’s long range needs. The City’s CIP includes:
• Police Facilities;
• General City Facilities;
• Parks and Recreation Facilities;
• Transportation Improvements; and
• Drainage Improvements
City staff has performed an extensive review of its CIP which provides construction cost estimates and identifies the facilities that will be required to serve existing and future development through buildout of the General Plan. Table 3-1 below summarizes costs included in the City’s CIP by facilities type as well as those being allocated to future development through General Plan buildout. The total cost allocated to future development is used to determine the fee amount for each component.

Table 3-1
CIP Summary /1
Funded by Other Costs
Fee Funding Total CIP Allocated to
Program Source Cost Future Dev't Difference
(a) (b) (c = a + b) (d) (e = d - a)
Police Facilities $74,000 $0 $74,000 $12,629,213 $12,555,213 General City Facilities $11,297,080 $112,500 $11,409,580 $27,593,015 $16,295,935 Parks and Recreation Facilities $7,676,825 $77,500 $7,754,325 $50,024,250 $42,347,425 Transportation Improvements $13,243,245 $3,780,800 $17,024,045 $109,117,043 /2 $95,873,799 Drainage Improvements $2,308,000 $0 $2,308,000 $57,168,791 /2 $54,860,791 Total $34,599,150 $3,970,800 $38,569,950 $256,532,312 $221,933,163 /1 Includes priority and additional projects in the City's CIP. /2 Includes updated street and drainage costs needed to serve development at buildout, as provided by City staff. 37 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 8 IV. FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
When impact fees are calculated, an analysis must be presented in enough detail to demonstrate that a logical and thorough consideration was applied in the process of determining how the fee relates to the impacts from new development. Various findings pursuant to AB 1600 and AB 602 must be made to ensure that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and the development on which that impact fee will be levied. Impact fees are commonly grouped into three broad categories based on how costs are calculated and allocated: (i) standard-based impact fees, (ii) planned-based impact fees, and (iii) capacity-based impact fees.

Standard-based impact fees are calculated using adopted service standards that define the level of public facilities required to serve new development. These fees rely on systemwide ratios (e.g., facilities per resident or employee) and apply uniform facility costs to growth. This approach is commonly used for facilities that provide broad community benefits and have predictable demand patterns, ensuring that new development funds its proportional share of facilities needed to maintain adopted service levels.

Planned-based impact fees are derived from a defined capital improvement program that identifies specific facilities required to serve future development. The cost of these planned improvements is allocated to new growth based on its share of demand. This methodology is appropriate where infrastructure needs are location-specific or where a clear nexus exists between planned projects and anticipated development, allowing fees to directly reflect the cost of identified improvements.

Finally, capacity-based impact fees are calculated based on the cost of expanding or upsizing existing facilities to accommodate additional demand generated by new development. This approach allocates only the incremental capacity costs attributable to growth and excludes existing deficiencies. Capacity-based fees are most appropriate for utility and regional infrastructure systems where facilities must be expanded to serve future development while maintaining existing levels of service.

For purposes of this Nexus Study, the standard-based approach is used to calculate the police, general city facilities, and Parks and Recreation fee components, while the planned-based approach is used in the calculation of the transportation and Drainage fee components.

FEE METHODOLOGY
The fee methodology used to calculate the fees in this Nexus Study can be summarized as follows:
1) Identify the existing development in the City and estimate the future growth anticipated through buildout of the City’s General Plan.
2) Determine the size or amount of the facilities needed to serve the anticipated growth and, if necessary, the existing development in the City.
38 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 9 3) Select the demand variable (i.e., persons served, trips generated, or impervious factor) to allocate the facility costs on a benefit rationale basis; assign demand variable rates for each land use/development category based on its level of service demand. 4) Estimate the total cost of each facilities type or the attributable portion of the facilities that are needed to serve future development within the City. Existing deficiencies or that portion of a facility or improvement cost allocated to existing development cannot be funded with impact fees from future development. The City will need to find alternate sources to fund existing deficiencies or existing development’s share of the facilities cost.

Alternate funding sources may include federal and state grants, or general fund revenues. 5) Allocate the total facility cost attributed to future development to the applicable demand units (e.g., persons served, trips, or impervious area). Costs attributable to existing development are excluded from the fee calculation.
6) Apply the cost per person served to each land use category using an average persons per household factor and the average square feet per residential unit for residential development and the person served factor for each non-residential land use to determine the per square foot fee rate for each type of development By applying this fee methodology, the resulting impact fee for each fee component and for each land use is based on the estimated benefit received from each facilities type and thus a nexus or reasonable relationship is established between the amount of each fee component and the cost of the applicable facilities attributable to each type of development. Furthermore, the resulting fees comply with AB 602’s requirement such that fees imposed on a housing development be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development.

DEMAND VARIABLES
Three types of demand variables are used in this Nexus Study: (i) persons served, (ii) trips generated, and (iii) impervious factor. The number of persons served is used to allocate the cost of facilities for the Police, General City Facilities, and Parks and Recreation fee categories in this Nexus Study. Trips generated by each land use type are used in the Transportation fee calculation, and impervious factors are used in the Drainage fee calculation.

The persons served demand variable includes the residential population plus a portion of the employee population. A portion of the employee population is used because it is generally understood that employees do not generate as high a need for certain municipal services as do residents. Therefore in this Nexus Study, employees are converted to a resident–equivalent factor.

For all fee categories that use the person served demand variable, the resident-equivalent factor calculation is based on the average amount of time that the employee spends on the job as compared to the time a resident is at home. Assuming a resident can be at home 168 hours (7 days * 24 hours = 168 hours) a week and that the average employee works 40 hours per week, then one employee equals approximately 0.24 residents. This is calculated as follows:
39 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 10 Employee: 40 hours/week ÷ 168 hours/week ≈ 0.24 residents As a result, the service demand for an employee is calculated to equal approximately 24% of the service demand of a resident. Although these estimates of service demand are not based on empirical evidence, it is understood that employees and non-residential development generally require less city services than do residents and residential development. As such, the relationship of an employee equaling either 0.24 residents, in terms of service demand, is a reasonable assumption for the fee calculations.

Similarly, vehicle trips generated are an appropriate demand variable for calculating transportation impact fees because they directly measure the incremental burden that new development places on the roadway system. Transportation facilities are planned, designed, and sized to accommodate travel demand, and trip generation provides a consistent and widely accepted metric for quantifying that demand across different land uses. By allocating costs based on the number of trips attributable to new development, the fee ensures a reasonable relationship and rough proportionality between development impacts and the cost of capacity improvements required to maintain adopted levels of service.

Finally, impervious surface area (i.e., % impervious) is a suitable demand variable for calculating storm drainage impact fees because it directly correlates with the volume and rate of stormwater runoff generated by new development. As land becomes more impervious through the construction of buildings, pavement, and other hard surfaces, runoff increases and places additional demand on drainage infrastructure. Using an impervious factor allows drainage facility costs to be allocated proportionally based on the relative contribution of each land use to runoff generation, ensuring a reasonable relationship between development impacts and the storm drainage capacity required to serve new development.

LEVEL OF SERVICE
Pursuant to AB 602, the Nexus Study identifies the existing level of service (LOS) for each public facility and, where applicable, identifies any proposed level of service and explains why such level is appropriate. Table 4-1 on the following page summarizes the existing LOS for the Police, General City Facilities, and Parks and Recreation fee components. In compliance with AB 602, the existing LOS is applied to future development and forms the basis of the fee calculations for these facilities.

For the Transportation and Drainage fee components, appropriate demand variables are used to allocate the cost of planned infrastructure between existing and future development. As a result, the portion of facilities funded by future development provides the same level of service as that currently provided to existing development within the City, ensuring consistency with AB 602 and the requirement that new development fund only its proportional share of facility costs. 40 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 11 Table 4-1
Level of Service Comparison– Existing vs Future
Existing Future Buildout
Police Facilities (per 1,000 Persons Served)
Police FTE's 2.32 2.32 2.32
Police Bldg SF 1,073 1,073 1,073
General City Facilities (per 1,000 Persons Served)
City Hall Employees 5.33 5.10 5.10
Finance & Admin Bldg SF 2,503 2,503 2,503
Parks and Recreation Facilities (per 1,000 Persons Served) Park and Recreation Area Acres 7.96 4.50 4.50
/1 Excludes transportation and drainage facilities which are calculated using a planned-based approach instead of a standard-based approach.

Level of Service /1
41 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 12 V. POLICE FEE AND NEXUS FINDINGS
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Police fee is to fund police facilities and related capital improvements required to maintain adequate public safety services as new development occurs. Growth in population and employment increases demand for police services and necessitates additional or expanded facilities and associated equipment to ensure effective law enforcement operations and community safety.

Use of Fee
Revenue from the Police fee will be used to finance the planning, design, and construction of police facilities and vehicles needed to serve future development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Police fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because new residential and non-residential development increases population, employment, and activity levels, which in turn increase demand for police services.

The facilities funded by the fee are intended to provide the space and infrastructure necessary to serve the additional service demands generated by development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Development The need for police facilities is created by new development, which contributes to increased service calls, patrol activity, and operational demands on the Police Department. Without additional facilities, the City’s ability to maintain existing public safety service levels would be diminished as growth occurs. Police facilities, which are determined based on the City’s existing LOS, funded by the fee are therefore necessary to accommodate growth-related demand and to maintain existing levels of police service.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Facility The amount of the Police fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the facilities attributable to new development. Facility costs are allocated based on the demand generated by future residential population and non-residential employment, which reflect the relative need for police services. This methodology ensures that future development funds only its proportional share of police facility costs and that total fee revenues do not exceed the cost of facilities required to serve new development.

POLICE FEE CALCULATION
The calculation of the police facilities required to serve development at buildout of the City’s General Plan is based on the City’s current service standards of 2.32 full time equivalent (FTE) police staff and an average building space standard of 1,073 square feet per 1,000 persons-served.

Based on the estimated 18,136 persons served in the City at General Plan buildout, the City will need a 19,460 square foot police station to house an estimated 42 police department employees at buildout of the General Plan. In addition to the police station, the police department will also 42 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 13 require police vehicles and associated equipment. The total cost of the police station, land acquisition, vehicles, and equipment needed to serve the City at full buildout of the General Plan is approximately $14.9 million.

Since the police facilities will serve existing and future development in the City, the total cost of police facilities must be allocated between existing and future development based on a persons served proportional benefit. As a result, only approximately $12.6 million of the total cost is allocated to future development. The remaining $2.3 million cost is allocated to the existing development in the City and must be funded by the City from sources other than Police fee revenue.

Applying the cost per person served to each land use category using an average persons per household factor and the average square feet per residential unit for residential development and the person served factor for each non-residential land use results in a maximum supportable fee of $0.79 per residential square foot. Non-residential fees range from $0.20 per industrial square foot to $0.66 per office square foot.
43 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 14 VI. GENERAL CITY FACILITIES FEE AND NEXUS FINDINGS
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the General City Facilities fee is to fund general city facilities, including additional City Hall space, an expanded Corporation Yard, and improvements to the Knight’s Foundry museum, that will be required to serve future development within the City’s General Plan area in order to support the provision of core City services as new development occurs. Growth in population and employment increases demand for administrative, operational, and maintenance functions, necessitating adequate facilities to support City service delivery.

Use of Fee
Revenue from the General City Facilities fee will be used to finance the planning, design, and construction of additional City Hall space, an expanded Corporation Yard, and improvements to the Knight’s Foundry museum needed to serve future development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the General City Facilities fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because new residential and non-residential development increases the demand for municipal services that are supported by City administrative and operational facilities. The facilities funded by the fee provide the physical infrastructure required to deliver these services to development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Development The need for general city facilities is created by new development, which increases population, employment, and service activity within the City. As growth occurs, additional administrative space, maintenance capacity, and operational support are required to maintain existing levels of municipal service. Facilities funded by the fee are therefore necessary to accommodate growthrelated demand and to ensure continued effective City operations.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Facility The amount of the General City Facilities fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the facilities attributable to new development. Facility costs are allocated based on demand generated by future residential population and non-residential employment, reflecting each land use’s relative use of municipal services. This approach ensures that each development project funds only its proportional share of general city facility costs and that total fee revenues do not exceed the cost of facilities required to serve future development.

GENERAL CITY FACILITIES FEE CALCULATION
The calculation of the general city facilities and associated costs required to serve development at buildout of the City’s General Plan is based on the City’s current non-police employee ratio per 1,000 persons served as well as current non-police building square footage per 1,000 persons served, as shown in Table 3 of the Appendix. General City Facilities total $32.6 million, of which 44 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 15 approximately $27.6 million is allocated to future development. The remaining $5.0 million is allocated to existing development in the City and will need to be funded by the City from sources other than city hall fees.

Applying the cost per person served to each land use category using an average persons per household factor and the average square feet per residential unit for residential development and the person served factor for each non-residential land use results in a maximum supportable General City Facilities fee of $1.73 per residential square foot. Non-residential fees range from $0.43 per industrial square foot to $1.44 per office square foot. 45 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 16 VII. PARKS AND RECREATION FEE AND NEXUS FINDINGS
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation fee is to fund parkland, recreational facilities, and related capital improvements required to serve new development and to maintain adequate recreational opportunities as the City grows. Population growth resulting from new development increases demand for park facilities, open space, and recreational amenities, necessitating additional facilities to maintain existing service levels.

Use of Fee
Revenue from the Parks and Recreation fee will be used to finance the acquisition, development, and improvement of parkland and recreational facilities needed to serve future development.

Eligible facilities may include neighborhood and community parks, recreational amenities, trails, open space improvements, and related support facilities that provide recreational services to residents.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Parks and Recreation fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because residential development increases population and directly generates demand for park and recreational facilities. The facilities funded by the fee are intended to provide recreational amenities and open space required to serve new residents in the City.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Development The need for parks and recreation facilities is typically created by new residential development, which increases the number of residents requiring access to parks and recreational opportunities.

Without the provision of additional park facilities, the City’s ability to maintain existing park service levels would be diminished as growth occurs. The facilities funded by the fee are therefore necessary to accommodate population growth and maintain existing levels of service.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Facility The amount of the Parks and Recreation fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the facilities attributable to new development. Facility costs are allocated based on population growth generated by residential development, which reflects demand for park services. This methodology ensures that each development project pays a proportional share of park and recreation facility costs and that total fee revenues do not exceed the cost of facilities required to serve future development.

PARKS AND RECREATION FEE CALCULATION
The calculation of the parks and recreation facilities required to serve development at buildout of the City’s General Plan is based on the City’s preferred standard of 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents, as shown in Table 4 of the Appendix. Although the City currently has 8.0 acres of parks and 46 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 17 recreation areas per 1,000 residents, applying this level of service to future development would likely make development unfeasible. Utilizing the City’s preferred LOS for parks and recreation areas, costs associated with parks and recreation facilities anticipated to serve existing and future development at General Plan buildout total $58.6 million, of which approximately $50.0 million is allocated to future development. The remaining $8.6 million is allocated to existing development in the City and will need to be funded by the City from sources other than city hall fees.

The cost of these facilities is allocated to new development on a per-resident basis, ensuring that the fee reflects only the proportional cost of facilities needed to serve future development. The resulting a maximum supportable Parks and Recreation fee equals $3.25 per residential square foot.
47 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 18 VIII. TRANSPORTATION FEE AND NEXUS FINDINGS
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Transportation fee is to fund transportation improvements that will be required to accommodate increased travel demand generated by new development within the City. As development occurs, additional vehicle trips are added to the roadway network, necessitating improvements to maintain safe and efficient circulation and to preserve adopted operating conditions.

Use of Fee
Revenue from the Transportation fee will be used to finance the planning, design, and construction of transportation improvements needed to serve future development through buildout of the City’s General Plan. These improvements may include roadway capacity enhancements, intersection improvements, traffic signals, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other circulation-related infrastructure identified to address growth-related transportation demand.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Transportation fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because development directly generates vehicle trips that place additional demand on the City’s transportation network. The facilities funded by the fee are intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development by providing additional capacity and operational improvements necessary to serve those trips.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Development The need for transportation facilities is created by new development, which increases travel demand and contributes to congestion and operational constraints on the existing transportation network. Without improvements, future development would degrade circulation conditions. The transportation improvements funded by the fee are therefore required to accommodate growthrelated travel demand and to maintain existing levels of service for both new and existing development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Facility The relationship between the amount of the fee and the portion of the facility cost attributable to the development type is based on trip generation. The amount of the transportation impact fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the facilities funded. The fee is calculated by allocating the cost of planned transportation improvements to new development based on its proportionate contribution to travel demand, as measured by vehicle trips generated. This approach ensures that the total fee revenue collected from future development does not exceed the cost of the transportation facilities needed to serve that development and that each land use category pays a share of costs that is roughly proportional to the transportation impacts it creates. 48 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 19

TRANSPORTATION FEE CALCULATION
The calculation of transportation improvements required to serve development at buildout of the City’s General Plan is based on a planned-based methodology that identifies specific transportation facilities and improvements needed to accommodate future growth. Planned transportation projects have been identified by City staff to serve circulation demands generated by both existing and new development at General Plan buildout. The total cost of the planned transportation improvements necessary to serve the City at full General Plan buildout is estimated at approximately $135.0 million. Allocating this cost to the projected General Plan buildout trips results in an average cost of $16,943 per trip, as shown in Table 5 of the Appendix.

The cost per trip is then allocated to individual land use categories based on their relative unique vehicle trip generation rates, which results in a maximum supportable Transportation fee of approximately $5.61 per residential square foot, with non-residential fees ranging from approximately $7.29 per square foot for industrial uses to $25.24 per square foot for commercial uses.
49 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 20 IX. DRAINAGE FEE AND NEXUS FINDINGS
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Drainage fee is to fund drainage facilities and improvements required to accommodate increased stormwater runoff generated by new development within the City. As development occurs, the addition of impervious surfaces increases both the volume and rate of runoff, necessitating improvements to the storm drainage system to maintain safe and effective conveyance and reduce the risk of localized flooding.

Use of Fee
Revenue from the drainage impact fee will be used to finance the planning, design, and construction of storm drainage facilities and related improvements identified to serve future development through buildout of the City’s General Plan. These facilities may include storm drains, channels, culverts, detention and conveyance facilities, and related appurtenances that provide capacity to manage runoff generated by new development.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the storm Drainage fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because development directly contributes to increased impervious surface area, which increases stormwater runoff and demand on drainage infrastructure. The facilities funded by the fee are intended to mitigate the drainage impacts caused by development, ensuring that new projects contribute toward the infrastructure required to serve them.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Development The need for storm drainage facilities is created by new development, which alters natural hydrology and increases runoff volumes compared to pre-development conditions. Without additional drainage capacity, new development would exacerbate drainage system constraints and increase flooding risks. The drainage improvements funded by the fee are therefore necessary to accommodate growth-related runoff and maintain existing drainage performance levels.

Reasonable Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Facility The amount of the Drainage fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the facilities attributable to new development. Facility costs are allocated based on the relative impervious surface area associated with different land uses, which directly correlates with runoff generation.

This methodology ensures that each development project pays a proportionate share of storm drainage infrastructure costs corresponding to its contribution to system demand, and that total fee revenues do not exceed the cost of facilities required to serve future development. 50 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 21

DRAINAGE FEE CALCULATION
Similar to the Transportation fee calculation, the calculation of drainage improvements required to serve development at buildout of the City’s General Plan is also based on a planned-based methodology that identifies a storm drainage network needed to accommodate increased runoff generated by future development. Planned drainage improvements may include system conveyance, detention, and related drainage infrastructure identified to maintain existing drainage performance as development occurs. The total cost of the planned storm drainage improvements required to serve the City at full General Plan buildout is estimated at approximately $70.2 million.

Because the planned storm drainage facilities will serve both existing and future development, the total cost of the facilities is allocated between existing and future development based on proportional benefit. Allocation is performed using impervious surface area as the demand variable, which directly reflects the relative contribution of development to stormwater runoff.

Under this methodology, only the portion of drainage facility costs attributable to increased impervious area associated with future development is included in the impact fee calculation, while the portion attributable to existing development must be funded through non–impact fee revenue sources.

The growth-related cost of the planned storm drainage improvements is allocated to individual land use categories based on their relative impervious surface factors. This approach ensures that land uses generating higher runoff contributions pay a proportionally higher share of drainage infrastructure costs. The resulting storm drainage impact fee represents the maximum supportable fee of approximately $3.26 per residential square foot, with non-residential fees ranging from approximately $4.13 per square foot for industrial uses to $6.61 per square foot for commercial and office uses.
51 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 22 X. CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE SUMMARY
Table 10-1 summarizes the maximum supportable fees for each fee component calculated in this Nexus Study. In compliance with AB 602, residential development is assessed on a per-residential square foot basis, resulting in a total CFF of $16.15 per residential square foot, with the largest cost components attributable to transportation, parks and recreation, and drainage facilities. For comparison purposes, Table ES-3 also presents illustrative per-unit totals based on an assumed average unit size of 2,270 square feet.

Non-residential development is assessed on a per-building square foot basis, with total fees varying by land use type and intensity. Commercial development has the highest total CFF at $34.60 per square foot, driven primarily by transportation and drainage improvements, followed by office development at $29.19 per square foot and industrial development at $12.71 per square foot.

Across all land uses, Police, General City Facilities, Transportation, and Drainage fee components reflect growth-related demand, while Parks and Recreation fees apply only to residential development.

An administrative fee equal to 3.5 percent of all other fees in the Fee Program is applied uniformly across all land uses to offset the City’s costs associated with administering the Fee Program and preparing future fee updates.

It should be noted that maximum supportable fees presented in this Nexus Study represents the highest development impact fee that can be justified based on the cost of public facilities needed to serve future development and the proportionate share of those costs attributable to new growth, as calculated in this Nexus Study. These fees have been calculated using adopted service standards, identified capital improvement costs, and appropriate demand factors, and reflect the amount necessary to fund growth-related infrastructure without charging new development for existing deficiencies. The maximum supportable fee does not establish the fee that must be adopted; rather, it sets an upper limit under State law, allowing the City flexibility to adopt a lower fee amount based on policy considerations, market conditions, or implementation objectives.

Table 10-1
Maximum Supportable Capital Facilities Fee
Gen City Parks & Administrative Total
Land Use Police Facilities Rec Transportation Drainage Fee (3.50%) CFF Per Residential SF
Residential $0.79 $1.73 $3.25 $5.61 $3.26 $0.55 $16.15
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial $0.36 $0.79 $0.00 $25.24 $6.61 $1.17 $34.60
Office $0.66 $1.44 $0.00 $18.70 $6.61 $0.99 $29.19
Industrial $0.20 $0.43 $0.00 $7.29 $4.13 $0.43 $12.71
52 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 23 While the Police, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation fee components represent updates to existing impact fees, the Drainage fee is a new component of the Fee Program and has been added to address storm drainage infrastructure needs that are directly related to future development. In addition, the General City Facilities fee consolidates the City’s existing Historical, City Hall, and Corporation Yard fee components into a single, streamlined category. Lastly, the former Program Update and Administrative fee components have been combined into a single Administrative Fee to simplify implementation and ongoing administration of the Fee Program. 53 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 24 XI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ONGOING ADMINISTRATION

FEE IMPLEMENTATION
Pursuant to AB 602, the Nexus Study and applicable fees must be adopted at a public hearing following a minimum 30-day public notice period. The local agency is required to notify any member of the public who has requested notice of the preparation of an impact fee nexus study of the date, time, and location of the public hearing. In conjunction with adoption of the CFF, AB 602 further requires adoption of a capital improvement plan identifying the facilities to be funded by the fees, to the extent required by applicable law.

At least 30 days prior to the public hearing, the agency must make available to the public the data upon which the fee is based, including information regarding infrastructure costs and anticipated funding sources. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, along with a general explanation of the matter to be considered, must be published in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a. Section 6062a requires publication to occur twice, with at least five days intervening between publications, commencing at least ten days prior to the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation that is published at least once per week.

Once the CFF is adopted by the City Council, the fees shall become effective no sooner than sixty days following that action, consistent with the requirements of the Government Code.

FEE CALCULATIONS – UNIQUE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
For some specialized non-residential development projects, the land use categories and fees summarized in this report may not be applicable. For example, development of a cemetery, golf course, and/or stadium would not fall under one of the non-residential fee categories established in this Nexus Study. For specialized non-residential development projects, the City will review the development and decide on an applicable ad hoc CFF based on the impact to CFF facilities from the development. In particular, the number of employees expected on the non-residential development or some other method deemed appropriate by the City, would be used to determine 54 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 25 the impact on the facilities for each fee component. The City will provide the ad hoc CFF calculation to the applicable development.

CFF EXEMPTIONS
The City should consider the following regarding exemptions from payment of the Capital Facilities Fee:

Public Agencies
All federal and state agencies, public school districts, libraries, fire stations, and the City of Sutter Creek and County of Amador will be exempt from the CFF. Other non-City or non-County public agencies will be subject to payment of the CFF; however, the City may choose to waive some or all of the fees in certain cases.

Replacement/Reconstruction
a. Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any residential unit that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the CFF. However, if the residential unit(s) replaced or reconstructed exceeds the documented total number of units of the damaged/destroyed residential structure, the excess units are subject to the CFF.

b. Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any non-residential structure that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the CFF. However, if the building replaced or reconstructed exceeds the documented total floor area of the damaged/destroyed building, the excess square footage is subject to the CFF. If a structure has been vacant for more than five years, the exemption will not apply. c. If a residential and/or non-residential structure is replaced with an alternative land use, then the City staff will determine the appropriate fee adjustment to reflect the different use factors of the original and new land uses.

FEE CREDITS OR REIMBURSEMENTS
The City may provide fee credits or possibly reimbursements to developers who dedicate land or construct facilities. Fee credits or reimbursements may be provided up to the cost of the improvement, as shown in this Nexus Study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, or the actual cost paid by the developer, whichever is lower. For construction cost overruns, only that amount shown in this Nexus Study, subject to periodic inflation adjustments, should be credited or reimbursed. The City will evaluate the appropriate fee credit or reimbursement based on the value of the dedication or improvement. The City on a case-by-case basis will determine fee credits and reimbursements.
55 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 26

SEPARATE FEE ACCOUNTS
The City shall establish separate fee accounts for each fee in the Fee Program and track the receipt and disbursement of money in each account. The City will ensure that moneys in the fee accounts are not commingled with other City funds or other fees accounts. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, money in the fee accounts will only be used to fund those facilities for which the fees were collected.

INTER-FUND TRANSFERS
The City may allow for the transfer of fee revenues between fee funds. This will provide greater funding flexibility and facilitate the timely phasing of improvements by allowing fees to be combined and used as necessary. All inter-fund transfers must be repaid with interest.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Under the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies are required to prepare annual and five-year impact fee reports with each serving a different purpose. The annual report provides a year-by-year accounting of fee revenues and expenditures, including the amount collected, interest earned, beginning and ending fund balances, expenditures made, and the status of projects funded by the fees. Its purpose is to ensure ongoing transparency and routine public oversight of how impact fee revenues are being managed.

The five-year report is a more comprehensive review that applies to any impact fee funds that remain unspent or uncommitted for five or more years. This report requires the agency to make formal findings demonstrating that a reasonable relationship continues to exist between the fee and the purpose for which it was imposed, identify the public facilities to be funded, describe available and anticipated funding sources, and establish a timeline for completing the improvements. If the required findings are not made, the agency must refund the unexpended fee revenues to current property owners.

The following includes a detailed description administrative duties associated with the annual and five-year reports.

Annual Administrative Duties
Government Code Sections 66006(b) and 66001(d) requires a public agency to report, every year and every fifth year, certain financial information regarding the impact fees. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year the public agency must make the following information available for the past fiscal year:
(a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund (b) The amount of fee revenue
(c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund (d) The amount of fee revenue collected and interest earned 56 Section 9, Item A.

Sutter Creek Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Page 27 (e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of public improvement that was funded with fees (f) An identification of an approximate date by which time construction on the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement (g) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, when it will be repaid and at what interest rate
(h) The amount of any refunds made once it is determined that sufficient monies have been collected to fund all projects
The public agency must make this information available for public review and must also present it at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public.

Fifth-Year Administrative Duties
For the fifth year following the first deposit into the fee account and every five years thereafter, the public agency must make the following findings with respect to any remaining funds in the fee accounts:
(a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put
(b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged
(c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing incomplete improvements
(d) Designate the approximate dates on which funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate accounts or funds
As with the annual report, the five-year report must be made public within 180 days after the end of the public agency’s fiscal year and must be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled public meeting. The public agency must make these findings, otherwise the law states that the City must refund the fee revenue to the then current owners of the development project. 57 Section 9, Item A.

APPENDIX

CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM

CALCULATION TABLES
58 Section 9, Item A.

Residential
Non-Residential Employees
Residential
Non-Residential
Retail Commercial
Office/Professional
Industrial
Subtotal
Table 1
Sutter Creek Land Uses
Existing Development as of January 11 2025
.Y.!llt!
1,433
Residents
2,538
1,081
Remaining Development in Sutter Creek /1
Avg Sq. Ft. Estimated
Units /2 eer Unit /3 Total SF Residents
6,775 2,270 15,378,115 14,822
Acres Avg FAR Building Sg. Ft. Em(?IOl£ees

52.1 0.30 680,434 1,237

11.8 0.35 179,236 597

18.2 0.40 316,246 316

82.0 1,175,916 2,151
Total Estimated Uses at General Plan Buildout /3
Total Residents
Total Employees
Units /2
8,208
Residents
17,360
3,232
.!!!!!:i.

1.77 PPH

2.19 Sg. Ft./Em(?.
550
300
1,000
PPH

2.12 /1 Based on maximum potential dwelling units by gross acre per the General Plan, adjusted to reflect a portion of areas zoned for /2 Excludes approx. 224 units within the Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan that are outside of the GP limits. commercial and industrial development are developed as zoned instead of residential development. /3 Average square footage per unit based on Assessor's Parcel data of residential units constructed between 2006 and 2025.

Source. City of Sutter Creek; California Department of Finance; Environics Analytics; Parcel Quest; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 59 Section 9, Item A.

Table 2
Police Facilities Cost Allocation

1. Assumptions Year: 2025 Future Dev't Buildout Total
Estimated Sutter Creek Population 2,538 14,822 17,360
Estimated Sutter Creek Employment 1,081 2,151 3,232
Equivalent Employees /1 0.24 0.24 0.24
Employee Persons Served 259 517 776
Total Persons Served 2,797 15,339 18,136
% of Total Persons Served 15% 85% 100%

2. Police Facility & Equipment Cost Calculation
Sworn Non-Sworn Total
Current Police FTE's 6.00 0.48 6.48
Current Level of Service (per 1,000 Persons Served) 2.15 0.17 2.32 Total Officers Required to Serve the City at Buildout 38.90 3.11 42.02 Estimated Current Police Sq Ft 3,000
Existing Level of Service (Sq Ft per 1,000 Persons Served) 1,073 Estimated Police Sq Ft Required at Buildout 19,460
Estimated Average Construction Cost per SF $580
Estimated Total Construction Cost $11,286,758
Acres /2 Cost per Acre
Land Acquisition 1.79 $300,000 $536,086
Subtotal Facilities and Land Cost $11,822,844
Vehicles Sworn Officers
Police Vehicles & Equipment per Sworn Officer at Buildout Marked & Unmarked Patrol Cars Required by Police Officers 1.00 42.02 42.02 Estimated Cost per Patrol Car $74,000
Total Police Vehicle Cost $3,109,251
Total Police Facilities & Equipment Cost $14,932,095
Estimated Cost Allocated to Existing Development in Sutter Creek $2,302,882 Estimated Cost Allocated to Future Development in Sutter Creek $12,629,213 Average Cost Per Person Served $823

3. Allocation Calculation
Persons per Cost per Avg Sq. Ft. Allocated Cost
Household Person Served per Unit per SF
Residential 2.19 $823 2,270 $0.79
Cost per Sq. Ft. per Allocated Cost
Non-Residential Employee Employee per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $198 550 $0.36
Office $198 300 $0.66
Industrial $198 1,000 $0.20
/1 1.0 employee equals 0.24 residents.
/2 Assumes a 25% floor-to-area ratio.

Source: City of Sutter Creek; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 60 Section 9, Item A.

Table 3
General City Facilities Cost Allocation

2. General City Facilities & Equipment Cost Calculation City Hall Facilities and Land
Total Current Employees (Excl. Police and Public Works) 13.52 Current Employees per 1,000 Residents 5.33
Estimated Total Employees at Buildout 92.48
Estimated Current Finance and Admin Sq Ft 7,000
Existing Level of Service (Sq Ft per 1,000 Persons Served) 2,503 Estimated Finance and Admin Sq Ft Required at Buildout 45,394 Estimated Average Construction Cost per SF $580
Estimated Total Construction Cost $26,328,757
Acres /2 Cost per Acre
Land Acquisition 4.17 $300,000 $1,250,535
Subtotal Facilities and Land Cost $27,579,291
Corporation Yard Facilities and Land
Total Current Employees 6.48
Current Employees per 1,000 Residents 2.32
Estimated Total Employees at Buildout 42.02
Estimated Current Public Works Sq Ft (Office and Lab) 1,000 Existing Level of Service (Sq Ft per 1,000 Persons Served) 358 Estimated Public Works Sq Ft Required at Buildout 6,493 Estimated Average Construction Cost per SF $580
Estimated Total Construction Cost $3,765,759
Acres /2 Cost per Acre
Land Acquisition 0.60 $150,000 $89,431
Subtotal Facilities and Land Cost $3,855,190
City Museums (Knight's Foundry) $1,190,000
Total General City Facilities $32,624,481
Estimated Cost Allocated to Existing Development in Sutter Creek $5,031,466 Estimated Cost Allocated to Future Development in Sutter Creek $27,593,015 Average Cost Per Person Served $1,799

3. Allocation Calculation
Persons per Cost per Avg Sq. Ft. Allocated Cost
Household Person Served per Unit per SF
Residential 2.19 $1,799 2,270 $1.73
Cost per Sq. Ft. per Allocated Cost
Non-Residential Employee Employee per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $432 550 $0.79
Office $432 300 $1.44
Industrial $432 1,000 $0.43
/1 1.0 employee equals 0.24 residents.
/2 Assumes a 25% floor-to-area ratio.

Source: City of Sutter Creek; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 61 Section 9, Item A.

Table 4
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost Allocation

1. Assumptions Year: 2025 Future Dev't Buildout Total
Estimated Sutter Creek Population 2,538 14,822 17,360
Estimated Sutter Creek Employment 0 0 0
Equivalent Employees /1 0.24 0.24 0.24
Employee Persons Served 0 0 0
Total Persons Served 2,538 14,822 17,360
% of Total Persons Served 15% 85% 100%

2. Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost Allocation
Total
Current Park and Recreation Area Acres /1 20.2
Current Level of Service (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 8.0 City's Preferred Level of Service (Acres per 1,000 Residents) /2 4.5 Existing LOS Preferred LOS Difference
Total Park and Recreation Acreage Required to Serve the City at Buildout 138.2 78.1 60.0 Land Acquisition Construction Total
Estimated Average Cost per Acre $300,000 $450,000 $750,000 Total Acreage at Preferred LOS 78.1
Total Cost $58,590,000
Estimated Cost Allocated to Existing Development in Sutter Creek $8,565,750 Estimated Cost Allocated to Future Development in Sutter Creek (based on Preferred LOS) $50,024,250 Average Cost Per Person Served $3,375

3. Allocation Calculation
Persons per Cost per Avg Sq. Ft. Allocated Cost
Household Person Served per Unit per SF
Residential 2.19 $3,375 2,270 $3.25
Cost per Sq. Ft. per Allocated Cost
Non-Residential Employee Employee per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0 550 $0.00
Office $0 300 $0.00
Industrial $0 1,000 $0.00
/1 Excludes 176 acres associated with the Highway 49 Mitigation site, which is identified as a natural area park in the General Plan. /2 Per required park acres identified in the Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan.

Source: City of Sutter Creek; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 62 Section 9, Item A.

Table 5
Transportation Improvements Cost Allocation
Average Adjusted PM Allocated
Bldg SF Existing Future Total Trips per Existing Future Total Cost per per Unit Dev't Dev't Dev't Unit or KSF /1 Trips Trips Trips Bldg SF Total CIP Cost $135,000,000
Units Units Units per Unit
Residential 2,270 1,433 6,775 8,208 0.75 1,077 5,093 6,170 $5.61 Non-Residential
Bldg SF Bldg SF Bldg SF per KSF
Commercial 185,778 680,434 866,212 1.49 277 1,014 1,290 $25.24 Office 114,000 179,236 293,236 1.10 126 198 324 $18.70
Industrial 111,111 316,246 427,357 0.43 48 136 184 $7.29 Subtotal 410,889 1,175,916 1,586,805 450 1,348 1,798
Total 1,528 6,440 7,968
% of Total Trips 19.2% 80.8% 100.0%
Total Cost Allocated between Existing and Future Development $25,882,957 $109,117,043 $135,000,000 Average Cost per Trip $16,943
/1 Adjusted to exclude estimated pass-by trips.

Source: City of Sutter Creek; Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 63 Section 9, Item A.

Table 6
Drainage Improvements Cost Allocation
Average % Allocated
Bldg SF Existing Future Total Estimated Impervious Imperviousness Cost per per Unit Dev't Dev't Dev't Density per Acre Existing Future Total Bldg SF Total CIP Cost $70,224,000
Units Units Units Units/Acre /1
Residential 2,270 1,433 6,775 8,208 5.4 0.50 132.7 627.3 760.0 $3.26 Non-Residential
Bldg SF Bldg SF Bldg SF FAR
Commercial 185,778 680,434 866,212 0.25 0.90 15.4 56.2 71.6 $6.61 Office 114,000 179,236 293,236 0.25 0.90 9.4 14.8 24.2 $6.61 Industrial 111,111 316,246 427,357 0.40 0.90 5.7 16.3 22.1 $4.13 Subtotal 410,889 1,175,916 1,586,805 30.5 87.4 117.9
Total 163.2 714.7 877.9
% of Total Imperviousness 18.6% 81.4% 100.0%
Total Cost Allocated between Existing and Future Development $13,055,209 $57,168,791 $70,224,000 /1 Based on average density per General Plan buildout.

Source: City of Sutter Creek; Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. 64 Section 9, Item A.

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2026
FROM: PAM CARONONGAN, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-26-XX, THEREBY APPROVING

THE DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY)
2026-2027

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-26-XX, thereby approving the draft Master Fee Schedule for FY 2026-27.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
During the regular meeting of February 17, 2026, staff presented the draft Master Fee Schedule before the City Council.

Staff shared the “Continuum of Benefit” - the framework used during the analysis of all Citywide fees and compiling them into one document. Staff explained the following:

1. Fees are normally set with the aim of “cost recovery” - the total funds paid by the City for all expenditures incurred to carry out a service. These expenditures come in different forms, including but not limited to staff salaries, contractor hourly rates, and supplies.

2. Anything that falls below “cost recovery” is subsidized by the City via its General Fund.

The higher the “cost recovery” means that the “City subsidy” is lower, and vice versa

3. There are five categories used to determine “cost recovery” level which is listed here in the amount of “cost recovery” from highest to lowest: private benefit, shared benefit, high public benefit, access to government, and public good - with private benefit set at 100% “cost recovery” and public good set at 0% “cost recovery.” 65 Section 9, Item B.
2 Staff noted three “takeaways” during the City Council discussion which should be further researched and then applied (if needed) to the draft Master Fee Schedule:

1. Verbiage should be added regarding Cribbs Fields to make it available to organized sports leagues, open to all.

2. Administrative fines and whether they should be added in the Master Fee Schedule.

3. Insurance requirements for facility rentals, specifically for low risk small events..

City Council, via consensus, accepted the proposed amended fees and directed staff to return at a later meeting date and report back regarding the three “takeaways” noted above along with the needed changes contingent on the outcome of staff’s research.

Cribbs Fields (1st “Takeaway)
During the February 17, 2026 regular meeting, the City Council acknowledged the community and social benefits that Cribbs Fields brings; and that City Council told staff that they want to ensure the affordability of this venue.

Staff added the following verbiage to this effect: ✱ - Non-profit youth sports leagues should inquire with City Staff regarding highly discounted rates. (see Pages 19-21, “Notes” section of Matrix - Draft Master Fee Schedule - Attachment 2).

Administrative Fines and its Addition to the Master Fee Schedule (2nd “Takeaway”) During the February 17, 2026 regular meeting, City Council inquired as to whether administrative fines should be incorporated within the Master Fee Schedule.

Administrative fines can be in the Master Fee Schedule, and we will work to include more in future updates. For now we will rely on state law that allows this to be a non-exhaustive list.

Staff added a “Disclaimers and General Provision” page which serves as “Page One” / “Page 1” of the draft Master Fee Schedule to highlight the document’s non-exhaustive nature and the City’s separate authority to charge administrative fines.

Insurance Requirements for Renters of City Facilities - Specifically for lower risk events such as small meetings (3rd “Takeaway”)
During the February 17, 2026 regular meeting, City Council directed staff to seek advice from the City’s risk management JPA - the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA). The inquiry pertains to insurance requirements for City facility renters - most especially for low risk events, such as those with less than 25 attendees. It is the desire and intent of the City Council to keep facility rentals affordable, yet at the same time ensuring that the City is protected from risk.
66 Section 9, Item B.
3 City staff received conflicted information. The RMA is in the process of updating its documents and resolutions to increase insurance requirements. In the past they had multiple levels of risk with varying insurance requirements. For administrative ease, Sutter Creek has only had one insurance level. CSJVRMA advised staff to properly transfer risk with regard to special events, where failure to do so could triple the City’s retained limit up to $50K above retention in the event of a claim. At the same time, CSJVRMA acknowledges the fact that insurance coverage for special events is expensive and that cities balance between ensuring the city’s risk protection while keeping fees affordable for residents.

At the time of this report, we are keeping the recommendations at the $2M per occurence, $4M aggregate level but we will endeavor to get a more complete explanation from the RMA prior to the council meeting.

As resources and guidance regarding this matter, CSJVRMA a couple of documents to the city which are attached:

1. Best Risk Management Practices - Special Events & Facilities Rentals (Attachment 3)

2. Special Events Brokers (Attachment 4)

BUDGET IMPACT
Keeping our fees current with our costs ensures that fees that are meant to be cost recovery do in fact recover the efforts the City expends to complete the efforts.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution - Draft

2. 2026 City of Sutter Creek Master Fee Schedule - Draft

3. Best Risk Management Practices - Special Events and Facilities Rentals

4. Special Events Brokers
67 Section 9, Item B.

RESOLUTION NO. ________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK

ADOPTING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek has the authority to establish fees for City services;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to recover the costs of providing certain City services and has determined such fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing services for which fees are imposed;
WHEREAS, the consolidation of all City fees will assist the public, as well as City staff, in readily locating fees and continuing governmental transparency; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed Master Fee Schedule before its adoption.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Master Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit A and declares that the attached fee schedule shall become effective on March 17, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the adoption of the attached Master Fee Schedule supersedes the adoption of any previous such schedule.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 16th day of March, 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman Mayor
______________________________________
Pam Caronongan, City Clerk
68 Section 9, Item B.

ATTACHMENT A
69 Section 9, Item B.
0 CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
DRAFT
3/16/2026
Master Fee Schedule
70 Section 9, Item B.

Page 1 of 34 ends

Adopted Month Day, Year: Resolution No. 25-26-xx
71 Section 9, Item B.

Page 2 of 34 ends

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Disclaimer and General Provisions

1. Non-Exhaustive Nature of Schedule
The City of Sutter Creek Master Fee Schedule is a compilation of fees for various City services. While every attempt is made to provide current and complete information, this schedule does not include all fees, rates, or charges that may be imposed by the City. Certain fees, such as utility rates, development impact fees, and specific program costs, may be governed by separate City Council resolutions or Municipal Code sections.

2. Administrative Fines and Penalties
The absence of a specific fine or penalty from this Master Fee Schedule does not preclude the City from issuing such charges.
● Enforcement Authority: Administrative fines, penalties, and late charges for violations of the City’s Municipal Code are authorized under California Government Code Sections 36900 and 36901.
● Standard Fine Amounts: Unless otherwise specified by ordinance, administrative fines for infractions follow the limits set by state law: $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation within one year, and $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year. ● Debt to City: All fines constitute a debt to the City and are due regardless of whether the underlying violation is abated.

3. Cost Recovery and Services Not Listed
● Actual Costs: For any service request or project not specifically listed in this schedule, or for those requiring extraordinary staff time, the City reserves the right to charge based on actual cost recovery (staff hourly rates, materials, and consultant fees). ● Deposits: A deposit may be required in advance for services where the total cost is based on time and materials.

4. Updates and Amendments
Fees are reviewed annually and adjusted to ensure they reflect the reasonable cost of providing the service. This schedule is subject to change at any time by City Council resolution. Users are encouraged to consult with the [relevant department, e.g., Finance or Community Development] to verify the most current rates before proceeding with an application or service request. 72 Section 9, Item B.

Page 3 of 34 ends

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Table of Contents
Administrative Fees .................................................................................................................................................3 Business Licensing ..............................................................................................................................................3 City Clerk .............................................................................................................................................................3 Finance ................................................................................................................................................................4 Building / Engineering .............................................................................................................................................5 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES - CITY ........................................................................................................................6 Residential - Current............................................................................................................................................6 Non-Residential - Retail / Commercial - Current .................................................................................................7 Office - Current ....................................................................................................................................................8 Medical - Current .................................................................................................................................................9 Industrial - Current .............................................................................................................................................10 Institutional - Current .........................................................................................................................................11 Public Utilities and Warehousing / Storage - Current ........................................................................................12 Other - Current...................................................................................................................................................13 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES - CITY - PROPOSED...............................................................................................14 Regional Traffic Mitigation Fees (ACTC)...........................................................................................................15 Residential...................................................................................................................................................15 Non-Residential: Retail / Commercial .........................................................................................................16 Non-Residential: Food Services / Specialty Commercial / Medical ............................................................17 Non-Residential: All Other Categories ........................................................................................................18 Office.....................................................................................................................................................18 Industrial ...............................................................................................................................................18 Institutional............................................................................................................................................18 Public Utilities........................................................................................................................................18 Warehousing/Storage ...........................................................................................................................18 Other.....................................................................................................................................................18 Facility Rental Fees.....................................................................................................................................19 Hourly Rental Fees ............................................................................................................................................19 Daily Rental Fees...............................................................................................................................................20 Other Rental-Related Fees for All Categories ...................................................................................................21 Planning and Development / Engineering ...........................................................................................................21 General ..............................................................................................................................................................22 Permits and Reviews - Part 1 of 2 .....................................................................................................................23 Permits and Reviews - Part 2 of 2 .....................................................................................................................24 Environmental (CEQA) and Filing Fees ............................................................................................................25 Police and Public Safety........................................................................................................................................26 Parking Citations................................................................................................................................................26 Other Police and Public Safety-Related Fees ...................................................................................................27 Public Works...........................................................................................................................................................28 Wastewater Fees ....................................................................................................................................................29 Sewer Connection Fees and Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG)...............................................................................30 Special Events ........................................................................................................................................................31 Staff Costs .........................................................................................................................................................32 73 Section 9, Item B.

Page 4 of 34 ends

Administrative Fees
Business Licensing

BUSINESS

LICENSING
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Business License
per license, per
30 days $30 $40 Yes N/A Yes No
Business License
per license, per
6 months $89 $100 Yes N/A Yes No
Business License
per license, per
year $174 $180 Yes N/A Yes No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule.

City Clerk

CITY CLERK
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption
of Ord or Reso
to Approve
Fee?**
New
Fee?
Copies (black and white) per page n/a $0.25 No N/A No Yes Copies (color) per page n/a $0.50 No N/A No Yes
Notary (by appointment
and staff availability)*
per
signature n/a $15 No N/A No Yes
*Fee only covers notarization of signature. Additional fees such as photocopy and travel not included. Fee reflected is per State regulation.
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. 74 Section 9, Item B.

Page 5 of 34 ends

Finance

FINANCE
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Returned Check (NSF):
1st Occurrence per item $25 $30 No N/A Yes No
Returned Check (NSF):

Subsequent
Occurrence per item $35 $40 No N/A Yes No
Credit Card
Convenience Fee
(%) of
transaction 2.50% 2.50% No N/A Yes No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. +California Government Code Section 6157 permits government entities to accept negotiable instruments and recover costs associated with dishonored payments. The City plans to have an ordinance introduced and adopted for this fee. 75 Section 9, Item B.

Page 6 of 34 ends

Building / Engineering
Authority: California Building Code and Sutter Creek Municipal Code Building fees are generally calculated based on the Total Project Valuation.

BUILDING
Fee Category Basis / Calculation
Permit Fees
Building Permit Fee

2.2 % of the total valuation. Based on Valuation Table (2023 International Code Council / 2023 ICC. Staff will soon implement an update via implementation of 2025 ICC building valuation data). The minimum Building Permit fee is $110.00 plus SB 1473 and SMP Fees.

Grading Permit Valuation based.

Plan Check Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee
Electrical Permit Fee $94 in addition to Building Permit Fee SMP (Strong Motion Program)
Residential: $0.50 or valuation x 0.00013 for residential and

0.00028 for commercial (State Fee)
Revisions $174
Green Building Fee (SB 1473) $1.00 per $25,000 valuation (State Fee) Improvement Plan Check % of Engineer’s Estimate (Typ 3-5%) Inspection (Public Improvements) % of Engineer’s Estimate (Typ 3-5%) Inspections
Additional Inspection Fee Cost plus 20%
Re-inspection Fee Hourly (min 1 hr)
After-Hours Inspection Hourly (min 2 hrs)
Staff Costs
See STAFF COST Matrix
76 Section 9, Item B.

Page 7 of 34 ends

DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES - CITY
Residential - Current
RESIDENTIAL: Single Family
Multi-Family
Attached
Mobile Home Park or
Subdivision
Congregate Care
Facility
Unit of Measure - per dwelling unit
Police $1,430.96 $933.94 $1,430.96 $1,430.96
Fire $2,808.31 $1,832.14 $2,808.31 $2,808.31
Historical $654.57 $427.18 $654.57 $654.57
City Hall $1,638.86 $1,068.75 $1,638.86 $1,638.86
Corp Yard $776.39 $506.76 $776.39 $776.39
Program Update $186.79 $121.82 $186.79 $186.79
Admin $224.15 $146.18 $224.15 $224.15
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $7,720.03 $5,036.77 $7,720.03 $7,720.03 Parks $13,700.65 $13,700.65 $13,700.65 $13,700.65
General Traffic $5,134.22 $3,644.80 $5,134.22 $5,134.22 Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills
(Gopher Flat) $1,624.24 $1,624.24 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills
(Gopher Flat) $1,624.24 $1,624.24 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher
Flat) $1,624.24 $1,624.24 $0.00 $0.00
Crestview $2,861.91 $2,861.91 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $584.73 $584.73 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $1,624.24 $1,624.24 $0.00 $0.00
77 Section 9, Item B.

Page 8 of 34 ends

Non-Residential - Retail / Commercial - Current
NON-RESIDENTIAL - Retail / Commercial:

High Volume
Retail*
Medium Volume
Retail**
Low Volume
Retail***
Unit of Measure - per square foot
Police $0.28 $0.28 $0.28
Fire $0.54 $0.54 $0.54
Historical $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
City Hall $0.31 $0.31 $0.31
Corp Yard $0.15 $0.15 $0.15
Program Update $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Admin $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39
Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $10.27 $6.67 $0.77
Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
* - High Volume Retail: Drug store, department store, grocery store, discount store, mini-mart, automobile sales, liquor store, supermarket, laundromat, auto parts, clothing / apparel, delicatessen, bank, health fitness center, pharmacy, hardware store, record / video rental and sales.

Under High Volume Retail are the following two categories:

Specialty Retail Center: Small shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops including apparel; hard goods; and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants.

Shopping Center: May contain supermarkets, drug stores, banks, movie theater, and miscellaneous mall retail shops. ** - Medium Volume Retail: Bakery, automobile repair, child care, club store, dry cleaner, shoe store, automobile sales, liquor store, supermarket, laundromat, auto parts, clothing / apparel, delicatessen, bank, health fitness center, pharmacy, hardware store, record / video rental and sales.
*** - Low Volume Retail: Antique store, boat / equipment repair shop, appliance store, furniture store, gallery, museum, kennel, boat / RV / mobile home sales, clock store / store (TV,radio, vacuum, etc.), wine and beer tasting rooms or product retail sales in conjunction with a winery and brewery.
78 Section 9, Item B.

Page 9 of 34 ends

Office - Current

FOOD SERVICES SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
General
Office
Stand Along
Restaurant
w/ drive
through on
State Hwy
Stand Along
Restaurant w/ drive
through w/in
shopping center or
community (wherein
fast food restaurant is
not immediately
adjacent to a State
Hwy Quality Sit-down
Restaurant, Drinking
Establishment (Bar)
Gas Station
w/ or w/o
convenience
store
Car wash /
Quick lube
Hotel /
Motel / B
& B -
Unit
Unit of Measure - depends on
category
per square
foot
per square
foot per square foot
per sq. ft. / per
fueling space
per sq. ft. /
per stall
per sq. ft.
/ per unit
Police $0.50 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.00
Fire $0.97 $0.54 $0.54 $0.54 $0.54 $0.00
Historical $0.08 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.00
City Hall $0.57 $0.31 $0.31 $0.31 $0.31 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.28 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.00
Program Update $0.06 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00
Admin $0.08 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $2.54 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39 $0.00 Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,700.65 $0.00
General Traffic $5.65 $82.66 $82.66 $16,429.19 $10,781.71 $0.00 Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $0.00 Sutter Crest East / Golden
Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Crest East / Golden
Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Glen Manor Court
(Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 79 Section 9, Item B.

Page 10 of 34 ends

Medical - Current

MEDICAL
Medical Office / Medical /
Health Clinic providing
diagnostic or treatment
services Hospital
Nursing /
Convalescent
Home
Unit of Measure - depends on category per square foot
per square foot / per
bed
per square foot / per
bed
Police $0.50 $0.50 $0.00
Fire $0.97 $0.97 $0.00
Historical $0.08 $0.08 $0.00
City Hall $0.57 $0.57 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.28 $0.28 $0.00
Program Update $0.06 $0.06 $0.00
Admin $0.08 $0.08 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $2.54 $2.54 $0.00
Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $15.40 $6,058.42 $0.00
Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $0.00
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher
Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher
Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
80 Section 9, Item B.

Page 11 of 34 ends

Industrial - Current

INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
including: *
Heavy Industrial
including: **
Manufacturing /
Assembly /
Agricultural
Processing***
Unit of Measure - per square foot
Police $0.15 $0.15 $0.00
Fire $0.29 $0.29 $0.00
Historical $0.03 $0.03 $0.00
City Hall $0.18 $0.18 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.08 $0.08 $0.00
Program Update $0.02 $0.02 $0.00
Admin $0.02 $0.02 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $0.77 $0.77 $0.00
Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $3.08 $0.77 $0.00
Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $0.00
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
* - Light Including: Airport / airstrip, meat packing facility, livestock, feedlot / auction yard, printing plant, material testing laboratory, electronics plant.
** - Heavy Including: Auto wrecking and junk yard, mining operation, foundry and smelter, refining plant, lumber mill. *** - Manufacturing / Assembly / Agricultural Processing: Manufacturing or assembly facilities where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials, products or parts into finished commodities for sale or distribution, including a winery or brewery. 81 Section 9, Item B.

Page 12 of 34 ends

Institutional - Current

INSTITUTIONAL
Elementary School, Middle
School, Church, or other place
of worship High School
Unit of Measure - per square foot
Police $0.15 $0.00
Fire $0.29 $0.00
Historical $0.03 $0.00
City Hall $0.18 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.08 $0.00
Program Update $0.02 $0.00
Admin $0.02 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $0.77 $0.00
Parks $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $5.13 $0.00
Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $0.00
Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Crest East/Golden Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00
Crestview $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00
82 Section 9, Item B.

Page 13 of 34 ends

Public Utilities and Warehousing / Storage - Current

WAREHOUSING / STORAGE

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND

WAREHOUSING / STORAGE
Utilities (Publicly or
Privately Owned)
Warehouse (facilities
primarily devoted to the
storage of materials,
including wholesale
distribution facilities)
Mini Storage Facilities
(Buildings housing
separate storage units
used for storage)
Unit of Measure - depends on category per square foot per square foot per square foot Police $0.00 $0.15 $0.00
Fire $0.00 $0.29 $0.00
Historical $0.00 $0.03 $0.00
City Hall $0.00 $0.18 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.00 $0.08 $0.00
Program Update $0.00 $0.02 $0.00
Admin $0.00 $0.02 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $0.00 $0.77 $0.00
Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $0.00 $2.57 $0.00
Sewer Connection Fee $0.00 $10,247.56 $0.00
Sutter Crest East / Golden Hills
(Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Crest East / Golden Hills
(Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Glen Manor Court (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
83 Section 9, Item B.

Page 14 of 34 ends

Other - Current
OTHER
Golf Course (9-
Hole)
Golf Course
(18-Hole) Live Theater Movie Theater
Recreational /
Visitor Center
Unit of Measure - depends
on category per hole per hole per square foot per square foot per parking
space
Police $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.00
Fire $0.54 $0.54 $0.54 $0.54 $0.00
Historical $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.00
City Hall $0.31 $0.31 $0.31 $0.31 $0.00
Corp Yard $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.00
Program Update $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00
Admin $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00
TOTAL Gen Gov't AB 1600 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39 $1.39 $0.00
Parks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Traffic $97,035.38 $194,070.76 $0.77 $3.29 $0.00 Sewer Connection Fee $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $0.00 Sutter Crest East / Golden
Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Crest East / Golden
Hills (Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Sutter Glen Manor Court
(Gopher Flat) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Crestview $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Mesa De Oro $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Powder House Estates $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
84 Section 9, Item B.

Page 15 of 34 ends

DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES - CITY -

PROPOSED
Impact fees incur an additional 3.5% administrative fee to cover the costs of managing the impact fee program and nexus studies, as allowed by State law.

Land Use Police Gen City
Facilities
Parks & Rec Transportation Drainage
Per Residential SF
Residential $0.61 $1.33 $2.50 $4.32 $2.51
Non-Residential Per Building SF
Commercial $0.14 $0.31 $0.00 $9.82 $2.56
Office $0.30 $0.66 $0.00 $8.62 $3.06
Industrial $0.15 $0.32 $0.00 $5.34 $3.02
85 Section 9, Item B.

Page 16 of 34 ends

Regional Traffic Mitigation Fees (ACTC)
Residential

RESIDENTIAL
Development Project Type Adjusted
Trip Rate
Fee Amount
Residential
$388 / trip end
Residential Single Family Detached (Note: D.U. = Dwelling Unit 10.0/D.U. $3,880/D.U.

Multi-Family Attached 7.1/D.U. $2,755/D.U.

Apartments, duplexes or condominiums are charged per dwelling unit without regard to square footage or number of bedrooms.

Mobile Home Park or Subdivision 4.22/D.U. $1,637/D.U.

An area or tract of land where more than two spaces are rented or individually owned to accommodate mobile homes.

Retirement Community
Five or more residential units, enforceably restricted to those 55 or over and designed for the elderly.

Congregate Care Facility 2.15/D.U. $834/D.U.

Congregate care facilities typically consist of one or more multi-unit buildings designed for elderly living; they may also contain common dining rooms, medical facilities and recreational facilities.
86 Section 9, Item B.

Page 17 of 34 ends

Non-Residential: Retail / Commercial

NON-RESIDENTIAL
Development Project Type Adjusted
Trip Rate
Fee Amount
Commercial:
$167 / trip end
Retail
High Volume Retail:
20/1,000
S.F.
$3,340/1,000
S.F.

Commercial Drug Store Department Store Grocery Store
Discount Store Mini Mart Automobile Sales
Liquor Store Supermarket Laundromat
Auto Parts Clothing/Apparel Store Delicatessen
Bank Health Fitness Center
Record/Video Rental &
Sales
Hardware Store Pharmacy
Speciality Retail Center
Small shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops including apparel; hard goods; and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants.

Shopping Center
May contain Supermarkets, Drug Stores, Banks, Movie Theater, and miscellaneous small retail shops.

Medium Volume Retail:
13/1,000
S.F.
$2,171/1,000
S.F.

Bakery Automobile Repair Child Care
Club Store Dry Cleaner Shoe Store
Gift Shop
Lumber / Building
Supplies Sporting Goods Store
Nursery Jewelry Store Stationary Store
Photo Store Print Shop (retail) Toy Store
Electronics Store Book Store Factory Outlet Center
Tire Store Health Food Store
Low Volume Retail:

1.5/1,000
S.F.
$251/1,000
S.F.

Antique Store Boat / Equipment Repair Shop
Appliance Store Furniture Store
Gallery Museum
Kennel Boat / RV / Mobile Home Sales
Clock Store Repair Shop (TV, Radio, Vacuum, etc.)
Wine or beer tasting rooms or product retail sales in conjunction with such
87 Section 9, Item B.

Page 18 of 34 ends

Non-Residential: Food Services / Specialty Commercial / Medical

NON-RESIDENTIAL
Development Project Type Adjusted
Trip Rate
Fee Amount
Commercial:
$167 / trip end
Food Services
Fast food standalone restaurant on a State highway
161/1,000
S.F.
$26,887/1,000
S.F.

Fast food drive-through restaurant within a shopping center or community (wherein fast food restaurant is not immediately adjacent to a State highway)
60/1,000
S.F.
$10,020/1,000
S.F.

Quality Sit-down Restaurant
23/1,000
S.F.
$3,841/1,000
S.F.

Drinking Establishment (Bar)
Specialty Commercial Gas Station with or without convenience store (Note: The number of fueling spaces is determined by the maximum number of vehicles capable of being fueled simultaneously).
32/Fueling
Space
$5,344/Fueling
Space
Car Wash / Quick Lube 21/Stall $3,507/Stall
Hotel / Motel / Resort / Bed and Breakfast (Note: Sleeping unit, dwelling unit, rental unit, or other component by which the development is marketed). 5.2/Unit $868/Unit
Medical Hospital 11.8/Bed $1,971/Bed
Nursing Home / Convalescent Home 2.6/Bed $434/Bed
Medical Office or Medical or Health Clinic providing diagnostic or treatment services
30/1,000
S.F.
$5,010/1,000
S.F.
88 Section 9, Item B.

Page 19 of 34 ends

Non-Residential: All Other Categories
Office Industrial Institutional
Public Utilities Warehousing/Storage Other

NON-RESIDENTIAL

CATEGORY
Development Project Type Adjusted
Trip Rate
Fee Amount
Commercial:
$304 / trip end
Office General Office 11/1,000 S.F. $3,344/1,000 S.F.

Industrial Light, including: 6/1,000 S.F. $1,824/1,000 S.F.

Airport / Airstrip Meat Packing Facility
Livestock Feedlot / Auction Yard Printing Plant
Material Testing Laboratory Electronics Plant
Heavy, including: 15/1,000 S.F. $456/1,000 S.F.

Auto Wrecking and Junk Yard Mining Operation
Foundry and Smelter Refining Plant
Lumber Mill
Manufacturing / Assembly / Agricultural Processing 3/1,000 S.F. $912/1,000 S.F.

Manufacturing or assembly facilities where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials, products or parts info finished commodities for sale or distribution, including a winery or brewery.

Institutional Elementary School / Middle School 10/1,000 S.F. $3,040/1,000 S.F.

Church or other place of worship
High School 13/1,000 S.F. $3,952/1,000 S.F.

Public Utilities Utilities (Publicly or privately owned) 6/1,000 S.F. $1,824/1,000 S.F.

Production, generation, storage, transmission and treatment facilities, mechanical or industrial space, parts and equipment storage, repair areas, and office space in the same project and related to or used for these utility uses.

Warehousing / Storage Warehouse 5/1,000 S.F. $1,520/1,000 S.F.

Facilities primarily devoted to the storage of materials, including wholesale distribution facilities.

Mini-Storage Facilities 2/1,000 S.F. $608/1,000 S.F.

Buildings housing separate storage units or vaults used for storage
Other Golf Course 21/Hole $6,384/Hole
Theater (Movie) 6.4/1,000 S.F. $1,946/1,000 S.F.

Theater (Live) 1.5/1,000 S.F. $456/1,000 S.F.

Recreational / Visitor Center

3.1/Parking
Space
$942/Parking
Space
89 Section 9, Item B.

Page 20 of 34 ends

Facility Rental Fees
Hourly Rental Fees

FACILITY

RENTALS
Auditorium
(2 Hour Min
for Sports
Use)
Community
Center
(2 Hour Min)
Cribbs Field
(2 Hour min)
✱
Snack Shack
(2 hour min)
Historic
Grammar
School
(Rooms 1,
2, and 5)**
( 2 hr min)
Historic
Grammar
School
Kitchen
(2 hr min)
Main
Street
Conf.

Room
(1 hour
min)
Historic
Grammar
School
Hourly Per
Room
Whole
Building
Current:

Non-Profit
N/E+ $15
(4-hour min)
$20 N/E $15 $20 N/E N/A
Current:

Commercial
N/E $55 $50 N/E $35 $35 N/E N/A
Current:

Private
N/E $30 $20 N/E $35 $35 N/E N/A
Proposed:

Non-Profit
$20 $20 $20 $15 $20 $25 $15 NA
Proposed:

Commercial
$75 $75 $75 $35 $50 $70 $35 NA
Proposed:

Private
$35 $35 $35 $20 $30 $40 $20 NA
NOTES
* Two-hour (2-hour) Minimum Charge per rental transaction. **Charge reflected is per room
***Renters to provide (SAM) Insurance Coverage when children sports leagues are involved. + - Nothing Established (N/E)
++ - Not Applicable (N/A)
✱ - Non-profit youth sports leagues should inquire with City Staff regarding highly discounted rates 90 Section 9, Item B.

Page 21 of 34 ends

Daily Rental Fees

FACILITY
RENTALS Auditorium
Community
Center Cribbs Field ✱ Snack Shack
Historic
Grammar
School
(Rooms
1, 2, and
5)**
Historic
Grammar
School
Cafeteria
Main
Street
Conf.

Room
Historic
Grammar
School
Daily Per
Room
Whole
Building
Current:

Non-Profit
$175 N/E N/E N/E $90 $120 N/E N/E
Current:

Commercial
$425 N/E $400 N/E $150 $210 N/E N/E
Current:

Private
$250 N/E N/E N/E $150 $210 N/E N/E
Proposed:

Non-Profit
$140 $140 $175 105 $140 $175 $105 $350
Proposed:

Commercial
$525 $525 $525 $245 $350 $490 $245 $1050
Proposed:

Private
$245 $245 $245 $140 $210 $280 $140 $700
NOTES
Room 1 = Stone room, 2 = Dance Studio, 5 = Class Room
* Two-hour (2-hour) Minimum Charge per rental transaction. **Charge reflected is per room
***Renters to provide (SAM) Insurance Coverage when children are involved, private parties excepted. + - Nothing Established (N/E)
++ - Not Applicable (N/A)
✱ - Non-profit youth sports leagues should inquire with City Staff regarding highly discounted rates 91 Section 9, Item B.

Page 22 of 34 ends

Other Rental-Related Fees for All Categories

FACILITY
RENTALS Auditorium
Community
Center
Cribbs Field
✱ Snack Shack
Historic
Grammar
School
(Rooms 1,
2, and 5)**
Historic
Grammar
School
Kitchen
Main
Street
Conf.

Room
Historic
Grammar
School
Other
Rental Fee
Per Room Whole
Building
Current:

Utility Fees
$100 $50 $25 N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E
Proposed:

Utility Fees
(Only applies
when free
use, e.g.

School
district)
$125 $75 $45 $25 $45 $45 $45 $100
Current:

Kitchen Fee
$25 $50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Proposed:

Kitchen Use
Fee
$10/hr $15/hr N/A N/A N/A $15/hr N/A N/A
Current:

Cleaning
Deposit
$250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250
Proposed:

Cleaning
Deposit
$300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300
Current: Key
Deposit
$25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25
Proposed:

Key Deposit
$25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25
Current:

Insurance
Requirement
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M
/ $1M
$1M /
$2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M
/ $1M
$1M / $2M
/ $1M
Proposed:

Insurance
Requirement
***
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M
/ $2M
$2M /
$4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M
/ $2M
$2M / $4M
/ $2M
Wi-FI
Available?
No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
NOTES
* Two-hour (2-hour) Minimum Charge per rental transaction. **Charge reflected is per room
***Renters to provide (SAM) Insurance Coverage when children are involved. + - Nothing Established (N/E)
✱ - Non-profit youth sports leagues should inquire with City Staff regarding highly discounted rates 92 Section 9, Item B.

Page 23 of 34 ends

Planning and Development / Engineering
Authority: Reso 07-01-2019-B / Muni Code 15.24 / Fish & Game Code § 711.4 General

PLANNING &

DEVELOPMENT /

ENGINEERING
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need
Adoption
of Ord or
Reso to
Approve
Fee?** New Fee?
General
Tentative Map -
Deposit* 4 lots or less $5,000 $5,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Tentative Map -
Deposit* 5 lots or more $6,000 $6,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Final Map - Deposit Per Map? $5,000 $5,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Boundary Line
Adjustment*** Per Line? $3,000 $3,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Certificate of
Compliance Each $600 $600
Yes - see
above noted above No No
*Tentative Map for 4 lots or less includes remainder, with a minimum of 2 lots plus staff costs. Tentative Map for 5 lots or more includes remainder plus staff costs.
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. ***County Surveyor and Recorder Fees
93 Section 9, Item B.

Page 24 of 34 ends

Permits and Reviews - Part 1 of 2
Authority: Reso 07-01-2019-B / Muni Code 15.24 / Fish & Game Code § 711.4

PLANNING
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Permits and Reviews (Part One of Two)
Encroachment Permit
(plus plan check fees) Each $165 $200
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Encroachment Permit -
Annual
Each / Per
Year $150 $200
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Site Plan Review -
Deposit Minor Flat Fee N/A $500 No
Site Plan Review:

Deposit - Major+ Each $2,000 $2,000 No
Use Permit Deposit + Each $3,000 $3,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Use Permit Deposit -
VRBO / Vacation
Rental / AirBnB+ $600 $600
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Home Occupation
Permit + $175 $150
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Staff Cost
Administration
Whichever is
less
20% or
$200
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - see
above Noted above No No
Clerical
Per person /
Per hour $50
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
Building Inspector
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Engineer
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Planner
Per person /
Per Hour $160
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. ++Non-Refundable
94 Section 9, Item B.

Page 25 of 34 ends

Permits and Reviews - Part 2 of 2
Authority: Reso 07-01-2019-B / Muni Code 15.24 / Fish & Game Code § 711.4

PLANNING
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Permits and Reviews (Part Two of Two)
Variance - Deposit+ Each $1,200 $2,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Sign Permit Each $100
$200 if sign
is already
up.
$100 if done
before sign
is up
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Conditional Use Permit
(CUP): Deposit+ Each $2,500 $3,000
General Plan
Amendment Deposit+ ? $4,000 $5,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Ordinance Amendment
Deposit + ? $3,500 $3,500
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Zone Change+ ? $3,000 $3,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Public Utility Easement
(PUE) Abandonment -
Deposit+ Each $1,000 $1,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Abandonment of
Roadway+ ? $1,800 $1,800
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Annexation Fee -
Deposit Each $5,000 $5,000
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Appeals - Staff or
Planning Commission
Decision++ Each $375 $375
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Additive DRC Fee Each N/A $50 No N/A Yes Yes
Staff Cost
Administration
Whichever is
less
20% or
$200
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - see
above Noted above No No
Clerical
Per person /
Per hour $50
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
Building Inspector
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Engineer
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Planner
Per person /
Per Hour $160
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. ++Non-Refundable
95 Section 9, Item B.

Page 26 of 34 ends

Environmental (CEQA) and Filing Fees
Authority: Reso 07-01-2019-B / Muni Code 15.24 / Fish & Game Code § 711.4

PLANNING
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Environmental (CEQA) and Filing Fees
Environmental Review
Deposit Each N/A $5,000.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No Yes
County Clerk
Processing Fee+++
Amador
County $50.00 $50.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
Negative Declaration
(ND / MND)+++
State PassThrough $3,043.75 $3,043.75Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
Negative Declaration
(ND / MND) -
Recordation+++
Amador
County $50.00 $50.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)+++
State PassThrough $4,227.50 $4,227.50Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) -
Recordation+++
Amador
County $50.00 $50.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
CEQA Notice of
Exemption+++
Amador
County $50.00 $50.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
"No Effect"
Determination -
Requires CDFW
Approval Form+++
Amador
County $50.00 $50.00
Yes - see
above Noted above No ?
Staff Cost
Administration
Whichever is
less
20% or
$200
See STAFF
COST
Matix0
Yes - see
above Noted above No No
Clerical
Per person /
Per hour $50
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
Building Inspector
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Engineer
Per person /
Per Hour $165
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
City Planner
Per person /
Per Hour $160
See STAFF
COST Matix
Yes - See
above Noted above No No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. +++Fees are passed on to other agencies.
96 Section 9, Item B.

Page 27 of 34 ends

Police and Public Safety
Parking Citations
POLICE and PUBLIC SAFETY
Fee Category
Parking Citations
Description Authority
Current
Amount
Proposed
Amount
Parking - Prohibited Area SCMC 11.24.010 $35 $65
Parking - Conformity with Markings SCMC 11.24.020 $35 $65 Parking - Red Zone (Fire) SCMC 11.24.030 $150 $160
Parking - Green Zone (Short-Term) SCMC 11.24.040 $40 $50 Parking - Blue Zone (Disabled) SCMC 11.24.050 $350 $350 Parking - Yellow Zone (Loading) SCMC 11.24.060 $40 $50
Parking - White Zone (ATM) SCMC 11.24.070 $40 $50
Parking - 2-Hour Limit SCMC 11.24.120 $50 $50
Parking - 4-Hour Limit SCMC 11.24.120 $50 $60
Parking - 9-Hour Limit SCMC 11.24.120 ** $70
Parking - 12-Hour Limit SCMC 11.24.120 $35 $80
Parking - Block Sidewalk / Driveway / Hydrant SCMC 11.24.100 $50 $100 Parking - Private Property Without Permission CVC 22658 $50 $65 Parking - Public Street or Lot Over 72 Hours CVC 22651(k) $75 $125 Parking - Public Lot for Purposes of Sale SCMC 11.24.010 ** $65 Parking - Expired Registration* CVC 4000(A)(1) ** $100
Parking - Improper License Plates* CVC 5200 ** $25
Parking - Improper Registration Tags* CVC 5204(A) ** $25 Improper Parking on Public Grounds CVC 21113 ** $65
Parking - Right Wheel Over 18" from Curb CVC 22502(A) ** $65 NOTE
* - If proof of correction is submitted within 21 days, fine is reduced to$10.00 **Not in current Fee Schedule.
97 Section 9, Item B.

Page 28 of 34 ends

Other Police and Public Safety-Related Fees
POLICE and PUBLIC SAFETY
Fee Category
Other Police and Public Safety-Related Fees
Description Authority Current Amount Proposed Amount
Report Copy (first 5 pages) N/A $25 $25
Report Copy (per additional page)
N/A
$0.25 $0.25 for black and
white. $0.50 for color
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) verification N/A $10 $10 Citation Copy N/A $10 $10
Citation Sign-Off (non-resident or other agency)*** N/A $10 $25 Blasting Permit++ N/A $250 $300
Officer Subpoena N/A $275 $300
Towed/Impound Vehicle Release N/A $125 $150
Driving while Intoxicated/Impaired (DWI) Accident
Responses N/A $275
Fee to be determined
based on fully loaded
rate for staff time
(minimum of two staff
members), including
overtime rate when
applicable.

Impound Cost (30-day tow) CVC 14606.6 ** $300
Initial Permit ($66 to DOJ + $10 to City) N/A $76 TBD
Renewal Permit ($10 to DOJ + $10 to City) N/A $20 TBD
Animal impound and Redemption+ (flat rate) N/A ** $150
Animal impound and Redemption+ (1st impound) N/A $25
refer to $150 flat rate
above
Animal impound and Redemption+ (2nd impound) N/A $35
refer to $150 flat rate
above
Animal impound and Redemption+ (3rd impound) N/A $45
refer to $150 flat rate
above
Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) Permit - Initial N/A $150 $200 Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) Permit - Renewal N/A $100 $150 NOTE
* - If proof of correction is submitted within 21 days, fine is reduced to$10.00 ** - Not in current Fee Schedule.
*** - The fee reflected is per corrected offense. This fee is mutually exclusive from any fees to be paid alongside the reduced bail/fine amount to the Court, which the individual will discuss with the Court. + - Gross increase intended to offset the uncontrolled costs imposed by Amador County Animal Control. ++Fee does not include staff time. The City will charge additional fees for staff time with a minimum of two staff members.
98 Section 9, Item B.

Page 29 of 34 ends

Public Works

PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Category - Per Occurence
Description Current Amount Proposed Amount
Spilled Load Clean Up
Fully allocated hourly rates + all
direct costs for clean up.

Aggressively pursue offenders,
including potential insurance
claims
Fully allocated hourly rates + all direct
costs for clean up. Aggressively pursue
offenders, including potential insurance
claims
Hazardous Materials Clean Up
Fully allocated hourly rates + all
direct costs for clean up.

Aggressively pursue offenders,
including potential insurance
claims
Fully allocated hourly rates + all direct
costs for clean up. Aggressively pursue
offenders, including potential insurance
claims
Damage to Town Property
Fully allocated costs of repair of
property + staff time + material
costs - bill offender.

Fully allocated costs of repair of property +
staff time + material costs - bill offender.

Aggressively pursue offenders, including
potential insurance claims.
99 Section 9, Item B.

Page 30 of 34 ends

Wastewater Fees
Authority: 2024 Sewer Rate Study / Prop 218 Hearing (June 3, 2024) Rates effective July 1, 2024. Future increases adopted via resolution are noted below.

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

WASTEWATER
Single Family
(ESFU)* Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Parks
Standard
Commercial
Vacancy
Rate**
Unit of Measure - depends on
category pe month per unit / month
per space /
month per ESFU* per month
FY 2025-2026 Rate $133.86 $133.86 based on ESFU $133.86 $91.02 FY 2026-2027 Rate (anticipated) $145.91 $145.91 based on ESFU $145.91 $99.21 * Equivalent Single Family Units (ESFU)
**Vacancy Rate is 68% of the standard rate to cover fixed cost to maintain infrastructure. Consult with City Hall for more information, as well as required criteria to be eligible for this rate. 100
Section 9, Item B.

Page 31 of 34 ends

Sewer Connection Fees and Fats, Oils, and
Grease (FOG)

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

SEWER AND FOG
Single Family
(ESFU)* Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Parks
Standard
Commercial NOTES
Unit of Measure - depends on
category per unit per unit per space per ESFU*
Sewer Connection** $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 $10,247.56 Sewer Request and Basic Inspection None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + Sewer Lateral Inspection - Visual None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + Sewer Lateral Inspection - Video None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG)
Stormwater Violation - First Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + Stormwater Violation - Second
Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet +
Stormwater Violation - Third and
Subsequent Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + FOG Violation - First Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + FOG Violation - Second Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet + FOG Violation - Third and Subsequent
Offense None Yet None Yet None Yet None Yet +
* Equivalent Single Family Units (ESFU)
**Refer to Sewer Connection Rate as referenced under DEVELOPER FEES. +Ordinance required to establish and enforce fees.
101
Section 9, Item B.

Page 32 of 34 ends

Special Events
Authority: Reso 07-01-2019-B / Muni Code 15.24

SPECIAL EVENTS
Unit of
Measure Current Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted
per Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Special Event Permit per Event $100 $100
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Farmer’s Market
Permit
Per
season $600 $600
Minor Event - Deposit per Event $250 $250
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Major Event - Deposit per Event $500 $500
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Special Event - Police
Services per Event
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Special Event - Public
Works per Event
Nothing
Established
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+ No
Nothing
Established No Yes
Parking Lot Banner
Fee
Two
weeks $50 $50
"No Parking" Sign Each $0.65 $1
Yes - see
above noted above No No
"Road Closed" Sign Each $0.65 $1
Yes - see
above noted above No No
"Traffic Delay" Sign Each $0.65 $1
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Current: Insurance
Requirement
per Event $1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M
/ $1M
$1M / $2M /
$1M
$1M / $2M / $1M $1M /
$2M /
$1M
Proposed: Insurance
Requirement***
per Event $2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M
/ $2M
$2M / $4M /
$2M
$2M / $4M / $2M $2M /
$4M /
$2M
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. + Fully-Loaded Hourly Rate (Overtime) - Contingent on factors including but not limited to number of staff needed, number of hours staff would be needed, established rate of overtime pay. This would be arranged and agreed upon between the event organizer and the City prior to the event. 102
Section 9, Item B.

Page 33 of 34 ends

Staff Costs

STAFF COSTS
Unit of
Measure
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Adopted per
Ord or
Reso?
Ord / Reso /
Muni Code
Number**
Need Adoption of
Ord or Reso to
Approve Fee?**
New
Fee?
Administration Fee
whichever is
less
20% or
$200 20% or $200
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Clerical
per person /
per hour $50.00
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Police Staffing
per person /
per hour
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+
Yes - see
above noted above No No
Public Works Staffing
per person /
per hour
None
Established
fully loaded
hourly rate
(overtime)+ No pending No Yes
Lifeguard++
per person /
per hour TBD TBD No None No Yes
Building Inspector++
per person /
per hour $165/hr $165/hr
Yes - see
above noted above No No
City Engineer++
per person /
per hour $165/hr $200/hr
Yes - see
above noted above No Yes
City Planner++
per person /
per hour $160/hr $195.00
Yes - see
above noted above No No
**Ordinance or Resolution is in addition to the Ordinance / Resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule. + Fully-Loaded Hourly Rate (Overtime) - Contingent on factors including but not limited to number of staff needed, number of hours staff would be needed, established rate of overtime pay. This would be arranged and agreed upon between the event organizer and the City prior to the event.
++ Fee subject to change per agreement / contract between City and Consultant. 103
Section 9, Item B.

BEST RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Special Events and Facilities Rentals
RISKCONTROL.SEDGWICK.COM
Together We Thrive 2025-1
Put It in Writing
• Maintain a written document that
describes the process and the
applicant requirements for both
special events and facilities rentals.
• Maintain a formal application form that
must be completed by applicants who
wish to use an agency’s facilities
and/or host events on public property.
(Ex: classes, meetings, banquets,
outdoor markets, block parties, and
parades).

Indemnity and Hold Harmless
• Include a clearly defined indemnity,
defense, and hold harmless clause in
all contracts, agreements, and
permits (applications) associated with
a special event and/or facilities rental.
• Ensure the indemnity, defense, and
hold harmless statement, special
event application forms, special event
procedures, and facilities rental forms
are all equally strong and contain
similar language in regard to who at
the agency is protected.
• Review the special events and
facilities rental documents whenever
either is changed to ensure consistent
language between the documents.

Require Insurance
• Require general liability insurance
coverage with a minimum $2,000,000
per occurrence, $4,000,000 general
aggregate (applicable per
project/location).
• Require the applicant provide a
certificate of insurance and separate
policy endorsement naming the
agency as an additional insured on
the applicant’s general liability policy.
• Require the applicant provide the
entire policy with all its endorsements.
• Provide the applicant with a link to a
special events insurance provider if
necessary to ensure the provision of
insurance.

Serving Alcohol
If serving alcohol will be permitted:
• Ensure the application form stipulates
the restrictions and/or requirements
for serving alcohol.
• Ensure the applicant provides proof of:
▪ A valid alcohol serving license;
▪ Properly trained servers;
▪ Security measures; and
▪ The addition of the following
insurance to their commercial
general liability policy:
o Liquor Liability Insurance (if a
charge is made for alcohol)
o Host Liquor Liability Insurance
(if no charge is made)
104
Section 9, Item B.

BEST RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Special Events and Facilities Rentals
RISKCONTROL.SEDGWICK.COM
Together We Thrive 2025-2
Pre-Event Inspection for Outdoor
Events
• Conduct a documented pre-event
safety audit and inspection of the site,
including, but not limited to:
▪ Permanent and temporary
structures;
▪ Lighting;
▪ Communications;
▪ Accessibility;
▪ Emergency plans; and
▪ Traffic and crowd control
Provision of Parking Shuttle Service
by the Agency
• Ensure shuttle and parking services
are provided by agency employees
who meet the recommended driver
selection and training best practices
stipulated in the Agency’s auto and
fleet safety policy.
• Develop an auto and fleet safety policy
if one does not exist.
• Conduct and document pre-use
inspections of the vehicles to ensure
they meet applicable safety standards.
• Conduct and document routine vehicle
maintenance for all agency vehicles.
• Ensure all agency drivers involved in
the shuttle service are included in the
Agency’s Employer Pull Notice
program.
• Conduct and document driver safety
training.

Traffic Management
• Ensure a qualified engineer approves
traffic management plans for special
events requiring road closures.
• Ensure the Agency’s engineer,
whether an employee or contractor, is
authorized by the Agency to review
and approve the traffic management
plan.
• Ensure the authorization to “review
and approve” is stipulated in the
engineer’s job description or contract.
• Ensure the Agency’s codes and/or job
descriptions specifically state when
the Agency’s qualified engineer may
delegate the task of reviewing and
approving traffic management plans to
a qualified subordinate or other person
specifically named by job title, i.e., the
Director of Public Works.

Volunteers for Agency Sponsored
Special Events
• Include your Agency’s volunteers in
your workers’ compensation
coverage.
• If you do not include your Agency’s
volunteers in the Agency’s workers’
compensation coverage, require
participants and/or volunteers of
special events that involve risk of
injury and are sponsored by the
Agency sign waivers prior to
participation.
105
Section 9, Item B.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Special Events Brokers
HUB International:

Special Events Coverage
Contact: Joy Cummings
Email:
[email protected]
Tel: (925) 609-6500; Fax: (925) 609-
6550
400 Taylor Blvd., Suite 300
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
https://www.hubinternational.com/progra
ms-associations/event-insurance/
Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.:

Special Events Public Entity
Contact: Penny DeWitt-Holdren,
Account Manager - Lead
CA License No. 0D02740
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (949) 660-8142
18100 Von Karman Avenue 10th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
CA License No. 0C36861
Alliant.com
K&K Insurance:

Short Term Special Event Insurance
1 day - 10 days event with less than
12,000 attendees; or
Special Event Insurance
12,000+ attendees
Email:

KK.EventsAttractions@kandkinsurance.
com
Tel: (877) 648-6404
Email: [email protected]
1712 Magnavox Way
P.O. Box 2338
Fort Wayne, IN 46801-2338
CA license No. 0334819
kandkinsurance.com
Event Helper:

EventHelper.com
Why work with Event Helper?
• Application allows for bound
coverage in 3-5 minutes
• Most policies cost around $120-
150
• Proof of coverage is sent directly
to the client
• Over 400 class codes with
multiple endorsement options like
Sexual Abuse and Molestation
(SAM), Retail Liquor, Athletic
Participant, etc.
• Customer service support team
based in Northern California
Event Helper can create an application
with the member’s insurance
requirements and specific additional
insured verbiage, and automatically
email proof of coverage to the member
once the special event host/applicant
purchases the coverage.

Contact: Myles Anderson, Partner
Relationship Manager
Tel: (530) 500-2003
Email: [email protected]
106
Section 9, Item B.

MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIN VENTURA, PLANNING CONSULTANT
SUBJECT: SUTTER CREEK HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS
REPORT- 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Review and Accept report for submission to HCD.

BACKGROUND:

Local jurisdictions are required to submit a Housing Element Annual Report (APR) to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1 of each year. This report provides information to the State, and the public, on the implementation of the Housing Element and progress toward our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers.

APRs must be presented to the local legislative body for its review and acceptance, usually as a consent or discussion item on a regular meeting agenda.

DISCUSSION:

Staff prepared the Sutter Creek Housing Element APR for the year 2025. The 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted at the end of 2023 and certified by the State in January 2025. Over the past year, progress has been made on several programs outlined in the Housing Element (see Table D).

Below is a summary of key programs that staff worked on in 2025:
● Program 1: Countywide Housing Working Group (CWHWG)
o The CWHWG held multiple meetings in 2025
● Program 4: Accessory Dwelling Units
o Information was added to the City’s website
● Program 7: Historically Significant Structures
o The Design Review Committee (DRC) continues to review modifications to buildings within the Historic District.
▪ Gold Dust Trail
● Program 9: Affordable and Special Needs Housing Assistance and Incentives o The City assisted DANCO in apply for Homekey + funding and the project was successfully awarded funding on October 13, 2025.
● Program 19: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Capacity o The City has entered into a design-build contract for a new Wastewater plant which is designed to handle future growth in Both Martell and Sutter Creek o The City initiated a Nexus Study in 2025.
107
Section 9, Item C.
o The City is near completion of wastewater collection capacity extension that will support Sutter Hill area including the new low income housing project.

In 2025, the City permitted or entitled four (4) units (see Table A2). All four units are currently under construction Additionally the City assisted DANCO with their Homekey + application. In October 2025, DANCO received funding for their supportive housing project.

The Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously accepted the report on March 9, 2026 without modification.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budget impact directly. The APR recommends implementation of programs that may have budget impacts that will be addressed in each annual City budget. 108
Section 9, Item C.
109
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisidiction Name
Reporting Calendar Year
First Name
Last Name
Title Click here to download APR Instructions
Email
Phone
Street Address
City
Zipcode
v_01_30_26
Click here to add rows to a table. If you add too many
rows, you may select a cell in the row you wish to
remove and type ctrl + d.
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek
95685
Erin
Ventura
Contract Planner
[email protected]
2092675647
Mailing Address
Please Start Here
General Information
2025
Sutter Creek
Contact Information
Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You
will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import
from. Project and program data will be copied exactly
how it was entered in last year's form and must be
updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable
activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d.

Annual Progress Report January 2020
110
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisdiction Sutter Creek
Reporting Year 2025
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 1
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 2
1 4
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 0 0 0
Single-family Detached 0 1 0
2 to 4 units per structure 0 2 0
5+ units per structure 0 0 0
Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 1 0
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 0 4 0
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 3 4
0 0
3 4
0 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Acutely Low 0 0 0
Extremely Low 0 0 0
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 0 0
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 0 0
AB 2011 (2022) 0 0
SB 6 (2022) 0 0
SB 423 (2023) 0 0
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Units
Ministerial 3 4
Discretionary 0 0
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 2 0
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
(Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
09/15/2021 - 09/15/2029
Units Constructed - SB 423 Streamlining Permits
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications Approved
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 423 Streamlining Provisions - Applications
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications
Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
111
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisdiction Sutter Creek ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 09/15/2021 - 09/15/2029
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining Historic Sites
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Acutely LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely Low
Income Deed
Restricted
Extremely Low
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total

PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by
project
Total

DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted
pursuant to.

Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
Did the
housing
development
application
seek incentives
or concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 40210023 267 California Dr 2025-MAR-13SFD O
3/24/2025
1 1 NONE No No
18152045 29 Spanish
Street 2025-JUN-09
ADU O
6/16/2025
1 1 NONE No No
18293030 280 Hygrade Rd 2025-SEPT-02 2 to 4 R 9/4/2025 2 2 NONE No No 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Density Bo
Applica
11 Housing Development Applications Submitted
Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes
112
Section 9, Item C.

Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Streamlining Historic Sites
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Acutely
LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
Please select
the state
streamlining
provision the
project was

APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select multiple
- see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined the
units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destro
yed Units
Demolished
or Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum Allowable
Residential Gross Floor
Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction
or waiver of parking
standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40210023 267 California Dr 0 NONE No
18152045 29 Spanish Street 0 NONE No Information provied by owner 18293030 280 Hygrade Rd 0 NONE No Information provied by owner 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units Density Bonus 113
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisdiction Sutter Creek ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 09/15/2021 - 09/15/2029
1 Projection
Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level
Projection
Period -
12/31/2018-
09/14/2021
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Total Units to
Date (all
years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - 1 - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - 1 2 - - - -
Above Moderate 34 7 1 1 4 - 1 - - - - 14 20
74 7 1 1 4 1 4 - - - - 18 56
Income Level
Very Low
- -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.

Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
14 3 Moderate
15 12
13 -
1 Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].

Acutely Low - 1
*For years prior to 2025, data on deed-restricted vs. non-deed restricted Extremely Low-Income units is approximated from whether the projects reported any deed-restricted Very Low-Income Units. If you wish to edit this historical data for accuracy or have any questions about the data, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].

Total Units
*For jurisdictions that received RHNA determinations for the current cycle prior to the passage of AB 3093 (September 19, 2024):
- You were not allocated Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income RHNA targets, therefore the allocations in Field 1 are listed as "0" - If you wish to set your own targets in these income categories for informational purposes, contact HCD staff at [email protected]. - All Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income units reported during the cycle are counted towards Very-Low Income RHNA progress 10 Total RHNA
-
12 Low
*For years prior to 2025, Acutely Low-Income units are reported within the Extremely Low-Income category Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.

Extremely Low -
114
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisdiction Sutter Creek ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 09/15/2021 - 09/15/2029
Date of
Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of
Rezone
Very LowIncome Low-Income ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Realistic
Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
115
Section 9, Item C.

Jurisdiction Sutter Creek
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Name of Program Objective
Projected
Completion Date
in Housing
Element
Applicable Cycle
Status of
Program
Implementati
on
Program Implementation
Details
Quantified Outcomes:

Category
Quantified Outcomes:

Count Supporting Documents
Program 1: Countywide
Housing Working Group
● Amador County, and the Cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek to establish a Countywide Housing Working Group, including one representative from each jurisdiction’s Planning Department, by February 2024 to discuss and implement housing strategies. The Countywide Housing Working Group shall meet on a regular basis. ●Each jurisdiction shall annually evaluate the effectiveness of the CHWG in the implementation of programs. If the CHWG is determined to be ineffective in implementing any of the programs, each jurisdiction shall identify alternative actions within six months, including a schedule to implement the alternative actions on a semi-annual basis (e.g., actions that each jurisdiction will implement at least two times each year) for the remainder of the planning period, to facilitate the implementation of relevant programs.

Feb-24 6th Cycle Continuous
Countywide meeting 3/10/25
Amador City, Ione, Jackson, and Sutter
Creek meet the 2nd Monday of each
month to discuss on going planning
topics and issues within the County.

Meetings
Program 2: Housing
Element
Monitoring/Annual
Reporting
Review the Housing Element annually and provide opportunities for public participation, in conjunction with the submission of the Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1st of each year.
1-Apr 6th Cycle Continuous
The APR is reviewed annually during a
public meeting of both the Planning
Commission and the City Council.

Other

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 116
Section 9, Item C.

Program 3: Adequate Sites
● Each jurisdiction shall develop a formal ongoing procedure to evaluate development proposals, rezones, and other land use decisions and update the inventory and capacity of sites by income groups as necessary by the end of 2023.
● Each jurisdiction to work with the Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency (ATCAA) and private developers on an ongoing basis to find suitable sites for affordable housing and special needs groups, including extremely low income, transitional, supportive, and single heads of households housing with an emphasis on prioritizing housing opportunities in higher resource areas.

Dec-23 6th Cycle In Progress
Implementation in progress and ongoing.

The Housing Element includes a
citywide inventory of potential infill sites.

The inventory list contained in the
Housing Element is available at the
Community Development Department
offices and at Sutter Creek City Hall
counter, and is posted on the City’s
website, www.cityofsuttercreek.org. The
inventory was updated at the time the
Housing Element was updated. Between
updates of the Housing Element, City
staff will maintain a database of the
housing inventory, and vacant or infill
sites with modifications entered each
time a building permit or use permit is
approved. The Planning staff will post
the database on the City website and
make available at the City Hall and
Community Development counters.

Units
Program 3: Adequate Sites
●Each jurisdiction to maintain adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA throughout the 6th Cycle pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law): Sutter Creek: 15 very low, 12 low, 13 moderate, and 34 above moderate income units
● The Zoning Code for each jurisdiction shall be updated to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households for: 1) lower income sites that are vacant and have been included in the inventory from two or more consecutive planning periods, and 2) lower income sites that are underutilized (nonvacant) and have been included in the inventory from a prior planning period consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2. The attachment to the Annex for each jurisdiction identifies lower income sites that have been included in prior Housing Elements.

Dec-23
6th Cycle Completed Zoning Ordinance was updated in Fall 2023. Other https://library.municode.com/ca/sutter_creek/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=15183 Program 4: Accessory
Dwelling Units, Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units,
and SB9 Units
Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek to update
their codes to allow ADUs, JADUs, and SB 9 units, as applicable, consistent with the requirements of State law by May 2025 and submit the amended ADU and JADU provisions to HCD for review.
●If HCD identifies any inconsistencies between State law and the updated ADU provisions, each jurisdiction shall amend its code to accommodate ADUs and JADUs consistent with the requirements of State law within 6 months of HCD review.
● Housing Working Group to coordinate development of a Countywide web page
by December 2024 to promote ADU and SB 9 opportunities to interested residents that includes examples of successful ADU projects, an ADU resource
guide, and links to the ADU and SB 9 requirements for each jurisdiction. ● Each jurisdiction shall provide technical and resource guides online, including
lot split provisions per SB 9 by December 2023.

May-25 6th Cycle In Progress
The Working Group has reviewed
materials provided by Amador County for
ADUs. Materials will be coordinated
between jurisidictions and made
available.

Staff is currently working on
informtaional materials to be presented
to the Planning Commission for review
and input.

HCD provided comments to the City
regarding our current ADU Ord.

Revisions were made and sent back to
HCD for review.

Additional information added to the City
website
Units
https://motherlodeadu.org/
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs
/policy-and-research/adu-handbookupdate.pdf
117
Section 9, Item C.

Program 4: Accessory
Dwelling Units, Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units,
and SB9 Units
● Each jurisdiction shall conduct outreach and education on ADU and SB 9 options
and requirements to homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations on an annual
basis (2023-2029) to expand opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, with an emphasis on outreach to homeowners’ associations and property owners in
higher opportunity areas within each jurisdiction.
● Each jurisdiction shall pursue State funding available to assist lower- and moderate income homeowners in the construction of ADUs on an annual basis
(2024, 2026, 2028).
● Each jurisdiction shall provide financial assistance to qualified property owners
to build ADUs when State funds (such as CalHOME) or other funds are available
on an ongoing basis.
● By December 2025, assess each jurisdiction’s progress in ADU construction;
evaluate incentives to further promote ADUs if construction goals are not met.
● Sutter Creek: 5 ADUs/JADUs
Dec-25 6th Cycle In Progress
Planning staff will continue to pursue
State funds. If funding is available staff
will provide assistance to qualified
homeowners.

Units 2
Program 5: Affordable
Housing Land Acquisition
Amador Countywide:
● Countywide Housing Working Group to work with the Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency (ATCAA) and private developers to identify potential suitable affordable housing sites for land acquisition on a regular basis.

Each Jurisdiction:
● Individual jurisdictions to evaluate sites identified by the Countywide Housing Working Group to determine site acquisition feasibility, and work with for-profit and nonprofit resources as necessary to obtain such lands.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented due to staff and budget constraints. Units
Program 5B: Homeless
Services Coordination
● Countywide, by 2027, work with developers and service providers to provide
30 new shelter or transitional housing beds, with at least 2 beds provided apiece in Amador City and Plymouth, 3 beds provided apiece in Ione, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek, and 10 beds provided apiece in Jackson and the
unincorporated County.
● Beginning in 2024, Housing Working Group shall coordinate annually with the
administration, Police Department, and Planning staff of each jurisdiction has information available regarding services for the homeless and at-risk population.

Dec-27 6th Cycle In Progress
Planning entitlements have been
granted for 43 unit supportive housing
development in Sutter Creek.

It is anticpated that building permits will
be issued in 2026
Units 43
Program 6: Affordability
Targets NA NA
118
Section 9, Item C.

Program 7: Historically
Significant Structures
Coordinate the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of at least 1 historically significant structures as appropriate on an ongoing basisby December 2027. Dec-27 6th Cycle Completed Implemented, November 2023. The
Design Review Committee reviewed
renovation plans for a historical home on
Main Street within our Historical
Downtown District. Extra attention was
given to make sure that the renovations
where in keeping with the existing
character of the home and period.

Additionally in August 2025 the DRC
reviewed plans for the renovation of a
structure on Gold Dust Trail. The
building has historical significance to the
gold mining era.

Units
Program 8: Neighborhood
Beautification and
Housing Rehabilitation
● Countywide Housing Working Group to identify funding sources for housing rehabilitation, weatherization, energy-efficient improvements, emergency repair, and wildland urban interface/fire hardening on an annual basis.
o Housing Working Group to coordinate with individual jurisdictions to determine if available funding should be sought at the regional level or by individual jurisdictions.
o Housing Working Group to coordinate with individual jurisdictions to identify a single entity to assist in the implementation of housing rehabilitation programs in order to provide efficient and effective assistance throughout the County.
o Potential funding sources include USDA Section 504 Home Repair, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and CalFIRE Wildfire Prevention Grant programs.

Jun-23 6th Cycle Not Yet Started As staff availabilty provides, the City will purse funding. Other
Program 8: Neighborhood
Beautification and
Housing Rehabilitation
● Individual jurisdictions to promote the available housing rehabilitation, energy efficiency, accessibility, and home improvement programs on each jurisdiction’s website, through social media, and by way of handouts available at the public counter as well as through the local real estate community by June 2023.
● Individual jurisdictions to continue to respond to code complaints as complaints are received.
● Each jurisdiction’s Planning Department shall work with property owners, residents, and Homeowner Associations to ensure safe and decent housing.

Staff will identify concentrations of housing in need of repair and multifamily developments in need of significant repair and connect property owners with resources for rehabilitation and junk removal on an ongoing basis.

Jun-23 6th Cycle Not Yet Started As staffing is available, additional outreach will be completed. Other
Program 8: Neighborhood
Beautification and
Housing Rehabilitation
● Secure funding, either individually or Countywide, for rehabilitation, improvement, and/or emergency repair of housing:

Sutter Creek: 3 extremely low, 3 very low, and 2 low income units to determine if available funding should be sought at the regional level or by individual jurisdictions.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started As staff availbility provides, the City will purse funding. Other
119
Section 9, Item C.

Program 9: Affordable and
Special Needs Housing
Assistance and Incentives
Countywide Housing Working Group will review available funding sources for housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households and housing for special needs groups at least twice each year. ● Countywide Housing Working Group will actively pursue federal, State, County and private funding sources that are available at the regional level and to determine the feasibility of developing a Regional Affordable Housing Trust
Fund. ● Countywide Housing Working Group will proactively reach out annually to affordable housing providers and special needs housing providers, including homeless service providers interested in constructing extremely low income housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing, agricultural worker housing providers, senior and disability housing providers, and providers serving large families and/or single heads of household with children to assist in identifying appropriate sites for development and connecting providers with assistance, including fundings and incentives for housing.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
The City assisted DANCO in apply for
Homekey + funding and the project was
successfully awarded funding on
October 13, 2025.

Units 43
Program 9: Affordable and
Special Needs Housing
Assistance and Incentives
● Each jurisdiction within Amador County to actively pursue federal, State, and
private funding sources for affordable housing as a means of leveraging local funds and maximizing assistance, and also support developers in securing outside funding sources. If multiple projects are proposed for funding, jurisdictions shall prioritize projects that improve very low/low income access to the most resources and most positive environmental, educational, economic, and transportation outcomes.
● Amador County to actively pursue federal, State, or other funding sources to assist developers and property owners in meeting the State’s wildfire safety standards for residential and mixed uses in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
● If interest in affordable or special needs housing exceeds federal, State, and
private funding resources for affordable housing, prioritize assisting projects located in TCAC highest resource areas.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
City staff worked with DANCO, on
funding for their supportive housing
project. The applicant was granted
funding in 2025. Construction will begin
in 2026.

Units
120
Section 9, Item C.

Program 9: Affordable and
Special Needs Housing
Assistance and Incentives
● By December 2024, each jurisdiction shall identify a menu of incentives, including permit streamlining, reduced or deferred development fees, ministerial review of minor lot line adjustments, technical assistance to acquire
funding, and modification of development requirements through Planned Development overlays or similar provisions for affordable and special needs housing. Incentives shall be specifically identified for extremely low income housing, which may include adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers
or deferrals, modifying development standards, and granting concessions and
incentives. Sutter Creek and Plymouth shall also identify reduced or deferred fees for deed-restricted moderate income housing.
● Each jurisdiction to promote affordable and special needs housing, as well as a
variety of housing types, when reviewing and implementing Planned Development, Specific Plan, and any large-scale projects to ensure new residential development provides for a variety of housing types and affordability
levels.

Dec-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented Units Program 9: Affordable and
Special Needs Housing
Assistance and Incentives
● To promote and incentivize affordable and special needs housing, each jurisdiction shall annually email regional affordable housing developers and nonprofits
the menu of incentives, the inventory of sites for very low and low income housing, a list of available financial resources, and the jurisdiction’s dedicated
contact to discuss affordable housing opportunities.
● In conjunction with other programs promoting affordable housing and reducing
barriers to a variety of housing types, approve and permit development of new
affordable and special needs units as follows:

Sutter Creek: 8 extremely low, 7 very low, and 12 low income units Dec-25 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented Units Program 10: Preservation
of Existing Affordable
Housing
● Annually monitor each jurisdiction’s affordable housing stock to ensure that deed-restricted units are preserved.
● Should any of the assisted properties become at risk of converting to market rate, the jurisdiction(s) will work with property owners, interest groups, and the State and federal governments to ensure compliance with State law and implement the following:
o Technical Assistance: Provide technical assistance where feasible to public and non-profit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at risk.
o Preservation Programs: Provide information to owners of at-risk properties regarding rehabilitation assistance and/or mortgage financing in exchange for extending affordability restrictions. o Tenant Education: Hold public hearings upon receipt of any Notice of Intent to Sell or Notice of Intent to Convert to Market Rate Housing, pursuant to Section 65863.10 of the Government Code and provide tenant education on housing rights
● Retain all assisted multifamily housing (Ione – 43 units, Jackson – 258 unit, and Sutter Creek – 34 units)
Dec-25 6th Cycle In Progress
The City annually monitors deedrestricted affordable housing units.

During the reporting year, no units were
lost and all units remain in compliance
with recorded affordability restrictions.

No properties were identified as at risk
of conversion, and the City did not
receive any Notice of Intent to Sell or
Convert pursuant to Government Code
Section 65863.10.

The City will continue annual monitoring
and remains prepared to provide
technical assistance, preservation
program information (including
resources available through the
California Department of Housing and
Community Development and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban
Development), and tenant education if a
property becomes at risk.

Units
121
Section 9, Item C.

Program 11: Preserve
Multifamily and Mobile
Home Opportunities
● Update the code by December 2025 to establish provisions addressing the conversion or demolition of multifamily rental housing and mobile home parks with the intent of retaining multifamily units (701 units as identified in Background Report Table II-25) and mobile homes (1,432 units as identified in Background Report Table II-25) in all jurisdictions and assisting any households subject to relocation due to a multifamily or mobile home park demolition or conversion. The provisions shall address:
o Identification of affected households by income, household size, and special housing needs
o Notification to households at least 6 months prior to a required move-out date.
o Assistance to all lower income and special needs households in identifying affordable housing opportunities.

Dec-25 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
The required code update addressing
demolition or conversion of multifamily
units and mobile home units has not yet
been adopted. Adoption remains
scheduled for completion by the end of
the cycle.

No applications involving demolition or
conversion were received during the
reporting year; therefore, no relocation
actions were required.

The future ordinance will require: (1)
identification of affected households by
income, household size, and special
needs; (2) at least six months’ notice
prior to move-out; and (3) assistance to
lower-income and special needs
households in identifying alternative
affordable housing.

Households
Program 11: Preserve
Multifamily and Mobile
Home Opportunities
o Moving costs to all affected households.
o Rental assistance for a minimum period of time to all lower income households who are not able to procure housing that is affordable to their income group (extremely low, very low, low).
o Option for all affected households to receive priority for any new or rehabilitated housing built on the same site within 3 years of move-out.

Dec-25 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet impletmented Households Program 12: Fair Housing
Services
● As a means of furthering fair housing education and outreach in the community, each jurisdiction in Amador County will advertise the fair housing program through placement of fair housing information brochures on their websites, at the public counters, and in the local library(ies) by December 2023.
● Each jurisdiction to provide an annual outreach event to promote fair housing and to educate the community, landlords, and real estate professionals regarding fair housing requirements.
● Each jurisdiction shall continue to provide referrals to CDFEH and HUD and
any locally designated providers on an ongoing basis, including promoting fair housing practices, review and enforcement assistance with fair housing complaints, and education to housing providers.

Dec-23 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
The fair housing outreach program has
not yet been implemented.

Fair housing brochures have not yet
been distributed via the City website,
public counter, or local library. An
annual fair housing outreach event has
not yet been conducted.

As staff time and funding become
available, staff will work on this.

Households
Program 12: Fair Hosuing
Services
● Housing Working Group to coordinate with ATCAA in 2023/2024 to determine if ATCAA can offer fair housing services to all County residents.

If ATCAA cannot offer fair housing services, the Housing Working Group to contact fair housing advocates to identify interest in providing fair housing services to the County and identify a single Countywide point of contact for fair housing concerns by the end of 2024.

Dec-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
The Housing Working Group has not yet
coordinated with the Amador-Tuolumne
Community Action Agency (ATCAA) to
determine the availability of countywide
fair housing services.

Households
Program 13: Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing
Implement measures to affirmatively further fair housing on an ongoing basis, and as further outlined in Table 1. Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented due to staff and budget constraints. Households 122
Section 9, Item C.

Program 14: Affordable
Housing Resources for
Renters and Owners
● Develop an outreach program by December 2024 to connect lower income residents and the lower income workforce with new rental and ownership opportunities and access to resources for home ownership, housing rehabilitation, fair housing, temporary and long-term assistance in the event of
a disaster, and other housing assistance programs as those become available, promoting fair housing choice and access to safe and decent housing within the community. Information shall be provided on each jurisdiction’s website and social media channels, via announcements at the Board of Supervisors and City Council meetings, at the public counters, and in the local library(ies).
● Update outreach program materials at least annually to reflect correct contacts and program information.

Dec-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
The outreach program connecting lowerincome residents and workforce households with rental and
homeownership opportunities, housing
rehabilitation programs, fair housing
resources, and disaster-related housing
assistance has not yet been developed.

The City will prepare and implement the
outreach program, if staff time and
budget are available. Information will be
posted on the City website and social
media, announced at public meetings,
and made available at public counters
and local libraries. Outreach materials
will be reviewed and updated at least
annually to ensure accurate contact and
program information.

Households
Program 15: Adopt a
Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedure for Housing
● Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek:

Review
and amend the Municipal Code a necessary to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation (in full compliance with Senate Bill 520) in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing by December 2023. Include the following information:
o Providing notice to the public of the availability of an accommodation process. The notice will be provided at all counters where applications are made for a permit, license, or other authorization for siting, funding, development, or use of housing.
o Procedures for requesting reasonable accommodation, including preparation of a Fair Housing Accommodation Request form and designating the appropriate individual, committee, commission, or body responsible for acting on requests.

Dec-23 6th Cycle In Progress
Partially implemented. Chapter 18.58-
Accommodations of Persons with
Disabilities was added to the Municipal
Code in November 2023.

Other
Program 15: Adopt a
Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedure for Housing
o Review procedures for requests for reasonable accommodation, including provisions for issuing a written decision within 30 days of the date of the application.
o Criteria to be used in considering requests for reasonable accommodation.
o Appeal procedure for denial of a request for reasonable accommodation. The procedure should establish that there is no fee for processing requests for reasonable accommodation or for appealing an adverse decision related to a request for reasonable accommodation.
● All Jurisdictions: Create a public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that information on each jurisdiction’s website.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Public information and brochures have not yet been provided. Other
123
Section 9, Item C.

Program 15B: Smoke-free
Multi-unit Housing
● In 2024, review methods to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke in multi-unit and mixed use residential projects and identify at least three methods for implementation in 2025-2029. Methods may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may include:
o Consideration of a smoke-free ordinance, encouraging
compliance through education, signage requirements, and property manager actions rather than police, fines, or evictions. o Targeted education to landlords and tenants on the benefits of a smoke-free housing policy.
o Targeted outreach to landlords with resources including language to include in leases, assistance available to purchase signage, and local resources for residents who want to quit tobacco.

Dec-24 6th Cycle In Progress
Not yet implemented
On March 10, 2025 the working group
met with Amador County Public Health to
see how they can assist in helping the
jurisdictions draft a Smoke Free MUH
Ordinance.

Other
Program 16: Federal
Voucher Program
● Countywide Housing Working Group to contact the Stanislaus County Regional
Housing Authority (StanCoHA) and ATCAA annually to invite StanCoHA to attend
a meeting and provide information regarding the number of vouchers issued within the county, to identify opportunities to access additional assistance programs, including the Family Unification Program, currently unavailable in Amador County, to determine if additional vouchers may become available, and
to identify if there are unused vouchers that should be advertised to County residents.
● If vouchers are available to Amador County residents or the waitlist opens up,
the Countywide Housing Working Group shall coordinate outreach via each jurisdiction’s website and announcements at the Board of Supervisors and City
Council meetings.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
The Countywide Housing Working
Group has not yet contacted Stanislaus
County Regional Housing Authority or
Amador-Tuolumne Community Action
Agency regarding voucher availability or
program outreach.

Other
Program 16: Federal
Voucher Program
● Continue to facilitate the use of the HCV and other Housing Authority and ATCAA programs throughout the County by advertising programs semiannually (double the current advertising schedule) on each jurisdiction’s website, in community newsletters, and via each jurisdiction’s social media accounts to reach a Countywide audience.
● Conduct annual targeted education to landlords and tenants in the area of the County with the highest proportions of persons with disabilities and in areas with the highest resources.
● Provide information on the availability of the Housing Choice Voucher Program on the County’s and each jurisdiction’s website and review information bi- annually to ensure contact information is correct. ● W ork with StanCoHA to increase the number of households receiving Housing Choice Vouchers by 5%.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
Implementation will occur if staff time
and budget permit and will include:
semiannual advertising of HCV and
other programs via websites,
newsletters, and social media; annual
targeted education for landlords and
tenants in areas with the highest
disability populations and resources;
posting and bi-annual review of HCV
program information online; coordinating
with StanCoHA to identify vouchers,
including Family Unification and unused
vouchers; and increasing households
receiving vouchers by 5%.

Other
124
Section 9, Item C.

Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
Each jurisdiction to complete the following zoning and development amendments to
its code to streamline definitions, encourage and support a variety of housing types, including special needs housing and affordable housing, by July 2024 (note: refer to Chapter III (Housing Constraints) for a detailed analysis of revisions required to each jurisdiction’s code):
o Definitions- Family (Amador County, Amador City, Sutter Creek): Define ”family”
and “household” to include unrelated members of a household who reside together, to not regulate the relationship of members, and to impose no restriction on the number of persons who may reside together as a family or household.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed The definition of family was amended in September 2023. Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Low Barrier Navigation Centers (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek): Define and permit low barrier navigation centers
consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65660 through
65668, including treating low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses (if applicable).
o Transitional and Supportive Housing (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson,
Plymouth, and Sutter Creek): Revise as necessary to ensure that transitional and supportive housing are allowed in residential and mixed-use zones in accordance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), and to allow eligible supportive housing in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted in accordance with Government Code Sections 65650 through 65656.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed
Low barrier navigation centers and
Transitional and Supportive housing
were added to the Zoning Ordinance in
September 2023.

Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Special Needs Housing (Amador County, Amador City, Plymouth, and Sutter
Creek): Revise as necessary to ensure that special needs housing is accommodated in accordance with California Health and Safety (HSC) Code Section 1566.3, which establishes requirements for residential facilities that serve six or fewer persons including that residential care homes serving six or
fewer persons will be treated in the same manner as a residence of the same type and not be subject to additional standards (such as parking). o Persons with Disabilities - Group homes 7 or more persons (Amador County,
Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek): Permit these uses in all zones allowing residential uses with objectivity and only subject to the requirements of other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed
Special Needs Housing was added to
the Zoning Ordinance in September
2023.

Other
125
Section 9, Item C.

Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Employee Housing (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, and Plymouth, and
Sutter Creek): Ensure that employee housing serving six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single family structure and shall be treated subject to the standards for a single family dwelling in the same zone per requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.
o Farmworker Housing (Amador County, Jackson, Sutter Creek): Ensure that agricultural employee housing is allowed in zones that permit agricultural uses
consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.6
and 17021.8.
o Farmworker Housing (Plymouth): Ensure that agricultural employee housing is
allowed consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety code Section 17021.8.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed Employee Housing was added to the Zoning Ordinance in September 2023. Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Emergency Shelters: (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, and Sutter Creek): Revise as necessary to ensure that emergency shelters are accommodated in accordance with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Government Code Section 65583, which requires each jurisdiction to identify one or more zoning districts where emergency shelters are allowed without a discretionary permit, including ensuring that emergency shelters are allowed in zones where residential uses
are also permitted consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(H) and are defined consistent with Government Code Sections 65582 and 65583(a)(4)(C). Require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that the standards will not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
o Emergency Shelters: (Jackson): Revise to allow 25 beds within each emergency
shelter.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed Emergency Shelters were added to the Zoning Ordinance in September 2023. Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amedments
o Emergency Shelters (All jurisdictions): Update the definition of emergency shelter to be consistent with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(C) and ensure that emergency shelters are permitted ministerially when ancillary to permitted places of worship and churches.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed
The definition of Emergency Shelters
was updated in the Zoning Ordinance in
September 2023.

Other
126
Section 9, Item C.

Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Mobile Homes and Manufactured Homes (Amador County, Amador City, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek): Review and amend as necessary to remove restrictions on mobile homes and manufactured homes that conflict with the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.3, which require that manufactured and mobile homes on a permanent foundation be subject to the
same requirements as a single family residence, with certain exceptions for architectural requirements, age of the home, and sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Additional jurisdiction-specific updates are as follows:● Sutter Creek: Limit the restriction of manufactured homes within the “Historic District” designations or the HR Combining Zone to places, buildings, structures, or objects listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with manufactured homes subject to the same review requirements as other residential unit development in this district.

Jun-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented. Other Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amedments
o Application Streamlining (Amador County, Amador City, Plymouth, Sutter Creek, and Jackson): To facilitate residential development and to comply with
State law, each jurisdiction will be updated to ensure that eligible multi-family projects with an affordable housing component are provided streamlined review
and are subject only to objective design standards consistent with relevant provisions of SB 35 and SB 330, as provided for by applicable sections of the Government Code, including but not limited to Sections 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950, and 66300. State law defines objective design standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public
official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.” Each jurisdiction will review and
modify the Design Review criteria to ensure application processing timelines comply with the requirements of applicable State laws, including Government Code Sections 65950-65957.5), streamline and simplify the process, including
a limitation on the maximum number of hearings per project, and ensure objective standards and findings are applied to projects subject to Design Review.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed Included as part of the September 2023 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Other
127
Section 9, Item C.

Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Objective Design & Development Standards (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek). Each jurisdiction will adopt objective design and development standards for multifamily housing, including ministerial (by-right) residential and mixed-use development, and will ensure that the standards, including floor area ratio, unit size, height, setback, and parking requirements, accommodate the maximum densities permitted, and provide flexibility with the design of building types and units to accommodate irregular lots and steep slopes. These objective standards will replace any subjective standards, including site plan review findings, design review standards, and other standards required for single family and multifamily housing or will remove or include objective definitions and/or illustrations of any subjective terms, such as “compatibility”, “orderly”, “harmonious”, “character”, and “integrity”.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started
Sutter Creek has not yet adopted
objective design and development
standards for multifamily housing.

Implementation is pending staff
availability and budget. When
completed, the standards will ensure byright residential and mixed-use development accommodates maximum
densities, provides flexibility for irregular
lots and steep slopes, and replaces or
clarifies subjective terms such as
“compatibility,” “orderly,” and
“harmonious.”
Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Density Bonus (Amador County, Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and
Sutter Creek). Revise to reflect current requirements of the State’s density bonus law, including alternative parking ratios, which shall also be reflected in
the jurisdiction’s parking standards section(s) of its code, including 1 space per
studio (0 bedroom) and 1-bedroom units and 1.5 spaces per 2- and 3- bedroom
units for projects that include affordable and special needs housing, and establish application requirements and decision-making criteria (Government Code Section 65915).
o Reasonable Accommodations (Amador County, Amador City, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek). Provide for reasonable accommodation for persons with a disability consistent with the HCD Reasonable Accommodation
Model Ordinance, including objective findings for the approval of a reasonable
accommodation application.
o Accessibility (All jurisdictions): Require new development projects with 10 or
more units to include accessibility options for buyers as part of each home plan.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed Included as part of the September 2023 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Other
128
Section 9, Item C.

Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amedments
o Density Range (All jurisdictions): Require new development on the sites identified for very low, low, and moderate income to occur at 75% of allowed densities or higher, with exceptions provided for site-specific development constraints, affordable housing, and special needs housing. o Conversion of Multifamily Rental to Ownership or Non-Residential Uses:

Establish provisions to ensure that the conversion of multifamily rental to ownership or non-residential uses addresses the potential for displacement of
households, including adequate notice (6 or more months), identification of affordable housing opportunities in the region, assistance to lower income and
special needs housing with locating replacement housing, moving assistance,
and priority for any residents interested in new ownership opportunities at the location.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed Included as part of the September 2023 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Other
Program 17: Development
Code/Zoning Code
Amendments
o Reduce Constraints to a Variety of Housing Types:
- Encourage developer constructed affordable housing in large, undeveloped portions of the City's planning area through use of the Planned Development (PD) land use zoning designation, including provisions to encourage clustering of units on small lots to reduce the cost of lots, housing construction, improvements, site preparation, and infrastructure.

Jul-24 6th Cycle Completed
Sutter Creek encourages affordable
housing through the Planned
Development (PD) zoning designation,
allowing clustered units to reduce costs.

This approach has been applied in the
150-lot Sutter Creek Ranch development
through the use of a Specific Plan.

Units
Program 18: Code Reivew
Review and update local codes to address requirements of State law. Codes shall be reviewed every 3 years to implement any housing laws or any changes
identified, including changes identified by HCD as part of its review of implementation of the Housing Element or review of ordinances where provided
by the Government Code, to comply with existing housing laws. ● Review local code requirements annually to ensure that amendments are made
where necessary to reduce impacts to life and property. ● Review updates to the California Building Standards Code on a triennial basis
and adopt updates to code requirements accordingly.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
Sutter Creek reviews local codes
annually and the California Building
Standards Code triennially. Updates
identified by HCD or new State housing
laws will be adopted as staffing and time
allow.

Other
129
Section 9, Item C.

Program 19: Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
Capacity
● In 2023, the Housing Working Group shall meet with AWA to identify necessary
steps and resources to address water and wastewater system improvements where needed to accommodate the RHNA.
● Housing Working Group to identify methods to encourage water conservation
and reduce wastewater effluent by December 2025, including coordinating with
the water and wastewater providers to promote conservation and reviewing opportunities to increase efficiencies in new construction and rehabilitation projects.
● Continue to work cooperatively with AWA, ARSA, and other agencies that own
or operate water and sewer infrastructure on an ongoing basis and each jurisdiction shall review efforts annually and the Housing Working Group shall
meet with water and wastewater providers at least annually..

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
The City has entered into a design-build
contract for a new Wastewater plant
which is designed to handle future
growth in Both Martell and Sutter Creek
Other
Program 19: Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
Capacity
● Housing Working Group to support infrastructure providers in pursuing funding to complete necessary improvements or to assist developers and agencies to complete these capital improvement projects as necessary on an ongoing basis
to increase the availability of housing for low and very low income households, with efforts to identify potential applications and submittal of applications at least annually.
● Housing Working Group to investigate establishment of assessment districts with a capital facilities fee on an ongoing basis to assist in funding infrastructure improvements by December 2026.
● Submit a funding application to the USDA’s Small Communities Rural Utilities Service Grants & Loans Program annually.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
The Working Group will continue to work
with both AWA and ARSA on an as
needed basis to address infrastructure
constraints.

Other
Program 19: Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
Capacity
● Each jurisdiction shall adopt any necessary fee programs and shall seek funding
resources to support improvement and expansion of water and wastewater systems to accommodate the RHNA by December 2025.
● The City of Ione shall develop a program to complete wastewater system improvements to expand its treatment capacity by 2024/2025 in order to accommodate its RHNA.
● Coordinate with AWA and the cities to update Figures III-1 and III-2 X every 3 years (December 2026, December 2029) to identify parcels that are proximate
to existing water and sewer service and planned water and sewer service as well
as parcels where the cost to extend services would be considerable to assist developers in targeting locations for housing proposals.

Dec-29 6th Cycle In Progress
The City initated a Nexus Study in 2025.

The City is near completion of
wastewater collection capacity extension
that will support Sutter Hill area
including the new low income housing
project.

Other
130
Section 9, Item C.

Program 19: Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
Capacity
● Where applicable, use development agreements or other mechanisms to ensure
fair-share funding of off-site infrastructure and facility improvements on an ongoing
basis and review projects at least annually to ensure implementation. ● Following adoption of the Housing Element, each jurisdiction shall provide the
adopted Housing Element within 30 days to its water and sewer providers and shall include a cover letter identifying the requirements of Government Code
Section 65589.7(a) requiring priority service for developments that provide housing for lower income households.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
As development occures, the adoption of
a Development Agreement will be
considered.

Other
Program 20: Partnerships
with Affordable Housing
Developers
● Facilitate land divisions, lot line adjustments, and specific plans resulting in parcel sizes that facilitate multi-family developments affordable to lower income households. ● Work with property owners and non-profit developers to target and market the
availability of sites with the best potential for development, including annual outreach to property owners and non-profit developers identifying very low and low income sites included in the inventory of residential land. ● Host an annual meeting with affordable housing developers and non-profits to identify housing opportunities and to identify City programs and incentives that support affordable housing development through provision of land writedowns, regulatory incentives, and/or direct assistance.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented Other Program 20: Partnerships
with Affordable Housing
Developers
●Annually meet with County representatives, developers, and major farmworker employers to discuss farmworker housing needs and to identify opportunities and potential applications for funding, with an objective of submitting at least two funding applications during the planning period for farmworker housing projects, including one new construction project and one rehabilitation project (rehabilitation may be existing housing primarily serving farmworkers or developing a rehabilitation loan/grant program targeted toward farmworker housing).

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
City staff will continue to work with
developers on potential affordable
housing projects.

Other
Program 21: Child Care
Program
● Continue to promote the provision of childcare in conjunction with residential
development, including affordable housing projects, on an ongoing basis.

Dec-29 6th Cycle Continuous
Zoning Ordinance updated to include
childcare as an allowed use, September
2023.

Other
Program 22: Application
Processing Procedures
● Review application processing procedures in 2025 and 2028 and make any necessary amendments to reduce constraints to housing approvals and ensure development proposals are processed in accordance with State law, including
the time periods identified by the Permit Streamlining Act.

Dec-25 6th Cycle Continuous Procedure will be reviewed annual and updated as staffing and budget permit Other
131
Section 9, Item C.

Program 23: Ongoing
Community Education and
Outreach
● Provide information on ADUs, JADUs, SB 9 units, and streamlined permitting
opportunities for eligible housing development projects at the public counter of
each jurisdiction, at local libraries, and on each jurisdiction’s website by June 2023 and update information bi-annually.
● Amador County to maintain the County’s existing webpage providing links and
contact information for of the County’s housing and job-training organizations (e.g., Amador County Association of Realtors, Gold Country Alliance for the Mentally Ill, ATCAA, Voices for Families, Area 12 Agency on Aging, Amador Affordable Housing Coalition, Amador Economic Development Corporation, Amador County Department of Health & Human Services, and similar organizations) and review page annually to update contact information as necessary.

Jun-23 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented due to staff constraints. Units
Program 23: Ongoing
Community Education and
Outreach
● Provide information regarding housing rehabilitation, energy efficiency programs, weatherization, emergency repair assistance, and free energy audits
(when available) at the public counter of each jurisdiction, at local libraries, and
on each jurisdiction’s website by June 2023 and update information biannually.
● In coordination with ATCAA, encourage low income homeowners or renters to
apply for free energy audits and home weatherization through ATCAA by June
2023.
o Provide handouts at the public counter and website of each jurisdiction.
o Promote these programs through the senior centers for seniors seeking assistance with home maintenance.

Jun-23 6th Cycle Not Yet Started Not yet implemented due to staff and budget constraints. Units
Program 23: Ongoing
Community Education and
Outreach
● Continue to make available published materials and resource referral information for renters on the following subjects: housing discrimination, landlord/tenant relations, access to legal aid services for housing complaints, and information on housing advocacy programs and similar information.

Information should be made available at each jurisdiction’s public counter and website, at the Health and Human Services Agency, at the County library (and its branches), and similar locations where individuals may be in need of fair housing information by June 2023.
● Provide information on the availability of the Housing Choice Voucher Program
at each jurisdiction’s public counter and website by June 2023.

Jun-23 6th Cycle Continuous Information is currently available on the City's Website. Other
Program 24: Governmental
Transparency
All jurisdictions to provide fiscal documents to ensure transparency pursuant to
Government Code Section 65940 no later than December 2024:
● Sutter Creek to update its website to provide its building permit fee schedule
and its five previous annual fee reports, and archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent conducted on or after January 1,
2018.

Dec-24 6th Cycle Continuous City staff regularly updates the City's website with fiscal documents. Other
132
Section 9, Item C.

Program 25: Energy
Conservation Initiatives
● Continue to enforce the State of California’s Title 24 energy requirements on an ongoing basis.

Housing Plan | 35
● Continue to explore ways to promote energy conservation and sustainability, with a focus on reducing energy usage and energy-related costs in new and existing residential development throughout each jurisdiction, with the Housing Working Group meeting at least annually to address this issue and summarize best practices.
● Each jurisdiction to advertise available programs, with an emphasis on outreach to lower income households, to address energy-efficient improvements to single and multi-family units on an ongoing basis and assist households with reducing energy-related costs on each jurisdiction's website and at the Planning Counters; information shall be provided by August 2024 and reviewed and updated at least bi-annually (by August 2026, 2028).

Aug-24 6th Cycle Continuous
Title 24 regulations continue to be
required during the building permit
review process. Information on energy
savings programs are provide when
available.

Other
Program 25: Energy
Conservation Initiatives
● Each jurisdiction to provide outreach and education to developers, architects, and residents on an ongoing basisat least annually to provide information on how to incorporate sustainability in project design, as well as in existing structures.
● Participate in the Amador County Energy Savings Working Group and support implementation of the County’s Energy Action Plan, including PG&E programs and ATCAA programs with Housing Working Group members attending an Energy Savings Working Group meeting at least biannually
(2024, 2026, 2028).
● Continue to collaborate with PG&E to install energy-efficient lighting through sharing information on each jurisdiction’s website by August 2024 and reviewing and updating information as necessary at least biannually
(August 2026, 2028)..
● On an ongoing basis, continue to provide residents with the local PG&E representative’s contact information when an inquiry is made regarding energy efficiency and review contact information at least annually (December of each year).

Dec-24 6th Cycle Not Yet Started The Countywide Housing Working Group will address this program in 2026. Other
133
Section 9, Item C.

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: MARCH 2, 2026
FROM: ERIN VENTURA, CONTRACT PLANNER
SUBJECT: SHORT TERM RENTALS
DISCUSSION CONTINUATION:

The 6 areas of discussion have been updated based on the comments and decisions made at the February 2, 2026 City Council meeting. It’s recommended that any council member absent from the Feb 2 meeting watch the video of the discussion prior to the March 2 meeting. 1) Location/Density
No consensus was established at the February 2, 2026 meeting.

The City Council should consider whether to establish density limits for short-term rentals in specific areas of the City. Currently, 15 of the City’s 21 short-term rentals are located within the Historic District. See attachments for Historical District boundaries and existing short term rental locations.

There are both benefits and drawbacks to this concentration. Advantages include the Historic District’s walkability to downtown businesses, which reduces demand for limited downtown parking, and the existing mix of residential and commercial uses, which may lessen the perceived impact of short-term rentals. Additionally, short-term rentals provide visitors with the opportunity to stay in homes that reflect the historic character of Sutter Creek.

Potential drawbacks include the close proximity of homes, which may increase impacts on neighboring residents, a reduction in available long-term rental housing within the Historic District, and the risk of damage to historic structures due to frequent tenant turnover.

Staff recommend that the City Council discuss whether a density restriction should be established. One option would be to allow a certain percentage of units within the Historic District to operate as short-term rentals, with a separate percentage permitted outside of the Historic District.
134
Section 9, Item D.

Staff further recommend using a percentage of total housing units rather than a fixed numerical cap, as this approach would adjust over time with changes in the City’s housing stock.

Decision Points / Options:

1. Whether to establish different density limits for short-term rentals within the Historic District versus areas outside the Historic District

2. Whether to establish density limits in 4 - 5 areas of town (instead of just 2 in #1 above)

3. How to handle a waitlist if and when density limits are reached 2) Owner Occupied vs. No onsite owner
At the February 2, 2026 meeting direction was provided on the following decision points:

Decision Point:
● Whether to differentiate regulations for owner-occupied short-term rentals versus non– owner-occupied short-term rentalsYes
● Whether to establish a cap on non–owner-occupied short-term rentalsYes, a cap should be established and it should be a percentage of total units within the City.
o What percent of total residential units* within the City should be allowed? ▪ 2.5%= 35 units
▪ 5% = 70 units
*Based on 1,404 residential units from Table II-25. Housing Units by Type within in the Amador Countywide 2021-2029 Housing Element
● Whether to allow unlimited owner-occupied short-term rentalsYes, unlimited owner occupied STRs will be allowed. ● If there is a cap, use a percentage-based limit or a fixed numerical capUse a percentage based limit. 3) Permit Duration and Activity Requirements
135
Section 9, Item D.

No consensus was established at the February 2, 2026 meeting.

The City Council may also wish to consider establishing time limits and activity requirements for short-term rental permits. One option is to issue permits for a defined term, such as three years, with annual renewals to confirm continued compliance with City regulations.

To ensure permits are held by active operators, the City may require ongoing evidence of activity, such as regular submission of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). If a permit holder does not demonstrate activity by submitting required TOT filings for a specified period, the permit could be deemed inactive and automatically voided.

These provisions would help prevent permits from being held indefinitely without use, allow the City to better track active short-term rentals, and ensure that permits are available to operators who are actively contributing to the local economy and complying with City requirements.

Decision Points:
● Length of the short-term rental permit term- 1 year, 3 years ● Annual renewal requirements
● Criteria for determining inactivity and voiding permits 4) Permit Process
The City Council feels that the Short Term Rental application process should be handled at the staff level through an Administrative Short Term Rental Use Permit.

Decision Points:
● Whether short-term rental permits should continue to require Planning Commission approval.

No, it should be an administrative permit.
● If so, is there direction to the Planning Commission on what aspects to evaluate an application on to make it more objective?
N/A administrative permit
● Whether public hearings should be required for all residential short-term rentals or limited to specific circumstances.

No, administrative permit.
● Whether staff-level approval is appropriate for some or all short-term rental permitsYes 136
Section 9, Item D.
● Whether permit requirements should differ between residential and commercial zoning districts, or by area of the City such as the historic district vs non-historic district.

To be discussed
5) Operating Rules and Conditions of Approval
No consensus was established at the February 2, 2026 meeting.

The City Council may also wish to review the existing operating rules and conditions associated with short-term rental permits to determine whether any modifications are warranted. Currently, short-term rentals are subject to comprehensive conditions of approval intended to ensure neighborhood compatibility, public safety, and regulatory compliance.

These conditions address exterior property maintenance, off-street parking requirements, business licensing, payment of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), insurance coverage, and submission of site and floor plans. They also require compliance with fire, building, health, and safety codes, including installation and maintenance of required life-safety equipment.

Operational standards limit the number of overnight and daytime occupants, require compliance with the City’s noise regulations, and mandate clear communication of rules to guests.

Property owners or operators must provide 24-hour contact information, respond to complaints within 60 minutes, and take immediate action to address noise, disturbances, or other violations.

Additional requirements address trash management, guest accountability, reporting of violations, and enforcement procedures, including permit modification, suspension, or revocation. Permits are non-transferable and subject to City enforcement authority.

The City Council may consider whether these rules remain appropriate as written, whether certain conditions should be clarified, strengthened, or streamlined, or whether different standards should apply based on factors such as location, permit type, or owner occupancy.

Council may want to consider what conditions a property owner, a long term renter, or a hotel guest can be subjected to when evaluating some of these standards for reasonableness as well as how difficult / easy some standards are to enforce, using the EASE framework. .

Decision Points:
● Whether to amend existing operating standards or conditions of approval ● Whether certain requirements should be adjusted based on owner-occupied versus non– owner-occupied rentals
● Whether enforcement, response time, or penalty provisions should be modified ● Whether additional or fewer operational standards are necessary to address neighborhood impacts and compliance
● Whether a physical inspection should be required (adds cost) 6) City TOT Accounting
At the February 2, 2026 meeting, City Council directed staff to move forward with the TOT 137
Section 9, Item D.

Accounting programs/policies.
138
Section 9, Item D.

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2026
FROM: ERIN VENTURA, CONTRACT PLANNER
SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
This item is for discussion and direction only.

BACKGROUND
In November 2019, the City began updating its Short-Term Rental (STR) Ordinance. At that time, the Ordinance was not adopted. Since then the staff has been tracking permits and keeping the City Council up to date on short term rental activity. In October 2025, staff presented an update to the City Council. To date the City has 21 active short term rentals:
● 16 active short-term rentals, 5 lapsed:
290 Gopher Flat; 70 Broad; 90 Boston Alley; 44 Badger Street; 85 Broad Street; 70 Gopher Flat Rd.; 31 Badger; 70 Greenstone Terrace; 225 Patricia Ln; 193 Badger; 60 Randolph; 86 Barney Lane; 64 Eureka Street; 171 China Gulch Rd; 335 Sutter Crest E; 80 Greenstone Terrace; 40 Mountain View Dr.; 39 Elm Street; 44 Opal Street; 70 Hayden Alley; 30 Bryson Drive
In addition to STR permits, the City also had six hotel/inn establishments. ● 8 hotel/inn establishments: Hotel Sutter; Inn at 161; Hanford House Inn; Sutter Creek Inn; Old Hotel Antiques; Brinnwood Bed & Breakfast; Kiota Inn; Eureka Street Inn.

After the October 2025 council discussion, a 45 day moratorium was adopted on Jan 20, 2026.

This moratorium can be extended for up to two years with further action by the Council. The purpose of this is to allow the City Council time to review, revise and adopt an updated ordinance.

DISCUSSION
In evaluating a new ordinance, we encourage the council to be clear about the problem they are trying to solve. Sutter Creek has had short term rentals for a number of years with very few problems - a lot of concerns have so far been unfounded. We have not had a lot of complaints 139
Section 9, Item D.
from the existing short term rentals in town.

Staff proposes that during discussion, we use the EASE framework to evaluate options. EASE consists of four pillars used to evaluate the viability and impact of a proposed ordinance:
● E - Equity: Evaluation of fairness in a proposed process, balancing home owner property rights with impacts to surrounding properties. Equity would also include fairness in getting and maintaining a permit, if the total number is capped. ● A - Administrability: Analysis of the complexity of implementing, collecting, and enforcing the ordinance, including compliance costs and the capability to manage the system.
● S - Stability: Assessment of the reliability and consistency of the process year-to-year, specifically looking for low volatility.
● E - Economic Benefits: Evaluation of the impact on City, including TOT revenue, preservation of historic resources, and support of local businesses.

Staff has identified six (6)areas for discussion.
1) Location/Density
The City Council should consider whether to establish density limits for short-term rentals in specific areas of the City. Currently, 15 of the City’s 21 short-term rentals are located within the Historic District. See attachments for Historical District boundaries and existing short term rental locations.

Staff further recommend using a percentage of total housing units rather than a fixed numerical cap, as this approach would adjust over time with changes in the City’s housing stock.

Decision Points / Options:

1. Whether to establish different density limits for short-term rentals within the Historic District versus areas outside the Historic District
140
Section 9, Item D.

2. Whether to establish density limits in 4 - 5 areas of town (instead of just 2 in #1 above)

3. How to handle a waitlist if and when density limits are reached 2) Owner Occupied vs. No onsite owner
The City Council may also wish to consider whether to distinguish between owner-occupied and non–owner-occupied short-term rentals. Owner-occupied short-term rentals include situations where the property owner resides on-site, either within the primary dwelling or an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or rents out individual rooms within their home. In these cases, the owner’s presence may help mitigate potential impacts related to noise, parking, and property maintenance, as the owner has a direct interest in preserving neighborhood compatibility. It may also enable residents on a fixed income to enjoy a higher quality of life and have some companionship.

In contrast, short-term rentals where no owner resides on-site may have greater potential to impact surrounding residents. These properties often function more like commercial lodging, with higher guest turnover and less day-to-day oversight, which may increase concerns related to noise, parking, and neighborhood character.

The City Council may consider whether different regulations, performance standards, or allowance thresholds should apply to owner-occupied versus non–owner-occupied short-term rentals, including whether one category should be more limited or prioritized over the other.

Currently, owner-occupied STR is a very small part of the existing STR units.

Decision Point:
● Whether to differentiate regulations for owner-occupied short-term rentals versus non– owner-occupied short-term rentals
● Whether to establish a cap on non–owner-occupied short-term rentals ● Whether to allow unlimited owner-occupied short-term rentals ● If there is a cap, use a percentage-based limit or a fixed numerical cap 3) Permit Duration and Activity Requirements
The City Council may also wish to consider establishing time limits and activity requirements for short-term rental permits. One option is to issue permits for a defined term, such as three years, with annual renewals to confirm continued compliance with City regulations.

Decision Points:
141
Section 9, Item D.
● Length of the short-term rental permit term- 1 year, 3 years ● Annual renewal requirements
● Criteria for determining inactivity and voiding permits 4) Permit Process
The City Council may wish to review the current short-term rental permit process to determine whether it remains appropriate and efficient. At present, all short-term rental applications must obtain a City permit. Applications are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing when the short-term rental is located within a residential zoning district. In commercial zoning districts, short-term rentals are an allowed use and do not require Planning Commission approval.

The City Council may consider whether public hearings are still necessary for all residential short-term rental permits or whether permits could instead be reviewed and approved at the staff level, subject to objective standards and conditions of approval. A staff-level review process could reduce processing time and administrative burden while maintaining compliance and enforcement through clearly defined operational requirements.

Alternatively, the City Council may determine that public hearings continue to be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as for non–owner-occupied units or locations with a higher potential for neighborhood impacts.

Decision Points:
● Whether short-term rental permits should continue to require Planning Commission approval.
● If so, is there direction to the Planning Commission on what aspects to evaluate an application on to make it more objective?
● Whether public hearings should be required for all residential short-term rentals or limited to specific circumstances
● Whether staff-level approval is appropriate for some or all short-term rental permits ● Whether permit requirements should differ between residential and commercial zoning districts, or by area of the City such as the historic district vs non-historic district 5) Operating Rules and Conditions of Approval
The City Council may also wish to review the existing operating rules and conditions associated with short-term rental permits to determine whether any modifications are warranted. Currently, short-term rentals are subject to comprehensive conditions of approval intended to ensure neighborhood compatibility, public safety, and regulatory compliance.

Operational standards limit the number of overnight and daytime occupants, require compliance with the City’s noise regulations, and mandate clear communication of rules to guests. 142
Section 9, Item D.

Property owners or operators must provide 24-hour contact information, respond to complaints within 60 minutes, and take immediate action to address noise, disturbances, or other violations.

Decision Points:
● Whether to amend existing operating standards or conditions of approval ● Whether certain requirements should be adjusted based on owner-occupied versus non– owner-occupied rentals
● Whether enforcement, response time, or penalty provisions should be modified ● Whether additional or fewer operational standards are necessary to address neighborhood impacts and compliance
● Whether a physical inspection should be required (adds cost) 6) City TOT Accounting
We currently use the “Hotel model with STRs - the hosts self-remit, exactly like a hotelier. They must register for a business license and a TOT certificate. They collect the tax personally from the guest (or separate it from their payout) and send the city payment monthly. This relies entirely on the host's honesty regarding occupancy and nightly rates.

A new ordinance should include clauses that help staff identify possible underpayment and enable City staff to conduct audits.

Identify Underpayment
● Registration Number in Listings: The single most effective tool for a city under the host remittance model is an ordinance that requires a city-issued license/registration number to be displayed in the headline or description of every online listing. This forces the "hidden" inventory into the light. If a host lists on Airbnb without a number, they are immediately flagging themselves as non-compliant. The City can use software (or an intern) to scan listings. Any listing missing a "City License #12345" gets an automatic "Notice of Violation" or "Cease and Desist" letter.
● Platform Cooperation: Even without a tax collection agreement, many platforms will honor a city's request to remove listings that violate local zoning or registration laws if you can point to a specific ordinance violation.
● Nuisance Hotlines: Cities set up complaint hotlines. A noise complaint from a neighbor on a Tuesday night is essentially proof of occupancy that can be cross-referenced against TOT payments.
143
Section 9, Item D.

Tools to Support Audits
● The "Calendar Evidence" Audit:
○ Checking online platform occupancy (requires scraping software or staff monitoring)
○ If a host claims "0 occupancy" for January, but the software shows the calendar was "blocked" (booked) for 15 days in January, you have probable cause for an audit.
○ Note: Hosts often claim blocked dates were for "friends and family" (nontaxable). You can require them to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury for those dates.
● Water/Utility Usage Analysis:
○ For suspicious properties (e.g., a host claiming vacancy for months while the listing has recent reviews), some cities cross-reference water usage data. A spike in water usage during "vacant" periods is strong evidence of unreported occupancy. This would require an agreement with AWA, may not be possible. ● Require specific Reports if Audited - The ordinance should grant the City the right to request specific reports.
○ Platform "Gross Earnings" Reports (CSV or PDF format):
■ For Airbnb: Provide the Gross Earnings Report (found under Insights > Reports > Reporting > Gross Earnings). This report must show the confirmation code, start date, nights booked, and gross amount paid by the guest.
■ For Vrbo/HomeAway: Provide the Payout Summary and the downloadable Reservation Manager export.
■ For Other Platforms: Equivalent reports showing gross booking revenue before platform fees are deducted.
○ Federal Tax Returns (Redacted):
■ Copy of IRS Schedule E (Supplemental Income and Loss) or Schedule C (Profit or Loss from Business) for the tax years in question. Note: You may redact unrelated income, but rental revenue lines must be visible. ○ Bank Statements:
■ Monthly bank statements for the account(s) where rental payouts are deposited for the audit period. Highlight or flag all deposits related to rental activity.
● Proof of Exemptions (Long-Term Stays):
○ For any stay claimed as exempt (over 30 days), provide a copy of the signed lease agreement or written contract with the tenant showing check-in and check-out dates.

In looking at other city ordinances, there were several other clauses to help close loopholes for hosts to avoid payment.

Clause A: The "Gross vs. Net" Clarification
Hosts often calculate tax based on what hit their bank account (Net Payout), not what the guest paid (Gross Rent). The guest pays the tax on the total receipt, not the host's take-home pay. 144
Section 9, Item D.

Definition of Taxable Rent: "Please note that Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is calculated on the Gross Rent charged to the guest, not the Net Payout received by the host. Gross Rent includes the nightly rate, cleaning fees, pet fees, and any other non-refundable charges mandated by the host. Please ensure your provided records reflect the total amount paid by the guest."
Clause B: The "Platform Liability" Disclaimer
This prevents the host from simply saying, "I thought Airbnb paid it." Host Responsibility: "While some platforms may offer voluntary collection services, the legal burden of remitting TOT to the City of [City Name] remains with the operator/host. It is the host's responsibility to verify if the platform has remitted taxes on their behalf. If the platform did not remit the specific [City Name] TOT, the host is liable for all back taxes, penalties, and interest." Clause C: The "Blocked Dates" Challenge
When your software sees a blocked calendar but the host claims "no guests," use this clause to force them to go on the record.

Verification of Personal Use: "If specific dates on your availability calendar were blocked for personal use, maintenance, or non-revenue generating family stays, you must submit a signed Affidavit of Non-Rental Use listing specific dates and reasons. Unexplained blocked dates on the calendar may be treated as taxable occupancy based on the average daily rate of the property." Clause D: The "Burden of Proof" Warning
Finally, you need a clause that empowers you to make an estimate if they refuse to cooperate.

Failure to Provide Records: "In the absence of complete and verifiable records, the City Finance Department is authorized under Municipal Code [Section X] to estimate the tax due based on comparable properties, available calendar data, and external occupancy estimates. This estimate will be considered final and binding unless refuted by verifiable evidence."

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The City Council’s discussion of short-term rental policies will help guide potential updates to the City’s ordinance to ensure it continues to balance neighborhood compatibility, housing availability, historic preservation, and economic benefits. Based on the direction provided, staff will proceed with drafting potential ordinance amendments that reflect the City Council’s policy priorities.

As next steps, the City Council may consider forming an ad hoc City Council committee to further evaluate policy options and provide focused guidance to staff. Draft revisions may then be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation through a public 145
Section 9, Item D.
hearing process. Following Planning Commission input, the revised ordinance will be brought forward to the City Council for final consideration and adoption.

Attachments:

1. Historic Districts Map

2. Sutter Creek Short Term Rentals Map

3. Sutter Creek Hotels & Inns Map

4. Sutter Creek Hotels and Short Term Rentals Map

5. Short Term Rental Conditional Use Permit Application

6. Example Short Term Rental Conditional Use Permit Resolution with conditions of approval
146
Section 9, Item D.
147
Section 9, Item D.

Spanish
St
Judy
Dr
Patricia Ln
Raylan Dr
State Hig
h
way
4 9
Sutter Creek
Mill St
Eureka St
Gopher Flat Rd
Cole St
Sutter Cre
S
utter Cres W
Sutter Creek
Amador Canal
49 104
Foothill Dr
Gold
Dust Trl
Highland Dr
Church St
Bryson Dr
Sutter Creek Rd
Eureka Rd
Old Ridge Rd
Sutter Hill Rd
Ridge Rd
S
Main St
Sutter Creek
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Sutter Creek City Limits Hotels & Inns
Short Term Rentals ¯
0 375 750 1,500
Feet
Hotels & Inns
1 - Hotel Sutter, 53 Main St.
2 - Inn at 161, 161 Hanford St.
3 - Hanford House Inn, 61 Hanford St.
4 - Sutter Creek Inn, 75 Main St.
5 - Old Hotel Antiques, 68 Main St.
6 - Brinnwood Bed & Breakfast, 77 Main St.
7 - Kiota Inn, 271 Hanford St.
8 - Eureka Street Inn, 55 Eureka St.
148
Section 9, Item D.

B - 70 Broad St.

C - 90 Boston Alley
D - 44 Badger St.

E - 85 Broad St.

F - 70 Gopher Flat Rd.

G - 31 Badger St.

H - 70 Greenstone Ter.

I - 255 Patricia Ln.

J - 193 Badger St.

K - 60 Randolph St.

L - 86 Barney Ln.

M - 64 Eureka St.

N - 171 China Gulch Rd.

O - 335 Sutter Crest E
P - 80 Greenstone Ter.

Q - 40 Mountain View Dr.

R - 39 Elm St.

S - 44 Opal St.

T - 70 Hayden Alley
U - 30 Bryson Dr.
149
Section 9, Item D.

Spanish
St
Judy
Dr
Patricia Ln
Raylan Dr
State Hig
h
way
4 9
Sutter Creek
Mill St
Eureka St
Gopher Flat Rd
Cole St
Sutter Cre
S
utter Cres W
Sutter Creek
Amador Canal
49 104
Foothill Dr
Gold
Dust Trl
Highland Dr
Church St
Bryson Dr
Sutter Creek Rd
Eureka Rd
Old Ridge Rd
Sutter Hill Rd
Ridge Rd
S
Main St
Sutter Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Sutter Creek City Limits Hotels & Inns
Short Term Rentals ¯
0 375 750 1,500
Feet
Hotels & Inns
1 - Hotel Sutter, 53 Main St.
2 - Inn at 161, 161 Hanford St.
3 - Hanford House Inn, 61 Hanford St.
4 - Sutter Creek Inn, 75 Main St.
5 - Old Hotel Antiques, 68 Main St.
6 - Brinnwood Bed & Breakfast, 77 Main St.
7 - Kiota Inn, 271 Hanford St.
8 - Eureka Street Inn, 55 Eureka St.

Short Term Rentals
A - 290 Gopher Flat Rd.

B - 70 Broad St.

C - 90 Boston Alley
D - 44 Badger St.

E - 85 Broad St.

F - 70 Gopher Flat Rd.

G - 31 Badger St.

H - 70 Greenstone Ter.

I - 255 Patricia Ln.

J - 193 Badger St.

K - 60 Randolph St.

L - 86 Barney Ln.

M - 64 Eureka St.

N - 171 China Gulch Rd.

O - 335 Sutter Crest E
P - 80 Greenstone Ter.

Q - 40 Mountain View Dr.

R - 39 Elm St.

S - 44 Opal St.

T - 70 Hayden Alley
U - 30 Bryson Dr.
150
Section 9, Item D.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Sutter Creek City CouncilMarch 16, 2026

Sutter Creek City Council
March 16, 2026