Dec 1 City Council

Concurrent Meetings Of
SONOMA CITY COUNCIL

(regular)
City Council
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Steve Barbose, Mayor
(special) August Sebastiani, Mayor Pro Tem
Community Meeting Room, 177 First Street West Ken Brown
December 1, 2010 Laurie Gallian
5:30 p.m. - Closed Session Joanne Sanders
6:00 p.m. - Regular Session
****
AGENDA
Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Mayor will open the meeting and take public testimony on closed session items only. The
Council will then recess into closed session.
2. CLOSED SESSION
A: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION. Argonaut Investments,
Inc. a Delaware Corporation and Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, A California Limited Liability
Company v City of Sonoma, a municipal corporation; Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Pursuant
to Government Code 54956.9(a).
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
RECONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL (Brown, Sanders, Sebastiani, Gallian, Barbose)
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. It is recommended
that you keep your comments to three minutes or less. Under State Law, matters presented under this item
cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the
public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. At all times
please use the microphone.
2. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. PRESENTATIONS
Item 4A: Proclamation Recognizing Francine Maffei
Item 4B: World AIDS Awareness Day Proclamation
Item 4C: Dean Biersch / Hop Monk Day Proclamation
Page 1 of 4
5. CONSENT CALENDAR/AGENDA ORDER
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Council, staff, or public request
specific items to be removed for separate action. At this time Council may decide to change the order of the
agenda.
Item 5A: Waive Further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances
by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided)
Item 5B: Approval of the Minutes of the November 3 and November 8, 2010 City Council
Meetings.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
Item 5C: Consideration and Approval of Amendments to the Sonoma Conflict of Interest
Code.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest
Code.
Item 5D: Approval and ratification of the reappointment of Charles Bouey to the
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Directors for a
four-year term ending December 31, 2014.
Staff Recommendation: Nomination by the Mayor, ratification by the City Council.
Item 5E: Approval of Capital Improvement Project for cross-street signage in the amount
of $9,000; and approval of Resolution of the Agency Board amending the FY
2010-2011 budget.
Staff Recommendation: Approve a Capital Improvement Project for cross-street
signage in the amount of $9,000 and approve resolution of the Agency Board of the
Community Development Agency amending the FY 2010-2011 budget.
Item 5F: Approval of Community Development Agency (CDA) redevelopment loan in the
amount of $25,000 to Benz, Ebbesen, Anderson, LLC for improvements to the
commercial property at 967 Broadway.
Staff Recommendation: CDA Board approve the loan and authorize staff to execute
loan agreement.
Item 5G: Approval of a resolution declaring the results of the November 2, 2010 General
Municipal Election.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the resolution.
Item 5H: Approve the Notice of Completion for First Street West Inlet Improvements
Project No. 0816 by Greener Excavators and Construction and Direct the City
Clerk to File the Document.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Notice of Completion for the First Street West
Inlet Improvements Project No. 0816 by Greener Excavators and Construction and
Direct the City Clerk to File the Document.
Item 5I: Adoption of a resolution establishing a process to track water demand and verify
capacity to serve new development.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the resolution establishing a process to track water
demand and verify capacity to serve new development.
Page 2 of 4
5. CONSENT CALENDAR/AGENDA ORDER, Continued
Item 5J: Authorization to approve the purchase of wetland credits to mitigate the removal
of wetlands in conjunction with the sale of properties owned by the Sonoma
Community Development Agency (CDA) located at 19347 Fifth Street West and
726 West Spain Street.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Community Development Agency Executive
Director to execute the purchase of two wetlands credits from the Burdell Ranch
Wetland Conservation Bank.
6. COUNCILMEMBER RECOGNITIONS
Item 6A: Mayor Pro Tem Sebastiani will present the honorary Mayor’s gavel to Mayor
Barbose
Item 6B: Mayor Barbose will present a plaque and recognize outgoing Council member
Aug Sebastiani
Item 6C: Councilmember comments
Item 6D: Comments by Aug Sebastiani
7. OATHS OF OFFICE
Item 7A: City Clerk Johann will administer the Oath of Office and present a Certificate of
Election to Steve Barbose, Ken Brown and Tom Rouse.
Item 7B: Newly sworn in Council members are seated at the dais.
Item 7C: Councilmember comments.
8. SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
Item 8A: Mayor Barbose to open nominations for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore.
Item 8B: New Mayor to assume chair of the meeting and dais seating arrangement.
9. RECESS: The meeting will recess for a brief reception. Cake will be served.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 10A: Review and Consideration of a Refuse Rate Adjustment and Certain Program
Modifications for 2010-2011 with City Franchisee Sonoma Garbage Company,
Inc. (Assistant City Manager)
Staff Recommendation: Approval of all program components and rate increase
proposed by Sonoma Garbage as follows: 1) Rate increase of 5.03% effective
December 1, 2010; 2) Application of Extenuating Circumstances for Vehicle
Replacement; 3) Allow hauler to perform a pilot project to study Commercial Food
Waste Composting Service
Page 3 of 4
11. REGULAR CALENDAR
(Matters requiring discussion and/or action by the Council)
Item 11A: Discussion, consideration and possible action approving a Water Service
Consolidation Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners LLC, a Cost Recovery
Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, and a Resolution adopting a
finding of Categorical Exemption and Authorizing a Grant Application for Water
System Improvements at the Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park, all related
to the City of Sonoma’s application for a State Revolving Fund Grant to connect
Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park to the City of Sonoma Public Water
System. (City Manager/City Attorney/City Engineer)
Staff Recommendation: Approve Water Service Consolidation Agreement with Rancho
Sonoma Partners LLC; approve Cost Recovery Agreement with Rancho Sonoma
Partners, LLC; and adopt Resolution adopting a finding of Categorical Exemption and
Authorizing a Grant Application for Water System Improvements.
13. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND FINAL REMARKS
Item 13A: Reports Regarding Committee Activities.
Item 13B: Final Councilmembers’ Remarks.
14. ADJOURNMENT
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board on
November 23, 2010.
GAY JOHANN, CITY CLERK

Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to any item of
business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection the Monday before each
regularly scheduled meeting at City Hall, located at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA. Any
documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of
the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will
be made available for inspection at the City Clerk’s office, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA during
regular business hours.
If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on the agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, at or prior to the public hearing.
In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (707) 933-2216. Notification 48-hours
before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting.
Page 4 of 4
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 4A
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
Meeting Date: 12/01/2010
IFORN
Department Staff Contact

Administration Gay Johann, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Proclamation Recognizing Francine Maffei.
Summary
Mayor Pro Tem Sebastiani requested recognition of Francine Maffei for her many years of dedicated
service to the students of St. Francis Solano Catholic Church.
Recommended Council Action
Mayor Pro Tem Sebastiani to present the Proclamation.
Alternative Actions
n/a.
Financial Impact
n/a
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report Approved/Certified
Negative Declaration No Action Required
Exempt Action Requested
Not Applicable
Attachments:
1. Proclamation
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 4B
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Agenda Item Title
World AIDS Awareness Day Proclamation.
Summary
Sheana Davis requested a proclamation declaring December 1, 2010 as World AIDS Awareness
Day. Representatives from Face to Face and the Sonoma County AIDS Network will be present to
receive the proclamation and discuss their ongoing education and prevention activities.
Mayor Barbose to present the proclamation.
Alternative Actions
n/a.
Financial Impact
n/a
Not Applicable
Attachments:
1. Proclamation
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 4C
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Agenda Item Title
Dean Biersch / HopMonk Day Proclamation
Summary
Councilmember Brown requested recognition of the opening of the new HopMonk Tavern located on
Broadway.
Mayor Barbose to present the Proclamation.
Alternative Actions
n/a.
Financial Impact
n/a
Not Applicable
Attachments:
1. Proclamation
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 5B
SO
S E AL OF
City Council/CDA
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Agenda Item Title
Approval of the Minutes of the November 3 and November 8, 2010 City Council Meetings.
Summary
The minutes have been prepared for Council review and approval.
Approve the minutes.
Alternative Actions
Correct or amend the minutes prior to approval.
Financial Impact
N/A
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Concurrent Meetings Of
SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
(regular)
City Council
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Steve Barbose, Mayor
(special) August Sebastiani, Mayor Pro Tem
Community Meeting Room, 177 First Street West Ken Brown
November 3, 2010 Laurie Gallian
5:00 p.m. - Closed Session Joanne Sanders
6:00 p.m. - Regular Session
****
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Barbose called the meeting to order. No one from the public was present to
provide public testimony on closed session items. The Council recessed into closed
session with all members present. City Manager Kelly and Assistant City Manager
Giovanatto were also present for Closed Session Item 2A. Negotiator Jack Hughes was
present via telephone. City Manager Kelly, Planning Director Goodison and Assistant
City Attorney Nebb were present for Closed Session Item 2B. Tim Mulrenan, Tierra
West Consulting, was present via telephone.
2. CLOSED SESSION
A: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS, pursuant to Government Code

§54957.6. Agency designated representatives: Jack Hughes, City Manager
Kelly, and Assistant City Manager Giovanatto. Employee Organizations:
Sonoma Professional Firefighters Association and City of Sonoma Employees’
Association (SEIU 1020).
B: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Property: 19340
Sonoma Highway; APN 127-202-006. Agency Negotiators: Linda Kelly,
Executive Director, David Goodison, Planning Director and Tim Mulrenan, Tierra
West Consulting. Negotiating Parties: Affordable Housing Associates. Under
Negotiation: Price and terms of payment. Pursuant to Government Code
§54956.8.
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
The City Council reconvened in open session and Mayor Barbose called the meeting to order at
6:20 p.m. Planning Commissioner Bob Felder led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Mayor Barbose and Councilmembers Brown, Gallian, Sanders, and Sebastiani.
ABSENT: None.
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Kelly, Assistant City Manager Giovanatto, Assistant City
Attorney Nebb, City Clerk Rainsbarger, Development Services Director Wirick, Planning
Director Goodison.
November 3, 2010, Page 1 of 9

DRAFT MINUTES
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Barbose stated that the City Council had met in closed session to discuss the topics
listed on the agenda and that no reportable action had been taken.
Tom Rouse, Councilmember Elect, thanked Councilmembers, City staff, and the public for
supporting him in his bid for City Council. He stated that he would do the best job possible while
in office.
Candidate David Cook congratulated Barbose, Brown and Rouse for their success in the
election. He said being a candidate for City Council had been a fun experience and announced
he would run again in 2012.
Candidate Mike Gillaspie stated that running for City Council had been a great experience. He
said he met many great people and made a lot of friends.
Nancy King, Pets Lifeline, announced they were looking for a location to hold their annual
“Shelter on the Square” and asked that if anyone had a suggestion to please let her know.
2. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Clm. Sanders congratulated all the candidates and announced that the Laughing Queen retail
store would be closing its doors on October 31.
Clm. Brown stated that all candidates conducted themselves in an excellent manner during the
campaign period. He reported that the father of long-time City Councilmember Larry Barnett
had passed away and asked that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Norman Barnett.
Mayor Barbose congratulated Tom Rouse and the other candidates for a race well run and
reminded everyone that Readers Book Store was still offering a discount to anyone presenting a
“I Have Voted” sticker or their ballot stub.
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Kelly reported that she had received inquiries regarding recent activity at the old
Ford Dealership and that it was her understanding that the space was being utilized as a
temporary automobile display area. She announced the City Council would hold a special
meeting on November 8 to conduct a water study session. Kelly also announced that PG&E
would conduct open houses at the Community Center November 8 and at City Hall on
November 9 and 10 to discuss the new Smartmeters with the public.
4. PRESENTATIONS
Item 4A: Recognition of Career Milestones – Carol Giovanatto, Assistant City

Manager and Gay Johann, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager

DRAFT MINUTES
City Manager Kelly reported that Carol Giovanatto, Assistant City Manager, recently received a
35-year career professional recognition award from the International City-County Management
Association (ICMA). She stated that ICMA Service Awards recognize and celebrate ICMA
members' dedication to public service and professional management at the local level and were
presented every fall at the ICMA Annual Conference. Mayor Barbose presented the certificate
to Ms. Giovanatto who thanked the City Manager and the City Council for the recognition and
stated she would dedicate it to her father, Mr. Donald H. Ruppert, who had been her mentor.
City Manager Kelly reported that Gay Johann, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager, recently
achieved the International Institute of Municipal Clerks’ Master Municipal Clerk (MMC)
designation. She said that MMC was the highest designation available to City Clerks and
represented an advanced continuing education program that prepares participants to perform
complex municipal duties. Kelly added that the program had an extensive and rigorous
educational component and a professional and social contribution component. Mayor Barbose
presented a plaque to City Clerk Johann.
Item 4B: Veterans Day 2010 Proclamation
Mayor Barbose reported that former Mayor Jeanne Markson had contacted him with a
suggestion that the City make special recognition of those returning from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He said a proclamation was traditionally read and presented at the Veterans Day
ceremony but he felt it was appropriate to also read the proclamation at a televised City Council
meeting. Mayor Barbose announced that some local veterans were in the audience and he
called them forward. Wesley Adams, John Mascarelli, John Smith, and Richard Schroeder; all
serving in the U.S. Army, came forward. Mayor Barbose read aloud the Veterans Day
proclamation with special emphasis on welcoming home those who are returning from the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars. Gary Magnani, American Legion, accepted the proclamation and
thanked the Mayor and the City Council for honoring all veterans.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR/AGENDA ORDER
Item 5A: Waive Further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of
Ordinances by Title Only.
Item 5B: Approval of the Minutes of the following City Council Meetings: 1)
September 1, 2010; 2) October 20, 2010 (Regular Meeting); and 3) October
20, 2010 (Special Meeting). (Removed from consent, see below)
Item 5C: Approval and Ratification of the Reappointment of Jeff Baptista and
Yvonne Bowers to the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission for
Terms Continuing to November 19, 2012.
Item 5D: Resolution Establishing an Appropriations Limit for FY 2010-11 Pursuant to
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution as Amended by Proposition 111.
Item 5E: Authorize the City of Sonoma to serve as lead agency and authorize the
City Manager to execute purchase orders with AT&T to furnish and install
new phone systems at Sonoma City Hall, the Carnegie Building, the
Corporation Yard and Fire Stations #1, #2 and #3. (Removed from consent,
see below)
Item 5F: Adoption of an ordinance amending the Development Code with respect to
Residential Care Homes.

DRAFT MINUTES
Herb Golenpaul removed Item 5E from the Consent Calendar. Clm. Sanders removed item 5B.
It was moved by Clm. Sanders, seconded by Clm. Gallian, to approve the items remaining on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried unanimously.
Item 5B: Approval of the Minutes of the following City Council Meetings: 1)
September 1, 2010; 2) October 20, 2010 (Regular Meeting); and 3) October
20, 2010 (Special Meeting).
Clm. Sanders requested rewording of a portion of her final remark in the September 1, 2010
minutes. It was moved by Clm. Sanders, seconded by Clm. Gallian, to approve the minutes as
amended. The motion carried unanimously.
Item 5E: Authorize the City of Sonoma to serve as lead agency and authorize the
City Manager to execute purchase orders with AT&T to furnish and install
new phone systems at Sonoma City Hall, the Carnegie Building, the
Corporation Yard and Fire Stations #1, #2 and #3.
Herb Golenpaul commented about the purchase of a new phone system and suggested the
Council hold off on the purchase until the City had a surplus of money.
Development Services Director Wirick reported that utilizing the CALNET 2 State purchasing
contract, the total project cost for the new system was approximately $70,000 and
approximately $16,000 of the cost would be paid by Valley of the Moon Fire District. It was
moved by Clm. Sanders, seconded by Clm. Brown, to authorize the City of Sonoma to serve as
the lead agency for the purpose of acquiring the new AT&T Voice DNA phone systems and
authorize the City Manager to execute purchase orders with AT&T under the CALNET 2
purchasing program to furnish and install new phone systems at Sonoma City Hall, the
Carnegie Building, the Corporation Yard and Fire Stations #1, #2 and #3 at a total cost not to
exceed $70,000; and to direct the City Manager to secure up to $16,000 in reimbursement from
the Valley of the Moon Fire District for costs directly attributable to Fire Stations #2 and #3. The
motion carried unanimously.
CHANGE IN AGENDA ORDER
Mayor Barbose noted that Susan Klassen, Executive Director of Sonoma County Waste
Management, was present and asked if anyone objected to moving up item 7A on the agenda.
There were no objections.
Item 7A: Sonoma City/County Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update, and
discussion, consideration and possible adoption of resolution concurring
with the SWAG’s priorities and objectives for developing a regional long-
term solid waste option.
City Manager Kelly invited Ms. Klassen to speak regarding this agenda item. Ms. Klassen
described how and why the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) was formed. She stated that
each city in the County was being asked to weigh in, and hopefully support, the priorities and
objectives that had been formulated by SWAG. Ms. Klassen presented the SWAG rules of
governance and vision statement. She also explained that the Council was being asked to
consider a resolution concurring with the priorities and objectives for development of a regional
long-term solid waste option.

DRAFT MINUTES
Clm. Sanders inquired if a commitment made now would tie the hands of the Council regarding
future solid waste decisions. She pointed out that it may be less expensive to haul the City’s
garbage to Napa than to the County landfill. Ms. Klassen stated that at some time in the future
the City would be called upon to make some level of commitment. To be successful, the system
would require a large regional investment. She said a future commitment would be necessary
to support capital investment, maintenance issues and the closure of landfills.
Ken Wells, representing Sonoma Garbage Collectors, reported that they had reviewed the
report and were in favor of Council’s adoption of the resolution of support.
Mayor Barbose invited comments from the public. Pamela Garant noted the adoption of the
new construction codes and inquired about disposal of construction site waste. Mayor Barbose
stated that every City in the County and the County of Sonoma were adopting the new codes.
Ms. Klassen responded that construction demolition and debris disposal services were readily
available in the County. City Manager Kelly added that staff had been in discussions with the
Curattos of Sonoma Garbage Collectors and were working on how the new requirement would
be rolled out in connection with the new codes.
Clm. Sebastiani stated that if it would be cheaper to haul Sonoma’s waste to Napa, then the City
should be looking that direction.
Clm. Gallian stated that the plan had a long-term goal for the year 2050 and that every City
needed to participate in order to deal with the issues on a regional basis.
Mayor Barbose commented that the City would have to deal with its liability for cleanup
separately if it does not participate in the group. He said that ultimately, money would have to
be spent for a regional facility and it may be cheaper to do it now.
It was moved by Clm. Gallian, seconded by Clm. Brown, to adopt the resolution entitled
Resolution of the Council of the City of Sonoma Concurring with the Sonoma County/City Solid
Waste Advisory Group’s Priorities and Objectives for Developing a Regional Long-Term Solid
Waste Option. The motion carried unanimously. Clm. Sanders stated that Healdsburg held
concerns similar to hers and noted they had not yet adopted the resolution of support.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 6A: Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance Repealing Chapter 14.10 of the
Sonoma Municipal Code and Reenacting a New Chapter 14.10 Adopting
and Amending New Construction Codes.
Development Services Director/Building Official Wirick reported that at its meeting of October 6,
2010 the Council discussed and introduced the proposed ordinance adopting by reference and
amending the new construction codes. He reported on the history of the State codes and
provided a summary of the changes and explained the amendments recommended by staff.
Wirick stated that the new codes would take effect January 1, 2011.
Mayor Barbose opened the public hearing. Herb Golenpaul stated it would be okay to adopt the
new codes as long as the fees did not go up.

DRAFT MINUTES
Vic Conforti stated that it would take contractors and designers a while to get on board with the
new Green Building Code. He noted that the new construction codes would require submittal of
a construction waste management plan and there were many other changes coming forth.
Robert Garant stated that implementation of the new codes would be expensive. He has
identified a $10,000 to $20,000 increase for materials alone. Mr. Garant stated this could cause
problems with development of affordable housing.
Pamela Garant stated concern that the new code would require white or reflective roofs and
asked if the City could make exceptions. Wirick responded that the Green Building Code
provided a small amount of flexibility by the Building Official.
Clm. Sanders stated she would not support adoption of the Tier 1 Green Building Code because
it would increase costs and harm employment opportunities. Clm. Sebastiani agreed.
Mayor Barbose stated that having continuity within the County would be good and he continued
to support adoption of the codes. It was moved by Clm. Gallian, seconded by Clm. Brown, to
adopt the ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SONOMA REPEALING
CHAPTER 14.10 OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REENACTING A NEW
CHAPTER 14.10 ADOPTING A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE PARTS 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12 OF THE 2010 CALIFORNIA
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND THE 1997 UNIFORM
CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS AS PUBLISHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
The motion carried three to two, Councilmembers Sanders and Sebastiani dissented.
Item 6B: Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 14.24
(Review, Rehabilitation and Abatement of Existing Seismically Unsafe
Buildings) of the Sonoma Municipal Code.
Development Services Director/Building Official Wirick reported that the purpose of the
ordinance was to update the City’s existing code to be in conformance with the mandatory
structural provisions of the 2010 California Existing Building Code. He said the ordinance also
included editorial and administrative changes to provide consistency with State law.
The public comment period was opened and closed with none received.
It was moved by Clm. Gallian, seconded by Clm. Sanders, to adopt the ordinance entitled
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SONOMA REPEALING CHAPTER 14.22 (GREEN
BUILDING) and CHAPTER 14.36 (VIOLATION — PENALTY) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL
CODE and to direct the City Clerk to carry out the publishing and posting procedures required
by the Government Code. The motion carried unanimously.
Item 6C: Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance Repealing Chapter 14.22 (Green
Building) and Chapter 14.36 (Violation — Penalty) of the Sonoma Municipal
Code.
Development Services Director/Building Official Wirick reported that the ordinance would repeal
the 2009 ordinance implementing a local Green Building Code.
The public comment period was opened and closed with none received.

DRAFT MINUTES
It was moved by Clm. Sanders, seconded by Clm. Brown, to adopt the ordinance entitled
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SONOMA REPEALING CHAPTER 14.22 (GREEN
BUILDING) and CHAPTER 14.36 (VIOLATION — PENALTY) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL
CODE and to direct the City Clerk to carry out the publishing and posting procedures required
by the Government Code. The motion carried unanimously.
Clm. Sanders noted that before the subcommittee was formed in 2008 to develop a local Green
Building Code, Development Services Director Wirick had warned the Council that the State had
something in the works. She said she regretted not listening to him, as it would have saved the
subcommittee and staff six months of work that was now being tossed out.
7. REGULAR CALENDAR
Item 7A: Sonoma City/County Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update, and
discussion, consideration and possible adoption of resolution concurring
with the SWAG’s priorities and objectives for developing a regional long-
term solid waste option.
Discussed out of order, see above.
Item 7B: Discussion, consideration and possible action authorizing the Mayor to
sign a follow-up letter to Westamerica Bancorporation in support of
keeping the Banco de Sonoma branch open in the Springs and the Glen
Ellen branch of Sonoma Valley Bank open in Glen Ellen, requested by
Mayor Barbose and Councilmember Brown.
City Manager Kelly reported that Councilmember Brown was asking the Council to consider
sending a letter to Westamerica asking them to commit to keeping the bank branches in the
Springs and Glen Ellen open. She reported that in a telephone conversation, Bank Vice
President Christy Coulsen had stated that keeping the two branches open would be dependent
upon their level of usage and the bank could not make any guarantees.
Clm. Gallian commented that they had reduced the branch hours in the Springs and she
expressed concern for the employees.
Clm. Sanders questioned why it was not the County Supervisor being contacted about this
matter. Clm. Sebastiani commented that if it worked out financially for the bank that was fine
but he did not understand the City being involved. He noted the branches in question were not
in the City limits. Clm. Sanders agreed and stated that it was a free market and the City should
not get involved.
Clm. Brown stated that the Banco de Sonoma was important to the City because they provide a
service to the Latino community that work in Sonoma.
Mayor Barbose stated the City should not be micromanaging their hours and he was not in favor
of writing a letter.
City Manager Kelly clarified that the City had not sent a previous letter on this issue.

DRAFT MINUTES
Clm. Gallian, noting there was not majority support to send a letter, suggested the matter be
referred to Supervisor Brown’s office.
It was moved by Clm. Sebastiani, seconded by Clm. Sanders, to not send a letter to
Westamerica. The motion carried four to one, Clm. Brown dissented.
Herb Golenpaul stated his unhappiness with the recent election.
9. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND FINAL REMARKS
Item 9A: Reports Regarding Committee Activities.
Clm. Brown reported attending the Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting on
behalf of Clm. Sebastiani and stated that they discussed the Shop Sonoma Day promotion and
streamlining business signage regulations. He also reported that the Community Development
Agency Loan Committee met with Mayor Barbose sitting in for Clm. Sanders who was
prevented from participating due to a conflict of interest. They considered a loan to Tom
Anderson to accommodate a new wine business on Broadway. Clm. Brown reported attending
the Library Committee meeting in the place of Clm. Sanders and reported they were happily
moving ahead with their remodel. Their big unanswered question was where to relocate the
library during the renovation.
Clm. Gallian reported the Transportation Authority just received $1.4 million in grant funds for
expansion of the bus pass and ride-sharing programs. The Water Advisory Committee
discussed liquidated damages and determined not to levy surcharges on City’s that went over
their annual allotment because the overall usage was within its allotted amount.
Mayor Barbose reported attendance at the Waste Management Authority and Waste Advisory
Group meetings and that he attended an interesting tour of a green waste facility in San Jose.
Item 9B: Final Councilmembers’ Remarks.
Clm. Brown reminded everyone of the November 11 Veteran’s Day activities.
Clm. Sanders stated she would not mind serving on the Economic Development Advisory
Committee in the future and she mentioned a recent newspaper article regarding Healdsburg’s
economic development program.
Clm. Gallian noted that Clm. Sanders would speak at the Chamber’s Women in Business Forum
November 19.
Clm. Sebastiani reported recently having breakfast in downtown Chicago with former Sonoma
Mayor Stan Cohen. He also reported attendance at the World Series games and the Giant’s
victory parade in San Francisco.
Mayor Barbose announced that the recent passing of Proposition 22 would ensure that the
State could no longer come in and steal the City’s money.

DRAFT MINUTES
10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Barbose adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. in honor of Mr. Norman Barnett.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular
meeting of the Sonoma City Council on the day of 2010.
_____________________________
Gay Johann, MMC
City Clerk

DRAFT MINUTES
SONOMA CITY COUNCIL

Special Meeting City Council
Steve Barbose, Mayor
Monday November 8, 2010 Aug Sebastiani, Mayor Pro Tem
Ken Brown
6:00 p.m. Laurie Gallian
Joanne Sanders
Community Meeting Room
177 First Street West
****
MINUTES
OPENING
Mayor Barbose called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. David Cook led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
PRESENT: Gallian, Brown, Sanders, Sebastiani, Barbose

ABSENT: None.
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Kelly, City Clerk Johann, City Engineer Bertolero, Public
Works Director Bates, Planning Director Goodison, Assistant City Engineer Cargay, John Olaf
Nelson, Water Resources Management.
The public comment session was opened and closed with none received.
2. WATER WORKSHOP
Continuation of Water Supply Plan and Water Rate and Connection Fee Study Session
Public Works Director Bates stated that the study session would focus on the water rate and
connection charge study prepared by John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Management. She
reported that the study outlined strategies for meeting demand projections, recommended
increases in use rates in the years 2013 - 2017 and connection charges for new development.
Bates stated that the prospect of the City developing its own reservoir had been brought up at
the last study session. She reported that Santa Rosa recently considered the same idea and
estimated it would cost approximately $70,000 per acre foot to construct a reservoir.
John Nelson, Water Resources Management, presented an in-depth analysis of the calculation
of new capacity charges and conservation offset charges and reported his recommendations for
rate and connection charges. He also presented a comparison of plans for financing the
proposed capital improvements.
Clm Sanders stated that Valley of the Moon Water (VOM) customers had lower rates that City
customers. She asked if it would be cheaper to contract with VOM. Mr. Nelson stated it would
not be less expensive and pointed out that VOM customers would not want to subsidize City
residents, and that VOM would be implementing a rate increase soon.

DRAFT MINUTES
Clm. Sebastiani expressed concerns about the City’s increasing its dependency upon
groundwater and suggested that the City wells only be used during drought situations and water
shortages.
Mayor Barbose invited comments from the public. Planning Commissioner Robert Felder asked
about a possible surcharge during drought years. Mr. Nelson stated that a surcharge would
cover the City’s expenses if, for instance, it was tapping into a reservoir at the Developmental
Center. He also noted that during a drought, the City’s administrative costs went up because of
the need to emphasize conservation, etc.
Planning Commissioner Michael George inquired about future new wells. Mr. Nelson
responded that the Capital Improvement Plan included three new wells and the rehabilitation of
some of the existing wells.
Planning Commissioner Mark Heneveld asked about implementing a water-recharging program.

Mr. Nelson stated he did not think it would ever be feasible.
Clm. Gallian stated that her biggest concern was the City’s relationship with the Water Agency.
Mr. Nelson stated the Agency would be approaching the City with a new contract and the fact
that the City does not have a strong groundwater resource will hurt the City in its negotiations.
He said the City would continue to be vulnerable to the Agency.
Clm. Sanders expressed concern about the impact an increase of water fees would have on
those on fixed incomes and suggested the City consider ways to offset the increase. Mr.
Nelson mentioned a program called PAYS that would provide financing to homeowners for
water conservation programs.
Public Works Director Bates stated that staff would bring back the proposed rate increases at a
future meeting for Council consideration and possible action. Mr. Nelson recommended
adoption of the connection and conservation offset charges soon, so as not to let any new
development escape without paying.
Clm. Sebastiani stated the City should be looking at the bigger picture and should start talking
about increasing its water storage capabilities. Clm. Sanders agreed. City Manager Kelly stated
that the City was taking a good step towards development of a relationship with Sonoma
Developmental Center.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Barbose adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular
meeting of the Sonoma City Council on the day of 2010.
_____________________________
Gay Johann, MMC
City Clerk

E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5C
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Administration Gay Rainsbarger, City Clerk
Howard Stern, Walter & Pistole
Agenda Item Title
Consideration and Approval of Amendments to the Sonoma Conflict of Interest Code
Summary
The Political Reform Act requires every city to review its conflict of interest code every even
numbered year to determine whether changes to the code are necessary. City council members,
planning commissioners, the city manager, the city attorney and the city treasurer are required to file
statements of economic interest pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. These positions,
therefore, are not included in municipal conflict of interest codes. Municipal conflict of interest
codes are instead concerned with those other employees, members, officers and consultants who
hold positions that make or participate in the making of decisions on behalf of the municipality.
According to Government Code Section 87302, a municipal conflict of interest code must designate
those positions that make or participate in the making of government decisions. The conflict of
interest code must also define the type of economic interests the holder of each designated position
must report. The holder or each designated position must complete an annual financial disclosure
statement that is maintained by the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, the persons
who hold these positions may be required to disqualify themselves from the making of government
decisions if those decisions could materially affect those economic interests.
On September 15, 2010, the City Clerk brought before the City Council a report indicating that
amendments to the present Sonoma Conflict of Interest Code are required to update the list of
designated positions that are required to disclose economic interests. The City Clerk also
determined that revisions are required to the description of economic interests subject to disclosure.
In conformance with Government Code Section 87311, a Notice of Intention to Amend the Conflict of
Interest Code was posted at the locations at which council agendas are normally posted and
interested members of the public were invited to attend this meeting and/or to present written
comments regarding the proposed amendments. Notice was also provided to the City employees,
members, officers and consultants subject to these amendments.
Attached for Council consideration is the resolution amending the conflict of interest code. Exhibit A
lists the designated positions subject to the code and the type of economic disclosures applicable to
each designated position. The list of designated positions required to file disclosure statements has
been expanded to include the Accountant, Administrative Services Manager, Associate Planner,
Building Inspector, Deputy City Clerk, Fire Division Chief (City), Public Works Management Analyst,
Parks Supervisor, Plans Examiner, Senior Planner, Streets Supervisor and Water Operations
Supervisor. It is recommended that these positions be added to Exhibit A based on the
determination that these positions also make or participate in the making of governmental decisions.
Exhibit B amends the categories of economic interests that must be disclosed. The Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC), the State agency that administers the Political Reform Act, has
recommended that disclosure categories be amended to be “position” oriented rather than “property
interest” oriented. Previously, the disclosure categories listed types of economic interests, such as
real property interests, business position interests, etc. The conflict of interest code then designated
the type of interests each designated position was required to report.
Agenda Item 5C
The FPPC now recommends that three broad categories be included in the conflict of interest code.
Category A applies to those positions with generalized decision making authority. Category A
includes the broad range of economic interests that must be reported to conform to the broad
decision making authority exercised by that position. In the interest of assuring the complete
disclosure of economic interests, most of the designated positions listed in Exhibit A are subject to
disclosure category A. Category B is designed for those positions concerned primarily with
purchasing. It should be noted that purchasing authority in Sonoma rests principally with the City
department heads who are subject to disclosure category A. Therefore, since none of the
designated positions are principally concerned with purchasing, there are no positions subject to
disclosure category B. It was determined, however, to retain a disclosure Category B in the event
such purchasing positions were added by the City in the future. Category C applies to those
positions concerned primarily with real property related authority. According to the FPPC, this
category is most applicable to municipal planning and building personnel.

Approve the resolution amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
N/A
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Agenda Item Summary for September 15, 2010 meeting concerning amendments to the City’s
Conflict of Interest Code
Notice of Intention to Amend A Conflict of Interest Code
Resolution Amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code
cc:
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5I
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Administration Gay Rainsbarger, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Approval of the 2010 Local Agency Biennial Notice indicating that amendments to the City’s Conflict
of Interest Code are necessary.
Summary
The Political Reform Act requires every local agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code every
other year (in even years) to determine if it is accurate or if the Code must be amended. Staff, with
participation from the City Attorney’s office have reviewed the current Conflict of Interest Code and
have identified several areas of potential change. The procedure to change an agency’s Conflict of
Interest Code includes the following steps:
1. Approval of the Biennial Notice no later than October 1, 2010.
2. Providing notice via the posting of and dissemination to affected employees and officials of a
“Notice of Intention to Adopt or Amend a Conflict of Interest Code”. Said notice will advise
interested parties of the proposed amendments and establish a written comment period.
3. Presentation to the City Council of the proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest
Code for consideration and possible adoption. (Must be adopted within 90 days of approval
of the Biennial Notice)
Approve the 2010 Local Agency Biennial Notice indicating that amendments to the City’s Conflict of
Interest Code are necessary.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
N/A
Not Applicable
Attachments:
2010 Local Agency Biennial Notice
Notice from the FPPC
cc:
CITY OF SONOMA
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Sonoma intends to amend its conflict of
interest code pursuant to Government Code Sections 87300, et seq. A conflict of
interest code designates those city employees, members, officers and consultants who
make or participate in the making of decisions. The code requires the persons who hold
such positions to disclose, in financial disclosure statements maintained by the City
Clerk, certain investments, income, interests in real property and business positions that
could be effected by the decisions these persons make or participate in making. The
persons who hold these positions may be required to disqualify themselves from the
making of government decisions that affect those interests.
Cities are required to review their conflict of interest codes every two years and
determine whether amendments to the code are required. The proposed amendments
to the Sonoma code amend the list of designated positions subject to the code and the
description of the economic interests that must be disclosed. Copies of the amended
conflict of interest code, and a written explanation of those amendments, may be
obtained from the City Clerk for the City of Sonoma at 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA 95476.
The City Clerk’s telephone number is 707-933-2216. The City Clerk’s e-mail address is
gjohann@sonomacity.org.
The amended conflict of interest code will be considered by the City Council of the City
of Sonoma at their December 1, 2010 meeting which begins at 6:00 p.m. held in the
Community Meeting Room located at 177 First Street West. Any interested person may
be present at the meeting or may submit written comments concerning the proposed
code. Written comments or other inquiries should be directed to the City Clerk at the
address, telephone number or e-mail address specified above. Written comments
should be submitted no later than the day before the council meeting.
Date: October 25, 2010
_______________
Gay Johann
City Clerk
CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION NO. - 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING

A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AND RESCINDING PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 81000,
et. seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict
of interest codes; and
WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2

California Code of Regulations 18730) which contains the terms of a standard conflict of
interest code and which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission
after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act;
and
WHEREAS, designated officials and employees shall file their statements of

economic interests with the City Clerk of the City of Sonoma and such statements shall
be open for public inspection and reproduction pursuant to Government Code section
81008. Statements for all designated officials and employees will be retained by the City
of Sonoma.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of

Sonoma as follows:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of State Regulations by Reference
With the additions noted below, the terms of Title 2 California Code of Regulations
Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices
Commission is hereby incorporated by reference and together with the List of
Designated Positions and Disclosure Categories, as adopted by the City Council, shall
constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Sonoma.
SECTION 2. Designated Positions with Reporting Requirements
Members of boards and commissions appointed by the City Council, consultants, and
city employees holding designated positions as shown on Exhibit A shall be considered
designated positions subject to reporting requirements under the Conflict of Interest
Code, and shall disclose financial interests as set forth on Exhibit B which lists the
individual disclosure categories. Said Exhibit A and Exhibit B are attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
SECTION 3. Filing of Statements
Persons holding designated positions shall file Statements of Economic Interests with
the City of Sonoma on Fair Political Practices Forms, in conformance with the individual
disclosure categories and State guidelines.
SECTION 4. Late Filings and Failure to File Statements
Any violation of any provision of this Code is subject to the administrative, criminal and
civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000
et seq.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all previous resolutions adopting and/or amending

the City of Sonoma Conflict of Interest Code are hereby rescinded in their entirety.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ______ day of ________ 2010, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Gay Johann, City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
LIST OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS

AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
***see note below
POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY

Accountant A
Administrative Services Manager A
Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services A
Director
Associate Planner C
Building Inspector C
Chief of Police A
City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager A
City Prosecutor A
Contractual Consultants** A
Deputy City Attorney A
Deputy City Clerk A
Development Services Director/Building Official A
Fire Chief A
Fire Division Chief (City) A
Management Analyst, Public Works A
Parks Supervisor A
Planning & Community Services Director A
Plans Examiner C
Public Works Director A
Public Works Operations Manager A
Redevelopment Attorney A
Street Supervisor A
Water Operations Supervisor A
COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY

Community Housing Corp. Board of Directors C
Community Services and Environment Commission A
Design Review Commission C
Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board C
Traffic Safety Committee C
** Contractual Consultant means an individual who, pursuant to a contract with the City,
makes or participates in making governmental decisions. The City Manager may determine in
writing that a particular consultant is hired to perform a range of duties that are limited in scope
and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this
section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and,
based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City
Manager’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the
same manner and location as this conflict of interest code.
*** City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney, and the
City Treasurer are required to file statements of economic interests pursuant to
Government Code Section 87200, and are therefore, not included in the list of
Designated Positions required to file pursuant to the City’s conflict of interest code.
EXHIBIT “B”
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
CATEGORY REPORTABLE INTERESTS

A Investments, business positions, income (including gifts, loans
and travel payments) from sources located in or doing
business in the City, interests in real property located in the
City, including property located within a two-mile radius of any
property owned or used by the City.
B Investments, business positions, and sources of income

(including gifts, loans and travel payments) from or in any
business entity that engages in the type of services, supplies,
materials, machinery, or equipment that is purchased or
acquired by the employee’s department. If the employee is
involved in purchasing decisions that affect more than one
department, then the employee shall disclose all income
(including gifts, loans and travel payments) and investment
interests and business positions in any business that engages
in the type of services, supplies, materials, machinery or
equipment that the City might reasonably be expected to
purchase or acquire.
C Investments in real property or interests in business positions

in any business entity which owns property within the City or
within a two-mile radius of any property owned or used by the
City.
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 5D
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Agenda Item Title
Approval and ratification of the reappointment of Charles Bouey to the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and
Vector Control District Board of Directors for a four-year term ending December 31, 2014.
Summary
Mr. Bouey has represented the City on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District
Board of Directors since 1985 and is eligible for reappointment.
Correspondence from the District indicates that although there is no legal requirement for local
representation on the Board, they continue to support such representation.
Nomination by the Mayor, ratification by the City Council.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
n/a
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Letter from MSMVCD
Charles Bouey
463 France Street
Sonoma CA 95476
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5E
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Administration Linda Kelly, City Manager/Executive Director
Laurie Decker, Economic Development Manager
Agenda Item Title
Approval of Capital Improvement Project for cross-street signage in the amount of $9,000; and
approval of Resolution of the Agency Board amending the FY 2010-2011 budget.
Summary
The Economic Development Partnership is taking a lead role in coordinating efforts to improve visitor-
oriented signage in the Valley to support the local economy. While the major step will be a vehicular
wayfinding signage project, an important intermediary step is to improve the cross-street signage at
signalized intersections along Highway 12 throughout the Valley.
Currently most signalized intersections include only a shield-shaped “Highway 12” marker, and the
standard size pole-mounted City street name signs at the corner. With the exception of the
intersections at Newcomb St. and at Agua Caliente Road, cross-street name signage on traffic signal
arms along Highway 12 is non-existent in the Valley (although it does exist at some other signalized
intersections, e.g. Napa Road/8th St. East and Leveroni Road/5th St. West.) In a recent survey of the
largest businesses in the Valley, 58% identified the need for improved cross-street signage as being
“critical” or “very important”. The Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau also supports cross-street signage
improvements.
Caltrans has detailed requirements and specifications for street name signage on traffic signal arms,
but it is Caltrans standard policy not to install street name signage unless done at the City’s direction
and expense. However, based on information provided to the City’s traffic engineer at Winzler & Kelly
by Caltrans, if the City provides the signage and the mounting hardware in accordance with their
specifications, Caltrans will install the signage at no charge.
Within the City, there are a total of five signalized intersections along Highway 12 where cross-street
signage is recommended: MacArthur St.; Second St. West; Fifth Street West; Highway 12/West Napa
St. (the “bend”); and West Spain Street. Excluded is the intersection at Leveroni/Napa Road, where
signage will be included as part of upcoming signal improvements, and the signal at the entrance to
Maxwell Village (no cross street). In addition to cross-street names, signage improvements to these
five intersections would include the appropriate name signage for Highway 12 (e.g. Broadway, West
Napa Street, or Sonoma Highway) where feasible. All five of these intersections are located within the
CDA redevelopment project area, and the signage improvements are redevelopment-eligible
expenditures.
Winzler & Kelly has provided a proposal to inventory the existing intersections, develop the proposed
signage, and to coordinate with the City and Caltrans on sign fabrication and installation. Total cost for
the project (five intersections) is estimated at $9,000. The Winzler & Kelly tasks would be done under
the existing Master Agreement with the City. This project is not currently included in the CIP, so a
budget amendment would be required. The current five-year redevelopment Implementation Plan does
include a total of $105,000 ($35,000 per year for 3 years) for visitor-oriented signage improvements.

Approve a Capital Improvement Project for cross-street signage in the amount of $9,000 and approve
resolution of the Agency Board of the Community Development Agency amending the FY 2010-2011
budget.
Agenda Item 5E
Alternative Actions
Do not approve.
Financial Impact

Not Applicable
Attachments:
Resolution
cc:
Economic Development Advisory Committee members via email
Wendy Peterson, Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau
SONOMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION ___-2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE AGENCY BOARD OF THE

SONOMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AMENDING THE FY 2010-2011 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the 2010/2011 Fiscal Year Budget was adopted on June 23, 2010,
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to its adoption the Agency Board approved an Capital

Improvement project for cross-street signage in the amount of $9,000 and,
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the CDA/CIP fund for this budget
amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this Agency Board that the Budget

for Fiscal Year 2011 is hereby amended as stated.
The foregoing Resolution was duly adopted this 1st day of December 2010, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Steve Barbose, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Gay Johann, Secretary
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5F
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Administration Linda Kelly, City Manager/Executive Director
Laurie Decker, Economic Development Manager
Agenda Item Title
Approval of Community Development Agency (CDA) redevelopment loan in the amount of $25,000
to Benz, Ebbesen, Anderson, LLC for improvements to the commercial property at 967 Broadway.
Summary
Property owners Benz, Ebbesen, Anderson, LLC, have applied for a redevelopment loan in the amount
of $25,000 for interior improvements to the commercial property located at 967 Broadway. The
property is located within the CDA Redevelopment Project Area.
Thomas Anderson & Company, which previously occupied the property, has relocated to smaller
offices at 822 Broadway. The owners plan to lease the property at 967 Broadway to Freixenet U.S.A.,
an international wine producer and owner of Gloria Ferrer Champagne Cellars. Freixenet will be
relocating and expanding their Human Resources, International Marketing and Sales, and Executive
Management offices from their current location at 23555 Highway 121 (at Gloria Ferrer Cellars). The
initial term of the lease would be five years, with a five year renewal option.
The applicants indicate that the Freixenet relocation would include approximately 20 – 30 middle and
upper level positions, and the company will be employing up to 10 additional employees at the new
location, for a total of up to 40 jobs located in downtown Sonoma. In addition to job creation, ancillary
benefits are likely to include increased business-to-business spending within the Project Area. The
offices would not be a retail sales location.
The improvement project includes relocation of interior walls, doors, water heater, and closets; removal
of a restroom; and addition of one exterior window, doors, and a skylight. Total project cost (excluding
contingency for change orders) is estimated by Thomas Anderson & Co., which would serve as general
contractor, at $33,950. Of this total, $25,844 is for subcontractor costs.
The applicants have applied under the Redevelopment Business Loan Program, which provides loans
of up to $25,000 (and in some cases, more) based on the benefits of the particular project. The CDA’s
attorney has confirmed that improvements of the type included in the application, while not specifically
identified in the program guidelines, are eligible for redevelopment assistance at the discretion of the
Agency Board.
The application was considered by the CDA Loan Committee (with CDA Board member Barbose
serving as an alternate for Board member Sanders) on November 1, 2010. Based on the Committee’s
review, a loan with the following terms is being recommended for Agency Board consideration:
x Low-interest (2%) loan for $25,000;

x Seven year term; interest accrues annually, but loan payments are deferred for the first four
years; annual loan payments begin in year 5 and continue for three years;
x The loan is due in full if the property is sold during the term of the loan, or if the business
ceases to occupy the property within the first five years.
Agenda Item 5F
Cost estimates for the project would be subject to review by the City’s Building Official prior to
execution of the loan documents. The loan would be secured by the property. Prevailing wage
requirements would apply to the project.

CDA Board approve the loan and authorize staff to execute loan agreement.
Alternative Actions
Amend loan amount or terms, request more information, or deny the application at this time.
Financial Impact
The $25,000 is available in the CDA loan program budget.
Not Applicable
Attachments:
cc:
Tom Anderson, 822 Broadway
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 5G
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Agenda Item Title
Approval of a resolution declaring the results of the November 2, 2010 General Municipal Election.
Summary
A General Municipal election was conducted in the City of Sonoma on November 2, 2010 for the
purpose of electing three (3) Members of the City Council.
At the time of preparation of the agenda packet, the official statement of votes cast had not been
received from the County Clerk; however staff has been assured it will be available prior to the
December 1 City Council Meeting. The resolution will be completed and copies of the official
statement of votes cast will be made available at, or prior to, the City Council meeting.
Adopt the resolution.
Alternative Actions
n/a
Financial Impact
n/a
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Resolution
CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION NO. - 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA

RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010, DECLARING THE RESULT AND
SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Sonoma,
California, on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that
voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects
the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns
made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the
State of California for the holding of elections in general law cities; and
WHEREAS, the County Election Department canvassed the returns of the election and has
certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as
“Exhibit A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA, DOES RESOLVE,
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the precincts except absent voter ballots and
provisional ballots was ____.
That the whole number of vote by mail ballots cast in the City was ____, the whole
number of provisional ballots cast in the City was ___, making a total of _____ ballots
cast in the City.
Section 2. That the names of persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council are
as follows: Tom Rouse, David Cook, Antoinette L. Castrone, Mike Gillaspie, Ken Brown,
Steve Barbose, and Fred Martin.
Section 3. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the
City to each of the persons above named for the respective offices for which the persons
were candidates were as listed in “Exhibit A” attached.
Section 4. The City Council does declare and determine that: 1) Steve Barbose, Ken Brown, and
Tom Rouse were elected as Members of the City Council for the full term of four years.
Section 5. That the City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City, a statement
of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City;
(2) The names of the persons voted for; (3) For what office each person was voted for;
(4) The number of votes given at each precinct to each person; and (5) The total number
of votes given to each person.
Section 6. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of the persons so elected
a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City Clerk
shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the
Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the
office of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted
into the respective office to which they have been elected.
Section 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter
it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED 1st day of December 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item 5H
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Public Works Toni Bertolero, City Engineer
Agenda Item Title
Approve the Notice of Completion for First Street West Inlet Improvements Project No. 0816 by
Greener Excavators and Construction and Direct the City Clerk to File the Document
Summary
The City Manager awarded the contract to Greener Excavators and Construction on June 17, 2010.
The work generally consisted of storm drain inlet modifications, fabrication and installation of a
galvanized structural steel trash rake assembly at the inlet and other related improvements. Final
punch-list items have been completed and signed off by the Public Works Inspector. At this time, all
work has been completed in accordance with the contract and it is recommended that the Notice of
Completion (NOC) be approved and the City Clerk directed to file the NOC at the County Recorder’s
Office. There were two (2) “no cost increase” contract change orders for this project. A summary of
the final contract amount, including approved contract change orders (CCO) to date are shown on
the table below.
Contract Summary Table
General Description Amount
Approved Original Contract and Contract Pay Items $19,856.00
CCO Additional Working Days $0
#1
CCO# Additional Working Days $0
2
Final Contract Amount $19,856.00

It is recommended that Council approve the Notice of Completion for the First Street West Inlet
Improvements Project No. 0816 by Greener Excavators and Construction and Direct the City Clerk
to File the Document.
Alternative Actions
None.
Financial Impact
City Council approved a CIP budget of $150,000 for construction of this project as part of the
FY2010 through 2014 Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Up to $145,000 is being reimbursed
by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Zone 3A funds. Because this project is well under the
Zone 3A maximum amount, the project will be fully funded by SCWA without a local match. Any
unused funds will be returned to SCWA.
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Notice of Completion
When recorded, return to:
City Clerk
City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
OFFICIAL BUSINESS: Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant to California Government code §6103.
NOTICEOFCOMPLETION

NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENTHAT:
1. Thatonthe__16th___dayof__November_,2010,thepublicprojectknownas:
FIRSTSTREETWESTINLETIMPROVEMENTSPROJECTNO.0816wascompleted.

2. ThatthenameandaddressofthepartyfilingthisNoticeis:
CityofSonoma,No.1ThePlaza,Sonoma,CA95476

3. ThatthenameandaddressoftheContractorresponsiblefortheconstructionofsaid
publicprojectis:
GreenerExcavationsandConstruction
57MapleAve
Fairfax,CA94930

4. ThatthenameandaddressofsaidContractor’sinsurancecarriersis:
NorthAmericanSpecialtyInsuranceCompany
650ElmStreet,6thFloor
Manchester,NH03101Ͳ2524

5. Thatthegeneraldescriptionofthepublicprojectwas:Ditch and inlet modifications,
including cast-in-place concrete sill and apron, fabrication and installation of a
galvanized structural steel trash rack rake assembly complete with Type II barricade,
portable trash screen, concrete sidewalk demolition and sidewalk modification, including
placing of concrete winch anchorage, rigging, linkage and below grade utility box and
furnishing a portable generator and winch.

6. Thattheoriginalcontractamountwas:$_19,856.00__________

RecordingofthisdocumentisrequestedforCITYOFSONOMAandonbehalfoftheCityof
Sonoma,aMunicipalCorporation,underSection6103oftheGovernmentCode.

IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateofCaliforniathattheforegoingis
trueandcorrect.

___________________________ Dated:_____________________,2010
LindaKelly,CityManager

ATTEST: __________________________
CityClerk
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5I
SO
S E AL OF
City Council/CDA
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Planning and Community Services David Goodison, Planning Director
Agenda Item Title
Adoption of a resolution establishing a process to track water demand and verify capacity to serve
new development.
Summary
In light of the decision of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to terminate its water
transmission project, the City is updating its strategy for meeting its projected long-term water
needs. (The City Council held a study session in this regard on September 8th.) In the interim, the
City must carefully monitor its water use to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to address new
development and redevelopment. Staff proposes to accomplish this through a monitoring program
that includes the issuance of will-serve letters as a means of verifying capacity prior to the issuance
of building permits for certain types of development. This concept was developed in consultation
with the City Engineer and vetted by the Planning Commission earlier in the year. When the City
Council reviewed this proposal in concept at its meeting of September 15, 2010, it directed staff to
prepare an implementing resolution to implement such a program.
Adopt the attached resolution establishing a process to track water demand and verify capacity to
serve new development.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
For certain types of development, as specified in the resolution, a water demand analysis would be
required for review by the City Engineer. The preparation of this analysis is a cost that would be
borne by applicants for new development. These reports would be reviewed by the City Engineer,
which represents a cost to the City. However, this review would typically be undertaken in the course
of reviewing improvement plans and other required project documentation and the time spent by the
City Engineer is billed to the applicant, which offsets the cost to the City. That said, the review of a
water demand analysis is not a lengthy process and staff does not expect that it would result in a
significant cost to affected applicants.
Not Applicable
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
cc: Matt Howarth, Planning Commission Chair (via email)
CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ESTABLISHING A

PROCESS TO TRACK WATER DEMAND AND VERIFY CAPACITY TO SERVE NEW
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, with the decision of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) in September 2009 to
terminate the water transmission project, the Agency cannot commit to supplying water to its water
contractors beyond its existing Russian River water diversion permit amount of 75,000 acre-feet per year;
and
WHEREAS, as a result of this change in direction on the part of the SCWA, the City of Sonoma is
updating its strategy for meeting its projected long-term water needs; and
WHEREAS, in the interim, the City of Sonoma, as the water utility for Sonoma, must carefully monitor
water use to ensure that there is adequate water supply to address new development and redevelopment in
order to avoid disruption to the development community and prevent environmental impacts that could
occur as a result of insufficient supply.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and
declares as follows:
Section I
A program for tracking water demand and verifying capacity to serve new development is hereby
established as follows:
A. Tracking Water Demand.
All new development and redevelopment having a projected demand of at least 0.5 Equivalent Single
Family Dwellings (ESDs) shall be tracked and monitored in terms of water use. This tracking shall be
performed by the Planning Department and the Building Department using forms developed by the
Planning Department and shall be transmitted to the Public Works Department and the City Engineer on
an on-going basis.
B. Establishing Baseline Water Supply Capacity.
The City Engineer shall calculate the water supply available to serve new development, including projects
that have been approved but not yet built, based on the City’s water supply from the Sonoma County
Water Agency and local supply, and the City’s existing water demand associated with a normal
hydrologic water year, and other such factors deemed relevant by the City Engineer.
C. Requirement for Demand Analysis and Will-Serve Letter.
1. Applicability. Building permits associated with the following types of projects shall be issued
only upon the issuance of a will-serve letter by the City Engineer, verifying that sufficient water
supply exists to serve it: Residential developments of two or more units; new hotels; new
restaurants; new commercial development (including commercial additions and expansions) of
2,000 square feet or greater; and any use subject to discretionary planning approval with a water
usage of 5 ESDs or greater.
2. Criteria. The City Engineer shall develop written criteria for evaluating will-serve requests, to
include the scope and content of a required water demand analysis.
3. Timing of Request. To request a will-serve letter a development must have received all required
discretionary approvals and any required public improvement plans must be complete. A letter of
request must be submitted to the City Engineer along with a water demand analysis.
4. Determination by City Engineer. If the City Engineer determines that sufficient water capacity is
available and that all other applicable requirements have been met, then a will-serve letter shall be
issued. Alternatively, an applicant may qualify for a will-serve letter by demonstrating to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the project would have a zero net water demand as a result
of the implementation of specific conservation measures. If the City Engineer determines that
there is insufficient water capacity to serve a development for which a will serve-letter has been
requested, that finding shall be communicated to the applicant in writing, along with
recommendations for water use reduction measures, if available, that could be used to achieve
compliance based on a revised submittal by the applicant.
5. Expiration. A will-serve letter shall be valid only so long as any applicable discretionary
approvals are valid or for a period of two years in cases where there is no discretionary approval
associated with the project. There is no automatic extension permitted for will-serve letters.
Upon the expiration of will-serve letter, the applicant shall request another will-serve letter.
6. Right of Appeal. The denial of a request for a will-serve letter shall be appealable to the City
Council, as provided for in Chapter 1.24 of the Sonoma Municipal Code.
D. Reporting.
The Planning Department shall provide quarterly reports to the City Council and the Planning
Commission summarizing the results of the tracking system in relation to the City’s available water
supply.
E. Expiration.
This program shall expire on January 1, 2013, unless specifically reauthorized by the City Council.
Section II
The tracking system for water demand established by this resolution represents an action taken in the
regulatory capacity of the City of Sonoma as the operator of a water utility to protect the environment by
assuring that an adequate water supply exists to serve new development with water and to provide the
City Council, as the operator of the water utility, with timely information so that it can take steps to avoid
environmental disruption that might otherwise occur due to a lack of sufficient water supply capacity.
Based on these factors, the City Council finds that the adoption of the water tracking system provided for
in this resolution would have no significant environmental impacts and therefore qualifies as categorically
exempt under section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___th day of December 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
ATTEST:
_____________________________
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 5J
SO
S E AL OF
City Council/CDA
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Planning and Community Services David Goodison, Planning Director
Agenda Item Title
Authorization to approve the purchase of wetland credits to mitigate the removal of wetlands in
conjunction with the sale of properties owned by the Sonoma Community Development Agency
(CDA) located at 19347 Fifth Street West and 726 West Spain Street.
Summary
In November of 2009, the CDA entered into a purchase agreement with Woven Shade/Peak
Partners for the sale of five parcels located on Fifth Street West and West Spain Street. In the
course of the initial due diligence period, a wetland was been found on the larger parcel. Beginning
in March, the CDA and the Buyers agreed to a series of extensions of the escrow period in order to
determine the scope and nature of the wetland and to proceed to obtain the permits needed to allow
them to be filled. Since that time, number of actions have been taken: 1) a wetlands delineation has
been completed and accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers; 2) the property has been surveyed
for rare plants (none were found); 3) the Woven Shade project (including environmental review) was
approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 2010; 4) applications have been made to the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Board for permits allowing the wetland to be filled.
As a condition of the permits allowing the wetlands to be filled, the purchase of mitigation credits is
required at a 2:1 replacement ratio, which results in a purchase amount of 2/10ths of an acre.
Credits acceptable to the permitting agencies may be purchased from the Burdell Ranch Wetland
Conservation Bank at a cost of $68,830 per tenth of an acre. Note: the price of the credits is
scheduled to increase by 10% after January 1, 2011.
Authorize the Community Development Agency Executive Director to execute the purchase of two
wetlands credits from the Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank.
Alternative Actions
N.A.
Financial Impact
Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the CDA is responsible for securing the permits needed
to fill the wetland, including the purchase of wetlands credits. The purchase price of two credits
amounts to $137,660. The parcels are being sold for $1,450,000, which more than offsets the cost of
the credits. Because the subject properties were purchased with funds from the CDA’s Low-
Moderate Income Housing Fund, proceeds from the sale of the properties will be deposited back into
that fund as is required by the Community Redevelopment Law.
Not Applicable
Attachments:
1. Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank Transaction Documents
cc: Woven Shade/Inge Hudzell, Sotheby’s via email
Mr. Goodison,
The following are the documents used for the purchase of mitigation credits:
The Acknowledgement of Sale and the Notification of Sale are sent to the
federal and state agencies by the Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank
when mitigation credits are sold. The Bill of Sale will be given to the Sonoma
Community Development Agency at the time of purchase. A W9 Form will be
provided whenever requested.
For the Acknowledgement of Sale there are three Endorsed Originals which contain:
• A.C.O.E. File Number - 2010-00216N
• Name of Project Developer - Sonoma Community Development Agency
• Business Address - No.1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476
• Name of Person Authorized to Sign for Purchasing Entity - Linda Kelly
• Title of Person Authorized to Sign for Purchasing Entity - Executive Director,

Sonoma CDA
Note: The authorization letters to sell the mitigation credits will be attached to the
Acknowledgment of Sale as Exhibits A and B.
For the Notification of Sale there are two Endorsed Originals which contain:
• Name of Project Developer - Sonoma Community Development Agency
• Purchasing Entity (if different than Project Developer)
• Contact Person - David Goodison
• Phone Number -707-938-3795
• A.C.O.E. File Number - 2010-00216N
• Project Title -Woven Shade Residential Care Home
• Project Location - 19347 Fifth Street West, Sonoma, CA
Thank you,
Anthony Georges
BURDELL RANCH
WETLAND CONSERVATION BANK
P.O. Box 2039

Mill Valley, California 94942 Tel. 415-602-4151
Acknowledgment of Sale of Mitigation Credits
Army Corps File No. 2010-00216N
The undersigned Seller hereby acknowledges that it has sold and conveyed to the
Sonoma Community Development Agency, No.1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476, two (2)
Mitigation Credits from the Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank for the Woven Shade
Residential Care Home.
All terms of the conveyance shall be governed by the provisions of the Burdell Ranch
Wetland Conservation Bank Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated August 22, 2000 and the
Agreement for Sale of Mitigation Credits, dated August 2, 2010, entered into between Seller and
Department, which by their reference are incorporated herein. Seller represents that the MOA
has been executed by all of the parties thereto, and a grant deed transferring fee title of the
Conservation Bank has been executed by Seller to the California Department of Fish and Game,
and accepted by the Department, and recorded on March 27, 2001, Marin County Records,
#2001-0014535.
Authorization to sell these mitigation credits is contained in the letters dated August 2,
2002, and October 15, 2003, from the Army Corps of Engineers, copies of which are attached.
SELLER
Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank
By: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________
Anthony J. Georges
Managing Tenant in Common
BUYER
Sonoma Community Development Agency
By: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________
Linda Kelly
Executive Director, Sonoma CDA
1
Cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Game
Burdell TIC
James B. McKenney
2
Bill of Sale
In consideration of $137,660.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The Burdell

Tenancy In Common hereby sells and conveys to Sonoma Community Development Agency,
two (2) wetland mitigation credits for the Woven Shade Residential Care Home, from the
Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank in Marin County, California.
Burdell Tenancy In Common,

Manager of the Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank
By: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________

Anthony J. Georges
BURDELL RANCH
WETLAND CONSERVATION BANK
P.O. Box 2039

Mill Valley, California 94942 Tel. 415-602-4151
November __, 2010
Notification of Sale of Mitigation Credits
Bryan Matsumoto Scott Wilson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dept. of Fish and Game
Regulatory division P. O. Box 47
1455 Market Street, 16th Floor Yountville, CA 94599
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Co-Chairs:
Enclosed are:
1. Acknowledgment of the sale of two (2) Mitigation Credits, in accordance with the
authorizations of credit availability from the Army Corps of Engineers (Army File No. 173370N)
dated August 2, 2002 and (Army File No. 173371N) dated October 15, 2003.
Project Developer Sonoma Community Development Agency
Contact David Goodison

707-938-3795
A.C.O.E. File Number 2010-00216N
Date of Purchase November __, 2010
Project Title Woven Shade Residential Care Home
Project Location 19347 Fifth Street West, Sonoma, CA
Type of Wetlands Seasonal
Credits Purchased 2
2. Check to the Department of Fish and Game (copy to A.C.O.E.) in the amount of $1,660
in accordance with the Declaration of Trust Agreement as provided in Section VI-C-3, which has
been amended to change the endowment from $230 to $830 per credit.
1
If you have any questions or comments, please call Tony Georges at 415-602-4151. Your
continuing assistance is appreciated.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Anthony J. Georges
Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank
Cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Burdell TIC
James B. McKenney
2
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma
City Council Agenda Item: 8A
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
Agenda Item Summary
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
C
FO
AL
UN
DED 1
8 23
IA
IFORN

Administration Linda Kelly, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
Summary
Each year the City Council conducts a reorganization by selecting from among its members a Mayor
and Mayor Pro Tempore to serve for the upcoming year. The Mayor presides at City Council meetings
and serves as the official head of the City for ceremonial purposes. The Mayor Pro Tempore performs
the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor’s absence or disability. This reorganization usually takes
place at the first regular meeting in December.
The selection process proceeds as follows: Mayor Barbose will ask for nominations for the position of
Mayor. To make a nomination, Council members need only state “I nominate ________”.
Nominations do not require seconds; however, other members may express support of a nomination by
making a seconding speech. When there are no more nominations, Mayor Barbose will declare
nominations for the position of Mayor closed and will allow public comments, if any. A roll call vote will
then be taken beginning with the first nominee. If that nominee receives a majority vote they are
declared the winner and no additional votes are taken on the remaining nominees. If a majority vote is
not achieved for any of the nominees, the nomination and voting process will be repeated, voting on
the nominees in the order of their nomination, until a candidate has received a majority vote.
The same process will be followed in selecting the Mayor Pro Tempore.
Select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
N/A
Not Applicable
Attachments:
None
cc:
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda 10A
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
Item:
FO
12-01-10
Agenda Item Summary
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL
IFORN
IA Meeting Date:

Administration Assistant City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Review and Consideration of a Refuse Rate Adjustment and Certain Program Modifications for 2010-
2011 with City Franchisee Sonoma Garbage Company, Inc.
Summary
The City’s franchise Refuse Hauler, Sonoma Garbage Company, Inc [SGC] has submitted the
proposed rate increase for the 2010-2011 annual period. The proposal includes three components for
consideration. SGC’s updated program includes the need for additional capacity for replacing an aging
refuse collection vehicle and the initiation of a pilot food waste collection for local commercial
establishments. All proposals are geared towards bringing cost effective solutions to address the
needs of the community. Discussion of all three components has taken place in a meeting with
Sonoma Garbage. Participants in the meeting included Sonoma Garbage representatives John
Curroto and Ken Wells and City representatives Mayor Barbose, City Manager Kelly and Assistant City
Manager Giovanatto. Mayor Barbose participated in the discussion to provide insight and feedback as
the City’s representative to the Solid Waste Advisory Group and the Sonoma County Waste
Management Agency.
Refuse Rate Increase for Refuse Collection

In accordance with the Franchise agreement and based on the Refuse Rate Iindex calculation, SGC
would be approved for a 5.03% rate increase effective December 1, 2010. The impact to the typical
residential rate payer [32 gallon user] will be $.55 per month.

Staff recommends Council approval of all program components and rate increase proposed by
Sonoma Garbage as follows:
1. Rate increase of 5.03% effective December 1, 2010
2. Application of Extenuating Circumstances for Vehicle Replacement
3. Allow hauler to perform a pilot project to study Commercial Food Waste Composting Service
Alternative Actions
1) Defer action pending receipt of additional specified information
Financial Impact
The combined rate increase for the typical residential customer in Sonoma [32 gallon container]
would be $0.55 per month. Franchise fee revenue is estimated to increase by approximately $6,000
Attachments
Supplemental Report
Resolution
cc: Sonoma Garbage Collectors via email

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Review and Consideration of a Refuse Rate Adjustment & Certain Program
Modifications for 2010-2011 with Sonoma Garbage Company, Inc.
For City Council meeting of December 1, 2010
The City’s franchise Refuse Hauler, Sonoma Garbage Company, Inc [SGC] has
submitted the proposed rate increase for the 2010-2011 annual period. The proposal
includes three components for consideration as outlined in the document [attached].
SGC’s updated program includes the need for additional capacity for replacing an aging
refuse collection vehicle and the initiation of a pilot food waste collection for local
commercial establishments. All proposals are geared towards bringing cost effective
solutions to address the needs of the community. Discussion of all three components
has taken place in a meeting with Sonoma Garbage. Participants in the meeting
included Sonoma Garbage representatives John Curroto and Ken Wells and City
representatives Mayor Barbose, City Manager Kelly and Assistant City Manager
Giovanatto. Mayor Barbose participated in the discussion to provide insight and
feedback as the City’s representative to the Solid Waste Advisory Group and the
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency. The three components are summarized
as follows:
1. Proposed Increase in Refuse Collection Rates 2010-11
The franchise agreement with SGC requires an annual financial review of the franchisee
and calculation of appropriate rate increase. In 2007, the City adopted the methodology
formulated by Sonoma County Waste Management Agency based on a Refuse Rate
Index [RRI]. The RRI is a price indexing method designed specifically for adjusting
collection rates based on various published indices that are applicable to the actual
costs incurred by a refuse hauler rather than an estimated percentage increase based
on financial reports. The RRI methodology produces a more accurate rate adjustment
since the RRI includes only those economic changes that directly affect solid waste and
recycling collection costs. Using this method, the collection rates are based on changes
in cost categories that are specific to the collection business. Annually the City will
calculate the RRI rate percentage using a weighted percentage change to six specific
cost categories of labor, fuel, vehicle replacement, vehicle maintenance, tipping fees and
other.
Refuse Rate Increase

Based on the RRI calculation, SGC would be approved for a 5.03% rate increase
effective December 1, 2010. The impact to the typical residential rate payer [32 gallon
user] will be $.55 per month.
2. Provision for Extraordinary Circumstances

The RRI methodology also includes a provision for the hauler to apply for a higher
percentage based on “Extraordinary Circumstances.” These circumstances would
include any additional unanticipated operational needs such as vehicle purchase or
replacement.
Proposed Garbage Rate Adjustment
December 1, 2010
SGC’s proposal includes a request under this provision for replenishment of vehicle
replacement funds and purchase of garbage truck estimated at $360,000 [including
finance charges]. This purchase is allowable under the Extraordinary Circumstances
provision. The new truck will replace a 1989 truck, which is well beyond its expected life.
In an effort to mitigate an impact on the monthly refuse rates, SGC has proposed that
they be allowed to invoke a modified delivery location for 50% of the solid waste
collected in Sonoma. By redirecting approximately half of the refuse material, the hauler
would save significant tipping fee dollars which could then be directed towards this
extraordinary circumstance. SGC further recognizes the need to compensate Sonoma
County Waste Management Agency for the loss of revenue due to the redirected waste
stream. The costs for this payment would be paid directly from SGC to the Sonoma
County Waste Management Agency.
3. Perform Pilot Project to Study Commercial Food Waste Composting

Service
SGC has brought a new proposal to the table involving the collection of commercial food
waste for composting. This service would be offered to business customers at no
additional charge over their current collection service cost. Participation in this program
would be voluntary for businesses that generate food waste such as restaurants, grocery
stores, inns, etc. Initiating this type of program in Sonoma would be the first of its kind in
Sonoma County.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approval of all program components and rate increase
proposed by Sonoma Garbage as described above. In summary, this
recommendation, which requires adoption of the attached resolution, is
comprised of the following elements:
1. Rate increase of 5.03% effective December 1, 2010

2. Application of Extenuating Circumstances for Vehicle Replacement
3. Allow hauler to perform a pilot project to study Commercial Food Waste
Composting Service
Attachments
1. Sonoma Garbage Collectors proposal

2. RRI Calculation Worksheets
3. Resolution
ProposalforSonomaGarbageCollectorsRateSettingfor
December2010–November2011
1)ApplytheRefuseRateIndexandFranchiseFeeto2009–2010Rates
Asspecifiedinthefranchiseagreement,applicationoftheRefuseRateIndexresultsina5.03%
increasetoresidential,commercialanddebrisboxrates.
2)ApplytheExtenuatingCircumstancesClauseintheFranchiseAgreement
Allowupto50%ofsolidwastecollectedinSonoma(nottoexceed3,000tons)tobedeliveredto
disposalfacilitiesoutsideSonomaCountyforatleasttwoyearsandtheresultingdisposalsavings
wouldbeusedtoreplenishthevehiclereplacementfundsandpurchaseanewcollectiontruck.
3)DirectPaymenttoSCWMA
InordertocontinuetocontributetheCityofSonoma’sshareoffundingtoSCWMA,adirect
paymentof$5.95/tonwillbemadetotheSCWMAforeachtonofwastedeliveredtodisposal
facilitiesoutsideSonomaCounty.ThisratewillbeadjustedtomatchtheSCWMAsurchargeifit
changes.
4)PerformPilotProjectToStudyCommercialFoodWasteCompostingService
SonomaGarbageCollectorsproposestotestthefeasibilityofcommercialfoodwastecomposting
byimplementingapilotprojectforSonomabusinessesthatgeneratefoodwastesuchas
restaurants,grocerystores,inns,etc.
Thisservice(64Ͳgalloncollectioncartsandtwiceweeklyservice)willbeofferedtobusiness
customersintheCityofSonomaatnoadditionalchargeovertheircurrentcollectionservicecost.
Thepilotprojectwillbeusedtogathercriticalinformationnecessarytodeterminethelevelof
businessinterestandcostofsuchaprogram.
Followingatleastsixmonthsofthepilotproject,SonomaGarbageCollectorswillreturntothe
Citywithareportthatincludes:
Ͳ thelevelofinterestofbusinessestoparticipateintheprogram,
Ͳ thequantityoffoodwastethatcanbecollected,and
Ͳ thecosttoimplementaCityͲwidecommercialfoodwastecompostingservice.
Iftheprogramiseconomicallyviable,acommercialfoodwastecompostingcollectionratewillbe
proposedtotheCitytoaddthisservicetothesolidwastecollectionratesheet.

5)RateComparisonofCurrentandProposedRates
Service Level Adopted Rates effective Proposed Rates

October 2009 - (with 5.03% increase)
November 2010 effective December 2010 –
November 2011
Rate for refuse collection once each week
20 gallon can 6.64 6.97
32 gallon can 10.88 11.43
64 gallon can 23.62 24.81
90 gallon can 36.25 38.07
2 cubic yard bin 136.64 143.51
Rate each pickup for refuse bins on a variable pickup schedule
Each 2 cy bin 31.68 33.27
Each 4 cy bin 63.36 66.55
Debris Box
Debris Box 20 yd 356.21 374.13
Debris Box 30 yd 478.42 502.48
6)RateComparisonwithOtherCities(weeklycollection)
Proposed2011Sonomaratescomparedto2010ratesinothercities.
City 32Ͳgallon 2Ͳcubicyard 4Ͳcubicyard
Sonoma $11.43 $143.51 $287.02
Cloverdale $17.18 $191.97 $284.58
Cotati $10.20 $173.57 $258.59
Healdsburg $11.22 $201.93 $343.41
SantaRosa $11.28 $222.30 $336.05
Sebastopol $12.25 $230.19 $363.17
Windsor $13.38 $230.84 $368.30
Example of commercial rate comparison: A 2 cubic yard bin picked up weekly in Santa Rosa will
cost $2,667.60 for one year. The same service in Sonoma will cost $1,722.12, a savings of
$945.48 annually.

Effective December 1, 2010
Monthly Rates for Weekly Curbside Pick-up
Service Level Adopted Rates

effective December 2010
(5.03% increase)
20 gallon can 6.97
32 gallon can 11.43
64 gallon can 24.81
90 gallon can 38.07
2 cubic yard bin 143.51
Each 2 cy bin 33.27
Each 3 cy bin 49.91
Each 4 cy bin 66.55
Debris Box
Debris Box 20 yd (includes 2 tons of waste) 374.13
Anadditionalchargeof$10permonthforeachbinwillbeappliedtobinservice.
Wasteindebrisboxesabovetheincludedquantitywillbechargedattheprevailingwastedisposalrate.

TABLE 1
REFUSE RATE INDEX CALCULATION
Weighted
% Item Percentage
Item # Category Data Source Change Weight Change
Series ID: CUURA422SA0 CPI-All Urban

1 Labor Consumers 3.20% 39% 1%
Series ID: WPU057303

2 Motor Fuel Diesel Fuel 1.33% 4% 0.05%
Vehicle Series ID: CUURA422SA0 CPI-All Urban

3 Replacement Consumers 3.20% 4% 0.13%
Vehicle Series ID: CUURA422SA0 CPI-All Urban

4 Maintenance Consumers 3.20% 4% 0.13%
Series ID: CUURA422SA0 CPI-All Urban

5 CPI All Items Consumers 3.20% 9% 0.28%
Annual Tipping Fee Increase at the

6 Disposal Sonoma County Central Landfill 8.00% 40% 3.18%
Total RRI Adjustment
TOTAL RRI ADJUSTMENT 5.03%
OPERATING COST STATEMENT FOR REFUSE RATE INDEX
Cost Category Description Annual Cost % of Total
1 Labor 784,610 39%
2 Motorfuel 81,635 4%
Equipment
3 Replacement 80,962 4%
Vehicle
4 Maintenance 79,913 4%
5 All Other Items 175,736 9%
6 Disposal 791,864 40%
Total 1,994,720 100%
Annual Costs based on Annual Financial Statement Dated 12-31-09.

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION NO. ___ - 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA FIXING

GARBAGE RATES (SONOMA GARBAGE COLLECTORS)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.08.030A of the Sonoma Municipal Code, the City of Sonoma
adopted Resolution Number 87-94 approving a contract with John D. Curotto, Margaret Curotto,
and John D. Curotto, Jr. (Sonoma Garbage Collectors) for the exclusive right to collect and
remove garbage and rubbish within the city; and
WHEREAS, certain costs are a result of the collection and disposal process and are
therefore eligible to be recovered through a fair rate of return, and
WHEREAS, the City and Contractor agree to determine rate increase and fair rate of
return using a modified Refuse Rate Index [RRI] methodology designed specifically for adjusting
collection rates based on published indices that are applicable to the actual costs incurred by a
refuse hauler, and
WHEREAS, the maximum rates which Sonoma Garbage Collectors may charge for its
services must be approved and established by resolution of the City Council of the City of
Sonoma; and
WHEREAS, the 2010-11 percentage determined by the RRI be borne by the ratepayers
through an increase of 5.03% of the current rate schedule effective December 1, 2010 in order
to effectuate a revenue neutral financial position, and
WHEREAS, certain other modifications are included with the Refuse Rate increase
include the deviation to delivery site of refuse material on a not to exceed limit of 50% to reduce
tipping fee costs which shall be placed in reserve for vehicle replacement and the
implementation of a pilot program for food waste collection for commercial establishments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma
hereby fixes the maximum rates to be charged for the collection of garbage and rubbish as
shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference, and made a part
hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contractor shall be allowed to redirect 50% of

the waste stream to an alternative collection site and Contractor may initiate a pilot program for
a one-year period for food waste collection from commercial establishments on a voluntary
basis at no additional charge.
The foregoing Resolution was duly adopted this 1st day of December 2010, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
STEVE BARBOSE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
GAY JOHANN, CITY CLERK

Exhibit “A”
Effective December 1, 2010
Monthly Rates for Weekly Curbside Pick-up
Service Level Adopted Rates

effective December 2010
(5.03% increase)
20 gallon can 6.97
32 gallon can 11.43
64 gallon can 24.81
90 gallon can 38.07
Each 2 cy bin 33.27
Each 3 cy bin 49.91
Each 4 cy bin 66.55
Debris Box
An additional charge of $10 per month for each bin will be applied to bin service.
Waste in debris boxes above the included quantity will be charged at the prevailing waste
disposal rate.
E C I T Y OF
TH City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item: 11A
SO
S E AL OF
City Council
N O MA
CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

Agenda Item Summary
FO
UN 8 23
C DED 1
AL IA
IFORN

Administration Jeff Walter, City Attorney
Toni Bertolero, City Engineer
Linda Kelly, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Discussion, consideration and possible action approving a Water Service Consolidation Agreement
with Rancho Sonoma Partners LLC, a Cost Recovery Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners,
LLC, and a Resolution adopting a finding of Categorical Exemption and Authorizing a Grant
Application for Water System Improvements at the Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park, all
related to the City of Sonoma’s application for a State Revolving Fund Grant to connect Rancho de
Sonoma Mobile Home Park to the City of Sonoma Public Water System
Summary
At the City Council meeting of July 21, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare an application
to the State of California Department of Public Health in support of a Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) Grant to connect Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park to the City’s public water
system. The California Department of Public Health Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency have determined that the well water that supplies the residences at Rancho de Sonoma
failed and continues to fail to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s maximum contaminant levels for
arsenic. Connecting the Park to City water would rectify this situation. The State has provided the
City with the deadline of December 8, 2010 for submitting preliminary documents in support of the
City’s application. The State has indicated that the first step in this process is to approve a Water
Service Consolidation Agreement with the park owners. This Agreement is necessary to assure the
State that if the grant is provided, the City will accept the obligation of installing the public
improvement including an 8-inch water main (1,700 lineal feet) and related improvements (described
more specifically on Exhibit “B” to the Water Service Consolidation Agreement), that the City will
assume any loan obligation along with the grant, and that the City will agree to consolidate the new
public improvement to be installed, with the City’s public water system. The Cost Recovery
Agreement provides that the mobile home park owners, Rancho Sonoma Partners LLC, shall pay all
costs incurred by the City in connection with the SRF funding application and/or agreement, as
specified in the Cost Recovery Agreement. The Resolution provides for a categorical exemption of
this proposed public project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Approve Water Service Consolidation Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners LLC; approve Cost
Recovery Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC; and adopt Resolution adopting a finding
of Categorical Exemption and Authorizing a Grant Application for Water System Improvements.
Alternative Actions
Suggest amendments to the agreements, or decline to adopt the agreements, thus declining to
apply for the State Revolving Fund grant.
Financial Impact
The estimated cost of the public improvements and water connection fees to be funded by the grant
is approximately $1.1 million. The State has indicated that the State Revolving Fund program
typically consists of an 80% grant and a 20% loan, although another funding combination could be
Agenda Item 11A
offered to the City. The Cost Recovery Agreement states that Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, will
assume responsibility for reimbursing the City for its repayment of the loan portion as well as
reimbursing the City for all legal, engineering, administrative and other costs related to applying for,
administering and reviewing the project.
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Water Service Consolidation Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners LLC
Cost Recovery Agreement with Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC
Resolution adopting a finding of Categorical Exemption and Authorizing a Grant Application
cc: Preston Cook, Steve Jaeger, Sue Loftin via email
Letters of notification regarding this agenda item were mailed to the Residents of Rancho de Sonoma
Mobile Home Park
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
CITY OF SONOMA
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 5476
Rancho De Sonoma Mobile Home Park

APN: 127-141-012 Space above this line for Recorder’s Use Only
Site Address: 19275 Sonoma Highway EXEMPT FROM FEES (GC 6103)
Sonoma, CA 95476
CITY OF SONOMA
WATER SERVICE CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT
THIS WATER SERVICE CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is

made and entered into on the _____ day of ___________, 2010, by and between the CITY OF
SONOMA, a General Law city in the State of California, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and
RANCHO SONOMA PARTNERS LLC, a California limited liability company (“RSP LLC” or
“OWNER”). CITY and OWNER are hereinafter sometimes referred to individually as “Party”
and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. RSP LLC is the owner of certain property commonly referred to as Rancho de

Sonoma Mobile Home Park, consisting of approximately 15.23 acres of land, site address 19275
Sonoma Highway, Sonoma, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-041-012 in the City of
Sonoma, California as more particularly described and shown in Exhibit “A” hereto and
incorporated herein (the “Property” or “Park”). The Property is operated by OWNER as a
mobilehome park, on which are located ninety-nine (99) mobilehome spaces and one rental
apartment unit attached to a laundry building. The Property also contains a swimming pool,
clubhouse and an onsite office. On said Property, the OWNER operates a community water
system (Public Water System Number 4900845) (“OWNER’s Current Water System”) within
city limits and within the City’s water service area. The source of the system’s water is ground
water from a single well; and
B. The OWNER tests the Property’s well water on a quarterly basis. Based on those
test results, in July 2008 the California Department of Health Services (CDPH) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the well water failed and continues to
fail to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (“SDWA”) “maximum contaminant levels” for
arsenic. The EPA issued its Order No. PWS-AO-2008-6014 (“EPA Order”) requiring OWNER
Version: 11/23/10
WATER SERVICE CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT Page: 2 of 13
to take those steps necessary to reduce the well water’s arsenic levels to below the maximum
contaminant levels by June 20, 2010. On April 21, 2010, the EPA amended its EPA Order to
extend OWNER’s compliance due date to December 31, 2011, but required OWNER to provide
information to the EPA by December 31, 2010 indicating that approval, funding and permits are
ready and available as of December 31, 2010, for physical connection to CITY’s public water
system or arsenic treatment has been permitted, constructed and is in operation as of December
31, 2010 (“December 31, 2010 Obligations”). OWNER holds the CITY entirely blameless and
harmless for any liability to satisfy the EPA’s December 31, 2010 Obligations.
C. The OWNER seeks to satisfy the EPA Order by replacing the OWNER’s Current
Water System with the Improvements (defined below) and connecting the Park’s new water
system (“Park’s New Water System”) to the City’s public water system and abandon use of the
well for purposes of providing water for human consumption at the Park; and
D. CITY operates a public water system (Public Water System Number 4910012)
(“CITY’s Water System”) to provide safe, potable water and is permitted to provide water
services to customers within city limits and within the City’s water service area; and
E. OWNER desires to hookup and connect the Property to the CITY’s Water System
in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code and Sonoma Public
Improvement Standards applicable to the Property; and
F. CITY has adopted regulations which establish a program for Water Rates and
Connection Fees and provide for the construction and financing of certain water service
facilities necessitated by new development within the City, through the collection of Water
Service Connection Fees and Charges (“Connection Fees”); and
G. As a public agency, CITY is eligible to apply for a Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) grant and/or low-interest loan (“SRF Funding”) from the CDPH and
OWNER has requested that CITY apply for the SRF Funding on OWNER’s behalf for the costs
associated with the design, construction, inspection, and completion of the Improvements
(defined below), the prosecution, implementation and consummation of the Project (defined
below) and consolidating the Improvements into the CITY’s Water System; and
H. Purely as an accommodation to OWNER, but primarily because the CITY

desires to promote and protect the health and safety of the residents of the Park insofar as their
water supply is concerned, the CITY has agreed to make application to the CDPH for the SRF
Funding subject to the conditions set forth herein (“SRF Funding Application”). The Parties
acknowledge and agree that by undertaking the tasks of researching, preparing, submitting, and
administering the application for SRF Funding as contemplated herein, the CITY is assuming
significant responsibilities and will incur costs and expenses for which the CITY would not
otherwise be liable. OWNER especially appreciates the willingness of the CITY to undertake
these responsibilities because should the SRF Funding Application be successful and, among
other things, the OWNER and CITY agree to the terms imposed by the CDPH in providing such
SRF Funding to the CITY, the OWNER shall avoid expending hundreds of thousands of dollars
it would otherwise be required to spend in order to discharge its responsibilities under EPA
Order; and
Version: 11/23/10
I. CDPH has required that a draft of this Agreement be submitted to CDPH by no

later than December 8, 2010, in order to meet the funding deadlines for the State to obligate
funds during Fiscal Year 2010-2011. At the time of said submittal date, CDPH will not be in a
position to provide OWNER and the CITY information concerning (i) the amount of the SRF
Funding that CDPH will provide to the CITY for the Project, (ii) what percentage of any SRF
Funding the CDPH ultimately provides to the CITY will consist of a grant and what percentage
will consist of a loan (“CDPH Loan”), (iii) the terms and conditions under which CDPH is
agreeing to provide the CITY with SRF Funding, (iv) the CITY’s obligations as the fiscal agent
responsible for the receipt, distribution, and accounting of whatever SRF Funding CDPH is
willing to provide to the CITY, and (v) other matters which may materially affect the decision of
the Parties as to whether the Parties or any Party may desire to ultimately accept the SRF
Funding offered by CDPH. It is the Parties’ understanding that, among other things, all such
terms, conditions and matters pertinent to the SRF Funding and the CDPH Loan will be set forth
in a Funding Agreement between the CITY and CDPH the execution of which is envisioned to
occur on or before June 2011 (“Funding Agreement”):
AGREEMENT.
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is

acknowledged, and based upon the promises and agreements set forth herein, OWNER and
CITY agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. Each of the above Recitals is incorporated herein and

agreed upon by the Parties.
2. a. Description of the Improvements. The “Improvements” (sometimes

referred to as “Public Improvements”) shall consist of those tasks, work, and things generally
described in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement. The Parties agree that said description is based
upon preliminary engineering plans. This description is intended to roughly outline the scope of
the works and improvements to be installed and constructed in connection with this Agreement.
The exact works and improvements comprising the Improvements shall be consistent with the
CITY’s Standards and applicable laws, and shall be subject to CITY Engineer approval, and may
change as a result of site requirements, changes in construction standards, geologic conditions,
engineering constraints, the amount and nature of SRF Funding provided by CDPH, the bids
received by contractors bidding on the Project or other factors deemed relevant by the CITY
Engineer, in his or her absolute and sole discretion.
b. Improvement Plans. The Improvement Plans, as approved and modified by the

CITY Engineer, shall govern the composition of the Improvements and to the extent they
conflict with the descriptions set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement the Improvement Plans
shall control. For purposes of this Agreement, “Improvement Plans” shall mean the final
versions, as approved by the CITY Engineer, of each plan, legal description, plat, specification
and cost estimate prepared as part of and/or for the Improvements which are the subject of this
Agreement.
Version: 11/23/10
c. Project. The “Project” shall consist of all Improvements, steps, equipment,

funding, security, and activities of any kind associated with the consolidation of the CITY’s
Water System with the Property, including but not limited to, designing and constructing on-site
and off-site water main and fire system distribution lines and related facilities to meet the fire
and daily, potable water service demands of the Property. The components, tasks and activities
that generally constitute the Project are described in Exhibit “B”.
d. City’s Costs. “CITY’s Costs” shall include all of the fees, expenses and costs
incurred by the CITY or assessed OWNER in connection with and/or arising out of the Project,
including but not limited to those costs incurred in designing, contracting for, applying for SRF
Funding for, constructing, inspecting and financing the Improvements. CITY’s Costs also
include Connection Fees and costs and expenses incurred by the CITY for administration, legal
and environmental review, plan check, SRF Funding administration and accounting, and any
other activity, service, or document, deemed by the City to be reasonably necessary or
convenient to the timely and successful consolidation of the City’s Water System with the Park’s
New Water System.
3. OWNER’s Obligations.
a. OWNER shall, at OWNER’s sole cost and expense, be responsible for

compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and all other
applicable state and federal environmental laws pertinent to the Improvements and
facilities to be constructed hereunder and for compliance with all conditions and
mitigation measures which must be satisfied in connection with the same. CITY shall act
as lead agency. As part of its obligations to fund the CEQA process, OWNER shall
prepare or cause to be prepared all instruments, documents, reports and other like or kind
writings required to be prepared and/or filed under CEQA.
b. OWNER shall, upon request by CITY, and at no cost to CITY, furnish

CITY with such information as OWNER possesses or has available to it in any form from
any consultants, engineers, contractors or other persons engaged by or under the control
of OWNER relating to the environmental assessment relative to installation of the
Improvements or consummation of the Project. In this regard, nothing herein contained
shall be construed or interpreted to require CITY to take or participate in any legal action
for the purpose of securing approval for any Improvements or the Project.
c. Prior and as a condition precedent to the CITY’s and CDPH’s acceptance

of the Public Improvements and the CITY’s consolidation of the Park’s New Water
System into the CITY’s Water System, OWNER shall, at its sole cost, have already
installed and constructed all of the improvements (“OWNER’s Private Improvements”)
required in order to transport and provide potable water to each of the mobilehome spaces
and other locations in the Park to which potable water is envisioned to be supplied from
the Public Improvements. The design, installation and construction of the OWNER’s
Private Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the CITY. Additionally,
immediately upon the CITY’s and CDPH’s acceptance of the Improvements and at its
sole cost, OWNER shall disconnect OWNER’s Current Water System to disallow use of
that well water for human consumption and to allow its use only for non-potable
Version: 11/23/10
purposes. The disconnection shall be a condition precedent to CITY’s Water System

being connected to the Property, but the CITY’s Water System shall be connected and
activated with water service to the Park’s residents within twenty-four (24) hours of
OWNER’s disconnection, to minimize disruption to the residents.
4. CITY’s Obligations.
a. CITY shall use its best efforts to apply to CDPH for SRF Funding. The
CITY agrees that, to the extent permitted by the CDPH and DWSRF rules and
regulations, in said application CITY will use its best efforts to seek SRF Funding to
cover all of the CITY’s Costs.
b. CITY shall use its best efforts to perform and facilitate performance of the
Improvement work in sufficient time such that the consolidation of the Property’s water
distribution system into the CITY’s Water System shall occur within two (2) years after
the date that the Funding Agreement is fully executed by the CITY and CDPH, or as
extended by CDPH. Under no circumstances will water service be provided by the CITY
to the Property prior to the satisfactory completion and acceptance of the Public
Improvements by CITY and CDPH or timely payment or reimbursement by OWNER to
CITY or CDPH, as the case may be, pursuant hereto and/or pursuant to any other
agreement pertinent to the Project entered between the Parties. The CITY will not
approve or accept any on-site water Improvements until all related (off-site or otherwise)
Improvements and the OWNER’s Private Improvements have been completed to the
satisfaction of the CITY.
c. Once (i) the Project is deemed complete and in compliance with all
applicable CITY, state and federal laws, rules, standards and regulations by CDPH and
the CITY, (ii) all conditions precedent to the CITY connecting the Park’s New Water
System to the CITY’s Water System have been waived by the CITY or satisfied to the
CITY’s satisfaction, and (iii) all SRF Funding funds that should have been disbursed
have been properly disbursed, the CITY agrees to consolidate the Park’s New Water
System into the CITY’s Water System.
d. Upon completion of said consolidation, and subject to any other

agreement pertinent to the Project entered by the Parties, CITY shall assume
responsibility for making the payments under the CDPH Loan.
5. Conditions that Must be Satisfied before Funding Agreement is Executed by

CITY.
a. Except as is expressly set forth in subparagraph 5(d), below, this Agreement shall
not become effective and shall not bind the Parties hereto unless and until the Funding
Agreement is executed by CITY and CDPH.
b. The agreements, tasks and/or decisions set forth in subparagraph 5(c) must be
agreed to, undertaken, completed and/or made, as the case may be, by the Party or Parties set
forth below, before and as a condition precedent to the CITY’s execution of the Funding
Agreement. The Parties agree that they will undertake the obligations to reach the agreements
Version: 11/23/10
and perform the obligations imposed upon each Party under subparagraph 5(c) in good faith and
with due dispatch, but the Parties acknowledge and agree that, they are under no obligation or
duty to reach such agreements or perform said tasks, and, further that after exercising said good
faith and due dispatch, if they are unable to timely reach the agreements or perform the tasks set
forth in subparagraph 5(c), the Funding Agreement will not be executed by the CITY and any
SRF Funding that might otherwise be available to the CITY (or to OWNER) to defray the costs
of the Project and/or to pay for the Improvements will be unavailable, and OWNER understands
and agrees that in such an event, though without any obligation to continue the Project and
construct the Improvements, should OWNER in its sole and absolute discretion decide to
continue with the Project and construction of the Improvements, it shall be solely responsible for
the construction of the Improvements and for paying all costs associated therewith. And, further,
in such an event, the CITY shall not permit the Property to connect to the CITY’s Water System
until and unless all Connection Fees and other expenses incurred by the CITY that remain unpaid
hereunder and/or under any other agreement entered between the Parties pertinent to the
Improvements and/or are incurred by the City in reviewing, inspecting, monitoring, disapproving
and/or approving OWNER’s installation of the Improvements and complying with all of the
applicable City Regulations and Specification for Public Improvements are fully paid to the
CITY. And, further, in such an event should the EPA and/or CDPH initiate enforcement
proceedings or take any other adverse action against OWNER, the CITY shall not be in any way
responsible for same and OWNERS shall indemnify, release and hold the CITY harmless from
any and all penalties, fines, damages, delays, costs, loss of income, fees, claims, expense, injuries
or liabilities of any sort whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with (i) any
reasonable delays caused or contributed to by CITY, (ii) the Funding Agreement not being
executed by CITY because all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph 5(c) are not satisfied,
(iii) OWNER’s failure to comply with the EPA Order, and/or (iv) the failure to obtain SRF
Funding for the Project and/or Improvements, irrespective of the CITY’s negligence, be it active,
passive or sole.
c. The agreements, tasks and/or decisions set forth below must be agreed to,
undertaken, completed and/or made, as the case may be, by the Party or Parties set forth below,
before and as a condition precedent to the CITY’s execution of the Funding Agreement.
1) OWNER’s full payment of all amounts then owed to the CITY under this
or any other agreement between the Parties pertinent to the Project and/or Improvements;
2) OWNER’s and CITY’s written approval of the amount, nature and terms
of any grant and/or CDPH Loan proposed to be provided to the CITY by CDPH as part
of the SRF Funding;
3) OWNER’s and CITY’s written approval of the final Improvement Plans

and Specifications in their condition as near to the time when the Funding Agreement
must be signed by the CITY;
4) OWNER’s and CITY’s written approval of the Funding Agreement;
Version: 11/23/10
5) OWNER’s delivery to the CITY of all real property licenses and

easements necessary or convenient to the City to investigate, construct and subsequently
own, operate and maintain the Improvements;
6) OWNER’s agreement to pay and/or reimburse the CITY all of the CITY’s
Costs;
7) If necessary, OWNER and CITY entering into an agreement providing for

the CITY to exercise the power of eminent domain in order to obtain the real property
interests necessary to consummate the Project;
8) OWNER entering a separate agreement with CITY obligating OWNER to

pay the CDPH Loan and related costs. Said agreement shall be secured in a fashion
acceptable to the CITY;
9) OWNER and CITY entering an additional and separate agreement settling

the litigation entitled Argonaut Investments, Inc. et al. v. City of Sonoma, Sonoma County
Case No. SCV 243323;
10) OWNER and CITY entering an agreement addressing whether and under
what circumstances the costs OWNER incurs in paying the CITY’s Costs, consolidating
the City’s Water System with the Park’s New Water System and/or bringing potable
water to the Park’s residents shall not be passed on to the Park’s tenants/residents in the
form of rent increases or other charges;
11) OWNER and CITY entering an agreement (“Water Service Connection

Agreement”) setting forth the terms and conditions under which the Project shall be
prosecuted, implemented and completed and the Improvements shall be designed,
constructed, completed and consolidated with the CITY’s Water System;
12) OWNER and CITY agreeing to the appropriate parties who will be bound
by the agreements referenced hereinabove, whether those parties shall be personally,
jointly and severally liable for obligations under said agreements and the nature and
amount of security that OWNER must provide to the CITY to guarantee performance by
OWNER under said agreements; and
13) OWNER and CITY agreeing to the number of separate agreements

required to address all of the issues identified hereinabove.
d. In addition to the agreements set forth in subparagraph 5(b), upon the full
execution of this Agreement, the following obligations and agreements set forth in this
Agreement shall be binding on the Party whose obligation they are to perform and must be
performed at the time and under the conditions specified herein, irrespective whether the
Funding Agreement is executed:
1) OWNER’s obligations under paragraphs 3(a) and (b).
Version: 11/23/10
2) OWNER and the CITY shall reasonably and timely cooperate in the
submittal and review of the Improvement Plans, specifications, budgets, estimates and other
documents that constitute the SRF Funding Application. Both Parties have the right to review
the final SRF Funding Application before it is submitted to CDPH and shall have the right to
withhold approval of same. If either Party fails to approve the final SRF Funding Application in
writing, then this Agreement and the Cost Recovery Agreement executed by the Parties as of
___________2010, shall be terminated, and the Parties shall have no rights or obligations as
against the other under this Agreement except that (aa) any CITY’s Costs incurred by the CITY
prior to its receipt of OWNER’s notice of disapproval of the SRF Funding Application shall be
paid by OWNER within thirty (30) days after receiving a demand from the CITY to pay same
and (bb) all obligations on the part of OWNER to waive claims against the CITY, hold the CITY
harmless and/or indemnify the CITY shall survive termination of this Agreement. Provided that
(i) OWNER and CITY give their written approval of the SRF Funding Application, (ii) OWNER
delivers to the CITY a copy of this Agreement, executed by OWNER, (iii) , OWNER has fully
paid all amounts then owed to the CITY hereunder and under any other agreement obligating
OWNER to reimburse the CITY for the latter’s costs incurred in connection with the SRF
Funding Application, and (iv) December 8, 2010, has not passed, then the CITY shall submit the
approved SRF Funding Application to CDPH. In the event the SRF Funding Application (i) is
untimely or determined incomplete or otherwise unacceptable by CDPH or (ii) is rejected,
conditioned, delayed, denied or acted upon by the CDPH, and, as a consequence, OWNER is
unable to comply with the EPA Order and/or is damaged or injured, incurs expenses, fees,
penalties or costs or suffers any adverse consequences (collectively referred to as “OWNER’s
Injuries”), OWNER waives any claims it may have against CITY for OWNER’s Injuries and
indemnifies and holds the CITY harmless from any and all claims, responsibilities, liabilities,
expenses, fees, penalties, damages or costs arising from OWNER’s Injuries, irrespective of
CITY’s negligence, acts or omissions, be they sole, passive, active or willful.
3) The obligations and agreements set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 6-28.
6. OWNER Not Agent of CITY. Neither OWNER nor any of OWNER’s agents or
contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of CITY in connection with the performance
of OWNER’s obligations under this Agreement.
7. Other Agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude CITY

from expending monies pursuant to Agreements concurrently or previously executed between
the Parties, or from entering into other agreements with the OWNER.
8. Sale or Disposition of Property. Sale or other disposition of the Property will not
relieve OWNER from the obligations set forth herein.
9. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by OWNER.
10. No Vesting of Rights. Performance by CITY of this Agreement shall not be

construed to vest OWNER’s rights with respect to any change in any fee, regulation or ordinance
of the CITY.
Version: 11/23/10
11. Water Service Connection Fee Credit/Reimbursement. OWNER shall not be

eligible to receive any Connection Fee credit or reimbursement for activity it performs under this
Agreement.
12. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing and delivered in person, sent by facsimile and email or sent by mail, postage prepaid and
addressed as provided in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in
person, or, if mailed, two days after the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notice sent by
facsimile and email shall be effective on the date the notice is facsimiled and emailed, provided
on the same day, the notice is deposited in the U.S. Mail, fully prepaid. Notices shall be
addressed as follows unless a written change of address is filed with the CITY:
Notice to CITY: City Manager

City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
FAX: (707) 938-2559
Email: lkelly@sonomacity.org
Notice to OWNER: Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC

Attn: Stephen Jaeger
770 Tamalpais Drive, 401-B
Corte Madera, CA 94925
13. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be ruled invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, the Parties shall: (i) promptly negotiate a substitute for the provision which shall,
to the greatest extent legally permissible, effect the intent of the Parties in the invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision, and (ii) negotiate such changes in, substitutions for or additions to the
remaining provisions of this Agreement as may be necessary in addition to and in conjunction
with subsection (i) above to give effect to the intent of the Parties without the invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision. To the extent the Parties are unable to negotiate such changes,
substitutions or additions as set forth in the preceding sentence, and the intent of the Parties with
respect to the essential terms of the Agreement may be carried out without the invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision, the balance of this Agreement shall not be affected, and this Agreement
shall be construed and enforced as if the invalid, illegal unenforceable provision did not exist.
14. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only
and shall not define, explain, modify, limit, exemplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction
or meaning of any provisions of this Agreement.
15. Litigation. In the event that suit is brought to enforce the terms of this contract,
the prevailing Party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
16. Entire Agreement. Except as to the other agreements expressly contemplated by

or referred to in this Agreement, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties
Version: 11/23/10
with respect to the subject matters described herein. All modifications, amendments, or waivers
of the terms of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives
of the Parties.
17. Intentionally left blank.
18. Further Acts. Each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such other
documents and perform such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
Agreement.
19. Interpretation. This Agreement is entered into within the State of California, and
all questions concerning the validity, interpretation and performance of any of its terms or
provisions or any of the rights or obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed by and
resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
20. Running with Land. The terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement shall
be deemed provisions, terms and/or covenants running with the Property in accordance with
applicable law, including, without limitation, Section 1468 of the California Civil Code and shall
pass to and be binding upon the successor owners of the Property. As such, all successor
owners of the Property will have any and all of the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of
OWNER, as if such person or entity originally executed this Agreement in place and stead of
OWNER. Each and every contract, deed or other portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to
have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such terms and conditions regardless of
whether such terms and conditions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.
21. Fair Reading. The provisions of the Agreement shall be construed as their fair
meaning, and not for or against any party based upon any attribution to such party as the source
of language in question.
22. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and every
term and provision thereof.
23. Construction. This Agreement shall be construed as if prepared by all of the

Parties hereto. Accordingly, any rule of law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or
legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the
party that has drafted it, is not applicable and is waived.
24. Delay no Waiver. No delay on the part of any party hereto in exercising any
right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any waiver on the
part of any party hereto of any right, power or privilege hereunder operate as a waiver of any
other right, power or privilege hereunder, preclude any other or further exercise of any other
right, power or privilege hereunder.
25. Warranty of Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement hereby

represents and warrants that he or she has the full power and authority to execute this Agreement
on behalf of the named Parties.
Version: 11/23/10
26. Inspection Rights. OWNER shall maintain and make available for inspection
by CITY during regular office hours, accurate records pertaining to the design, construction and
installation of the improvements to be constructed by OWNER.
27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which

shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute but one instrument.
28. Venue. The Parties agree that any action or proceeding to enforce or relating to
this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the State courts located in Sonoma County,
California, and the Parties hereto consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by
any such court for purposes of any such action or proceeding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties hereto as of the

date first written above.
OWNER CITY OF SONOMA
Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, a California

limited liability company By:
By:
Its Managing Member
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
A Member
City Clerk
By:_________________________________
A Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael Stump, Attorney for OWNER Jeffrey A. Walter, City Attorney
[If corporation, corporate seal and signatures of two (2) officers is required.]
Version: 11/23/10
City of Sonoma/Rancho Sonoma Partners
Page: 12 of 13
EXHIBIT “A”
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PROJECT
APN: 127-141-012
Site Address: Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park

19275 Sonoma Highway
Sonoma, CA 95476
Project Exhibit:
Version: 11/23/10
City of Sonoma/Rancho Sonoma Partners
Page: 13 of 13
EXHIBIT “B”
DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED

BY CITY AND REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY
Non-exclusive listing of Improvements generally consist of the following:
8-inch water main, 1,700 lineal feet

3-inch water meter and box, 1 each
1-inch water meter and box, 1 each
Valve assemblies Backflow assemblies, 2 each
Fire hydrants, 4 each
Related improvements:
Miscellaneous Fittings, thrust blocks and pipe connections
AC and concrete pavement replacement
Curb and gutter replacement
Traffic control
Demolition and clearing/grubbing
Mobilization
Any other facility, structure, equipment, activity or improvement that the City, in its sole
discretion, determines is necessary, convenient or prudent to use, install, manufacture, replace,
repair, construct and/or perform in order to prosecute, complete and/or secure the timely
construction and/or installation of the Improvements.
“Project” generally includes but is not limited to the following:
Design of Improvements
Preparation and Negotiation of easements and right of way documents
Preparation of plans, specifications and bid documents
Public bidding and advertisement
Construction of Improvements
Inspection and construction management
Water connection fees and charges
City permits
Engineering plan check
City Attorney review
Working with State and other agencies
Applying for SRF Funding and SRF Funding Application
SRF Funding Oversight and administration
City administration
Dispute resolution and possible handling of claims and litigation
Any other activity (on the part of any person selected by the City), performance (on the
part of any person selected by the City), duty (to be discharged by any Party selected by
the City) and/or document (to be prepared, executed and/or recorded by any Party
selected by the City) that the City determines, in its sole discretion, is necessary,
convenient and/or prudent in order to prosecute, complete and/or secure
the timely construction and/or installation of the Improvements
Version: 11/23/10
COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered on _________________2010 by and between the City of

Sonoma, a general law City (“City”), Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, a California limited
liability company (“RSP LLC”), Preston Cook, personally and individually, and Stephen Jaeger,
personally and individually (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Owner”). City and Owner
are hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
A. RSP LLC is the Owner of certain property commonly referred to as Rancho de

Sonoma Mobile Home Park, consisting of approximately 15.23 acres of land, site address 19275
Sonoma Highway, Sonoma, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-041-012 in the City of
Sonoma, California as more particularly described and shown in Exhibit “A” hereto and
incorporated herein (the “Property” or “Park”). Preston Cook and Stephen Jaeger and/or family
Trusts that they have established and of which they are trustees have been or are the members of
RSP LLC. The Property is operated by OWNER as a mobilehome park, on which are located
ninety-nine (99) mobilehome spaces and one rental apartment unit attached to a laundry building.
The Property also contains a swimming pool, clubhouse and an onsite office. On said Property, the
OWNER operates a community water system (Public Water System Number 4900845) (“Owner’s
Current Water System”) within City limits and within the City’s water service area; and
B. The Owner tests the Property’s well water on a quarterly basis. Based on those test
results, in July 2008 the California Department of Health Services (“CDPH”) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) determined that the well water failed and continues to
fail to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (“SDWA”) “maximum contaminant levels” for arsenic.
The EPA issued its Order No. PWS-AO-2008-6014 (“EPA Order”) requiring Owner to take those
steps necessary to reduce the well water’s arsenic levels to below the maximum contaminant levels
by June 20, 2010. On April 21, 2010, the EPA amended its EPA Order to extend Owner’s
compliance due date to December 31, 2010, but required Owner to provide information to the EPA
by December 31, 2010, indicating that approval, funding and permits are ready and available as of
December 31, 2010, for physical connection to City’s public water system or arsenic treatment has
been permitted, constructed and is in operation as of December 31, 2010 (“December 31, 2010
Obligations”). Owner holds City entirely blameless and harmless for any liability to satisfy the
EPA’s December 31, 2010 Obligations; and
C. The Owner seeks to satisfy the EPA Order by replacing the Owner’s Current Water
System with the Improvements (defined below) and, once those Improvements have been
satisfactorily completed, connecting the Park’s new water system (“Park’s New Water System”) to
the City’s public water system and abandon use of the well for purposes of providing water for
human consumption at the Park; and
Cost Recovery Agreement Final 11-23-10 1

D. City operates a public water system (Public Water System Number 4910012) (“City’s
Water System”) to provide safe, potable water and is permitted to provide water services to
customers within City limits and within the City’s water service area; and
E. Owner desires to hookup and connect the Park’s New Water System to the City’s
Water System in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code, Sonoma
Public Improvement Standards and all other laws and regulations applicable to the Property; and
F. As a public agency, City is eligible to apply for a Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (“DWSRF”) grant and/or low-interest loan (“SRF Funding”) from the CDPH
and Owner has requested that City apply for the SRF Funding (“SRF Funding Application”) on
Owner’s behalf to fund and/or pay for the costs involved in designing, constructing, processing,
prosecuting, inspecting and completing the Improvements (defined below) necessary to replace
the Owner’s Current Water System with the Park’s New Water System, and consolidate the
Park’s New Water System into the City’s Water System (the “Project” – defined below); and
G. The improvements, work and activities (“Improvements” or “Public Improvements”)

which make up the Project and for which the City is agreeable to submit (under terms and conditions
specified in the Water Service Consolidation Agreement (“Consolidation Agreement”) between the
Parties and dated________________2010) the SRF Funding Application are generally described in
Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The components, tasks, documents and
activities that generally constitute the Project are generally described in Exhibit “B”. Owner agrees
that it shall pay for all costs incurred by any Party, including CITY, in connection with or in any
way related to the SRF Funding Application and any other activities undertaken by the City in
connection with CDPH’s response to the SRF Funding Application and negotiating, analyzing,
preparing, drafting and consummating the agreements and documents described in paragraph 5(c) of
said Consolidation Agreement; and
H. CDPH has required that the SRF Funding Application be submitted to CDPH by
no later than December 8, 2010, in order to meet the funding deadlines for the State to obligate
funds during Fiscal Year 2010-2011. At the time of said submittal date, CDPH will not be in a
position to provide Owner and the City information concerning (i) the amount of the SRF
Funding that CDPH will provide to the City for the Project, (ii) what percentage of any SRF
Funding the CDPH ultimately provides to the City will consist of a grant and what percentage
will consist of a loan (“CDPH Loan”), (iii) the terms and conditions under which CDPH is
agreeing to provide the City with SRF Funding, (iv) the City’s obligations as the fiscal agent
responsible for the receipt, distribution, and accounting of whatever SRF Funding CDPH is
willing to provide to the City, and (v) other matters which may materially affect the decision of
the Parties as to whether the Parties or any Party may desire to ultimately accept the SRF
Funding offered by CDPH. It is the Parties’ understanding that, among other things, all such
terms, conditions and matters pertinent to the SRF Funding and the CDPH Loan will be set forth
in a Funding Agreement between the City and CDPH the execution of which is envisioned to
occur on or before June 2011 (“Funding Agreement”); and

I. Owner and City desire to enter into this Agreement, whereby Owner promises to
fully reimburse City for any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the SRF
Funding Application and all activities of the City related thereto including those activities which
take place after the SRF Funding Application is submitted and continuing through the date that
the Parties approve or disapprove the Funding Agreement.
Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
and for the promises and agreements stated herein, the Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. a. Owner shall pay the City all costs, including State-mandated costs and fees,
incurred by the City in connection with or in any way related to the SRF Funding Application
and/or the Funding Agreement, including but not limited to the costs described in Recital I,
above, and any activities undertaken by the City in connection with CDPH’s response to the
SRF Funding Application and negotiating, analyzing, preparing, drafting, checking, and
consummating the agreements and documents described in paragraph 5(c) of the Consolidation
Agreement (“City’s Processing and Review Costs”). Owner’s obligation to pay City’s
Processing and Review Costs shall obtain irrespective whether (i) the City submits an SRF
Funding Application to CDPH, (ii) CDPH awards any grant and/or loan to the City, (iii) the City
and/or Owner determine that the terms and conditions of any said CDPH grant or loan are
unacceptable and reject CDPH’s award, and/or (iv) the City enters into a Funding Agreement.
Owner’s obligation to fully and timely pay the City’s costs described herein shall
sometimes be referred to herein as “Owner’s Payment Obligation”.
2. Owner also agrees to pay all outstanding and unpaid City’s Processing and Review Costs,
including legal fees, plan check fees and engineering costs to date applicable to the Project and
the SRF Funding Application upon execution of this Agreement. The outstanding costs, as of
__________________, 2010, are as follows:
Outstanding plan check and engineering fees $

Legal fees $
Total $
3. The City’s Processing and Review Costs shall also include costs the City incurs in
retaining and using consultants in connection with the activities described in paragraph 1, above.
If the City anticipates that it will require the retention of consultants or other experts in addition
to the current City Engineer and City Attorney to adequately perform the tasks associated with
the SRF Funding Application and Funding Agreement, it will provide Owner advance notice of
the decision to retain such consultants and an estimate of the costs retaining said consultant(s)
will entail. Owner agrees that notwithstanding the fact that Owner is obligated to pay all
consultant costs in connection with the SRF Funding Application and the Funding Agreement,

the City, in its sole discretion, shall select all consultants for the SRF Funding Application and
Funding Agreement and shall determine each consultant’s scope of work. Owner further agrees
that all consultants selected by the City shall work exclusively for the City even though Owner
bears the responsibility of paying the consultants’ costs. Except for documents protected from
disclosure to the Owner by a confidentially privilege, Owner shall be provided copies of any
reports, notes, memoranda, correspondence or any other form of communication between the
City and the consultants retained by the City concerning the SRF Funding Application and/or
Funding Agreement. The Owner understands that it will not be a third party beneficiary to City’s
contracts with consultants, except as necessary to compel performance by the consultant, obtain
an accounting and as to indemnify.
4. In addition to the amount specified in paragraph 2, above, upon execution of this

Agreement, the Owner shall deposit with the City the amount of $15,000.00 (“Deposit”) against
which the City’s Processing and Review Costs shall be charged on a monthly basis. The City
shall deliver monthly statements to the Owner showing the City’s Processing and Review Costs
incurred by the City along with reasonable public record documentation supporting such costs as
determined in the discretion of the City. The Owner’s failure to object to an invoice, in writing,
within 30 days of the date the invoice was postmarked by the City to Owner shall be deemed a
conclusive waiver of such objection. Any amounts not paid by Owner within said 30 day period
shall accrue interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum until fully paid.
5. In the event the Deposit falls or, within 30 days is anticipated to fall, below 25% of the
amount of the Deposit specified above, the Owner shall replenish the Deposit to its original
amount within 15 days after written notice from the City. Owner shall pay to the City any other
amounts owed to the City within 30 days after written notice from the City. Any amounts not
timely paid by Owner shall accrue interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully paid.
6. Intentionally left blank.
7. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that notwithstanding the Owner’s timely and full
payment of the City’s Costs, the City is not obligated to approve or accept the Project, the
Improvements or any of the permits or approvals necessary for the Project. The Owner further
understands that the City shall not be bound by any recommendations or conclusions of the
consultants retained by the City and paid for by the Owner pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement. The Owner understands that all decisions regarding the Project will be made only
after compliance with the City’s statutory and legal obligations and after considering all
appropriate information and evidence; and that such evidence may cause the City to disapprove
any or all of the permits or approvals Owner seek in connection with the Project.
8. a. Prior to and as a condition precedent to the City submitting the SRF Funding
Application with the CDPH and prior to and as a condition precedent to the City executing the
Funding Agreement, Owner shall pay to the City all then outstanding and unpaid City’s
Processing and Review Costs and replenish the Deposit, if necessary.

b. Owner agrees and acknowledges that nonpayment or untimely payment of any amounts
owed by the Owner pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, including the failure to timely
replenish the Deposit, shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and may, in the sole
and unfettered discretion of the City, result in the temporary or permanent cessation of (i) the
processing of the SRF Funding Application and/or the Funding Agreement, (ii) City
performance under the Consolidation Agreement and/or any of its Paragraph 5(c) Agreements,
and/or (iii) any and all activity on the part of the City pertaining to the Project, SRF Funding,
and/or the Improvements and, after notice, may result in the denial, repeal or revocation of any
and all applications, requests, approvals and/or permits in connection with the Project. The
City may, and is hereby authorized to, withhold approvals, the submittal of the SRF Funding
Application, execution of the Funding Agreement, and issuance of further plan checks until all
the City’s Processing and Review Costs have been paid in full by Owner. In the event the City
invokes any of the remedies described above, then, with respect to any delay, penalties, injuries,
expenses, losses, fees, expenses, claims, damages or liabilities of any sort (“Liabilities”)
resulting therefrom, the Owner hereby waives any and all rights it may have to seek recovery
against the City for such Liabilities or compel compliance by the City under the Permit
Streamlining Act, CEQA, or any other law which imposes deadlines upon the processing of and
acting upon the SRF Funding Application or the taking of any other action contemplated herein,
the Consolidation Agreement and/or its Paragraph 5(c) Agreements.
c. Both Parties have the right to review the final SRF Funding Application before it is
submitted to CDPH and shall have the right to withhold approval of same. If either Party fails
to approve the final SRF Funding Application in writing, then this Agreement and the
Consolidation Agreement shall terminate, and the Parties shall have no rights or obligations as
against the other under this Agreement except that (aa) any City’s Processing and Review Costs
incurred by the City prior to its receipt of Owner’s notice of disapproval of the SRF Funding
Application shall be paid by Owner within thirty (30) days after receiving a demand from the
City to pay same and (bb) all obligations on the part of Owner to waive claims against the City,
hold the City harmless and/or indemnify the City shall survive termination of this Agreement.
Provided that (i) Owner and City give their written approval of the SRF Funding Application, (ii)
Owner and City execute this Agreement, (iii) Owner has fully paid all amounts then owed to the
City hereunder and under any other agreement obligating Owner to reimburse the City for the
latter’s City’s Processing and Review Costs incurred in connection with the SRF Funding
Application, and (iv) December 8, 2010, has not passed, then the City shall submit the approved
SRF Funding Application to CDPH. In the event the SRF Funding Application (i) is untimely
or determined incomplete or otherwise unacceptable by CDPH or (ii) is rejected, conditioned,
delayed, denied or acted upon by the CDPH, and, as a consequence, Owner is unable to comply
with the EPA Order and/or is damaged or injured, incurs expenses, fees, penalties or costs or
suffers any adverse consequences (collectively referred to as “Owner’s Injuries”), Owner waives
any claims it may have against City for Owner’s Injuries and indemnifies and holds the City
harmless from any and all claims, responsibilities, liabilities, expenses, fees, penalties, damages
or costs arising from Owner’s Injuries, irrespective of City’s negligence, acts or omissions, be
they sole, passive, active or willful.

9. The Owner hereby represents that he/she is the Owner of the subject Property. RSP LLC,
Preston Cook and Stephen Jaeger shall be severally and jointly liable for Owner’s Payment
Obligations and Owner’s other obligations hereunder.
10. This Agreement may be modified only in writing and signed by the authorized
representatives of both the City and the Owner.
11. The Recitals are incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
12. The Parties authorize the City to record this Agreement or a memorandum of same in a
form mutually acceptable to the Parties.
13. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered
in person, sent by facsimile and email or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in
this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, if mailed, two days
after the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notice sent by facsimile and email shall be
effective on the date the notice is facsimiled and emailed, provided on the same day, the notice is
deposited in the U.S. Mail, fully prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written
change of address is filed with the City:
Notice to City: City Manager

City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
FAX:
Email:
Notice to Owner: Rancho Sonoma Partners,

LLC___________________________________
Attn: Stephen Jaeger 770 Tamalpais Drive, Suite 401-B
Corte Madera, CA
94925______________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
14. If any provision of this Agreement shall be ruled invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
Parties shall: (i) promptly negotiate a substitute for the provision which shall, to the greatest extent
legally permissible, effect the intent of the Parties in the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision,
and (ii) negotiate such changes in, substitutions for or additions to the remaining provisions of this
Agreement as may be necessary in addition to and in conjunction with subsection (i) above to give
effect to the intent of the Parties without the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision. To the

extent the Parties are unable to negotiate such changes, substitutions or additions as set forth in the
preceding sentence, and the intent of the Parties with respect to the essential terms of the Agreement
may be carried out without the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision, the balance of this
Agreement shall not be affected, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the
invalid, illegal unenforceable provision did not exist.
15. In the event that suit is brought to enforce the terms of this contract, the prevailing
Party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
16. Except as to other agreements expressly contemplated by and/or referred to in this

Agreement, this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the Parties with respect to the
subject matter. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms of this Agreement must be
in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of the Parties.
17. Each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such other documents and perform
such other acts as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
18. This Agreement is entered into within the State of California, and all questions
concerning the validity, interpretation and performance of any of its terms or provisions or any of the
rights or obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed by and resolved in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
19. The terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed provisions,
terms and/or covenants running with the Property in accordance with applicable law, including,
without limitation, Section 1468 of the California Civil Code and shall pass to and be binding
upon the successor owners of the Property. As such, all successor owners of the Property will
have any and all of the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of Owner, as if such person or entity
originally executed this Agreement in place and stead of Owner. Each and every contract, deed
or other portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted
subject to such terms and conditions regardless of whether such terms and conditions are set
forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.
20. The provisions of the Agreement shall be construed as their fair meaning, and not
for or against any Party based upon any attribution to such Party as the source of language in
question.
21. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and every term and provision
thereof.
22. This Agreement shall be construed as if prepared by all of the Parties hereto.
Accordingly, any rule of law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision
that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that has
drafted it, is not applicable and is waived.

23. No delay on the part of any party hereto in exercising any right, power or
privilege hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any waiver on the part of any
Party hereto of any right, power or privilege hereunder operate as a waiver of any other right,
power or privilege hereunder, preclude any other or further exercise of any other right, power or
privilege hereunder.
24. Each individual executing this Agreement hereby represents and warrants that he
or she has the full power and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the named Parties.
25. Owner shall maintain and make available for inspection by City during regular
office hours, accurate records pertaining to the design, construction and installation of the
improvements to be constructed by Owner.
26. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original, but all of which shall constitute but one instrument.
27. The Parties agree that any action or proceeding to enforce or relating to this
Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the State courts located in Sonoma County,
California, and the Parties hereto consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by
any such court for purposes of any such action or proceeding.
Exhibits to be attached:
Exhibit A Property Description
Exhibit B Description of Improvements and Project
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties hereto as of the date
first written above.
OWNER CITY OF SONOMA
Rancho Sonoma Partners, LLC, a California

limited liability company By:
By:
Its Managing Member
By:
A member
Preston Cook ATTEST:
Stephen Jaeger

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael Stump, Attorney for Owner and Jeffrey A. Walter, City Attorney
Preston Cook and Stephen Jaeger

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING A

FINDING OF CATAGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AUTHORIZING A GRANT APPLICATION
FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT THE RANCHO DE SONOMA MOBILE HOME
PARK INCLUDING THE EXECUTION OF A WATER CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT AND
COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the 99-space Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park is located within city limits at 19725
Sonoma Highway; and
WHEREAS, the private water system that serves the Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park is deficient in
that it fails to meet the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act;
and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an order requiring the property
owner to bring the water system into compliance with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act by
December 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its location within city limits, the Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park is
eligible to be connected to the City of Sonoma’s public water system; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park have identified a grant opportunity
through the California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund that
would fund the design and construction of a connection to the City’s water system as well as the payment
of applicable connection fees; and
WHEREAS, as a public agency, the City of Sonoma is eligible to apply for this grant, while as a private
property owner, the owners of the Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park are not; and
WHEREAS, out of a desire to protect the health and safety of the residents of Rancho de Sonoma mobile
home park, the City Council is desirous of making an application for the CDPH grant; and
WHEREAS, an application by the City for CDPH grant funds would include a Water Service
Consolidation Agreement (“Water Consolidation Agreement”) between the City and the owners of the
Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park, a copy of which is attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the scope of work described in the application for CDPH grant funds generally consists of
the design and construction of facilities to connect the Rancho de Sonoma mobile home park to the City
of Sonoma’s public water system, including approximately 1,700 lineal feet of 8-inch water main, 1- and
3-inch water meters, valve assemblies, backflow prevention assemblies, four fire hydrants, and related
work, as well as the payment of applicable connection fees and front-footage fees; and
WHEREAS, the bulk of said work will be performed on the park’s property; and
WHEREAS, the conditional commitment to apply for CDPH grant funds, construct the improvements
described above, and proceed with the connection of Rancho de Sonoma with the City of Sonoma’s
water system memorialized in the “Water Consolidation Agreement” constitutes a “project” as defined
by the California Environmental Quality Act (sometimes “CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the City is requiring the park owners to reimburse the City all of the City’s costs incurred in
processing, designing, constructing, administering, and completing this project pursuant to a Cost
Recovery Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and
declares as follows:
Section A
The water connection facilitated by the CDPH grant and the Water Consolidation Agreement represents a
minor alteration in the City’s existing water supply system that has no likelihood of causing any
significant environmental impact and therefore qualifies as categorically exempt from CEQA under
section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act’s Guidelines (Class 3 – New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), based on the following factors:
1. The water connection will serve an existing development.
2. The water connection will not facilitate any new development.
3. The improvements associated with the water connection will be constructed within an existing
street and on private property
4. There are no federally listed or candidate species, or suitable habitat, or Critical Habitat within
the construction area.
5. Once completed, the project will allow the residents to discontinue the consumption of well water
provided by the park that contains unacceptable levels of arsenic currently found in the park’s
well water supply.
Section B
Provided that the grant application meets with the City Manager’s and City Engineer’s approval and is
otherwise in conformance with the provisions of the Water Consolidation Agreement, the City Manager is
hereby authorized to submit a grant application to the California Department of Public Health to fund the
connection of the Rancho de Sonoma Mobile Home Park to the City of Sonoma Water system and to
execute the Water Consolidation Agreement associated with said grant application. The City Manager is
also authorized and directed to execute the Cost Recovery Agreement. The City Manager’s authority to
execute said agreements is conditioned upon the park owners executing said agreements.
Section C
The City Manager is hereby authorized to make non-material changes to the Water Consolidation and
Cost Recovery Agreements, provided said changes are approved by the City Attorney, prior to its
execution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___th day of December 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City of Sonoma Agenda Item: 13A
City Council Meeting Date: 12/01/2010
Agenda Item Summary

Administration Mayor and Council Members
Agenda Item Title
Council Members Report on Committee Activities.
Summary
Council members will report on activities, if any, of the various committees to which they are assigned.
MAYOR BARBOSE MPT SEBASTIANI CLM. BROWN CLM. GALLIAN CLM. SANDERS
City Facilities Committee ABAG Alternate City Facilities Committee ABAG Delegate Budget Committee
Community Choice City Audit Committee Community Dev. Agency Budget Committee Community Dev.
Aggregation Focus Grp Loan Subcommittee Agency Loan
Subcommittee
North Bay Watershed Community Dev. Agency Sonoma Valley Citizens Cemetery LOCC North Bay
Association Loan Subcommittee, Alt. Advisory Comm. Alt. Subcommittee Division Liaison,
Alternate
Sonoma Community N/B Watershed S.V. Economic City Audit Committee Sonoma County M &
Center Subcommittee Association BOD, Alt. Development Partnership C Assoc. Legislative
Advisory Committee, Alt. Committee
Sonoma County Mayors Sonoma County Mayors SVFRA JPA Working LOCC North Bay S. V. Library Advisory
& Clm. Assoc. BOD & Clm. Assoc. BOD, Alt. Group Division Liaison Committee
Sonoma County Waste Sonoma County M&C Substance Abuse Sonoma County Golden Gate Bridge
Management Agency Assoc. Leg. Comm., Alt. Prevention Coalition Transportation Highway and
Authority Transportation District
Sonoma County/City Sonoma County Swimming Pool (SCTA) Regional
Solid Waste Advisory Transportation Authority, Subcommittee Climate Protection
Group (SWAG) Alternate Authority
Sonoma Disaster Council Sonoma Disaster S. V. Library Advisory Sonoma County/City
Council, Alternate Committee, Alternate Solid Waste Advisory
Group (SWAG), Alt.
Sonoma Housing Sonoma Housing Cittaslow Sonoma Valley Water Advisory
Corporation Corporation, Alt. Advisory Council, Alt. Committee
S.V.C. Sanitation District S. V. Citizens Advisory Sonoma County Ag
BOD Commission Preservation and
Open Space District
SVFRA JPA Working S.V.C. Sanitation District VOM Water District Ad
Group BOD, Alt. Hoc Committee
Swimming Pool S.V.E.D. Partnership Water Advisory
Subcommittee Advisory Committee Committee
Water Advisory VOM Water District Ad Cittaslow Sonoma
Committee, Alternate Hoc Committee Valley Advisory
Council
Recommended Council Action – Receive Reports
Attachments: None

Dec 1 City Council

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dec 1 City Council

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concurrent Meetings Of

SONOMA CITY COUNCIL

5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

6:00 P.M. – REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

RECONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

2. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Item 4A: Proclamation Recognizing Francine Maffei

Item 4B: World AIDS Awareness Day Proclamation

Item 4C: Dean Biersch / Hop Monk Day Proclamation

Item 6C: Councilmember comments

Item 6D: Comments by Aug Sebastiani

Item 7C: Councilmember comments.

8. SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

13. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND FINAL REMARKS

Item 13A: Reports Regarding Committee Activities.

Item 13B: Final Councilmembers’ Remarks.

GAY JOHANN, CITY CLERK

Department Staff Contact

Department Staff Contact

Department Staff Contact

Department Staff Contact

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

A: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS, pursuant to Government Code

REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

November 3, 2010, Page 1 of 9

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

2. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Item 4A: Recognition of Career Milestones – Carol Giovanatto, Assistant City

November 3, 2010, Page 2 of 9

Item 4B: Veterans Day 2010 Proclamation

5. CONSENT CALENDAR/AGENDA ORDER

November 3, 2010, Page 3 of 9

CHANGE IN AGENDA ORDER

November 3, 2010, Page 4 of 9

November 3, 2010, Page 5 of 9

November 3, 2010, Page 6 of 9

Discussed out of order, see above.

November 3, 2010, Page 7 of 9

8. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Herb Golenpaul stated his unhappiness with the recent election.

9. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND FINAL REMARKS

Item 9A: Reports Regarding Committee Activities.

Item 9B: Final Councilmembers’ Remarks.

Clm. Brown reminded everyone of the November 11 Veteran’s Day activities.

November 3, 2010, Page 8 of 9

November 3, 2010, Page 9 of 9

SONOMA CITY COUNCIL

PRESENT: Gallian, Brown, Sanders, Sebastiani, Barbose

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

November 8, 2010, Page 1 of 2

Planning Commissioner Mark Heneveld asked about implementing a water-recharging program.

Mayor Barbose adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m.

November 8, 2010, Page 2 of 2

Meeting Date: 12/01/2010

Department Staff Contact

Recommended Council Action

Meeting Date: 09/15/2010

By: _____________ Date:

By: _____________ Date:

By: _____________ Date: