Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, May 24, 2022

AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday May 24, 2022
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
Pursuant to AB 361 (2021), Teleconference Restrictions of the Brown Act Have Been Suspended, as Well as the Requirement to Provide a Physical Location for Members of the Public to Participate in the Meeting.

Cotati City Council and Planning Commission Meetings will be conducted virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing, and will still be available to watch or listen live in the following ways:

1. Using the following online livestream meeting portal link: http://cotaticityca.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx;

2. Cable T.V. Broadcast, local channel 28
Members of the public can participate in the meeting online by selecting “Join a Meeting” at Zoom.us. The credentials for joining the meeting are provided below:

Webinar ID: 813 8849 0855
Passcode: 095589
If you do not have the ability to join online, but would like to participate in the meeting, you can call into the meeting using your telephone, by dialing one of the following numbers and entering the meeting credentials:
1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866
Attendees may join the meeting any time after 5:45 pm. Attendees will be muted until they are called upon for Public Comment. To make a public comment, use the “raise hand” icon on your smart device or desktop computer, or dial *9 if you are using just your telephone. Please listen carefully for the Mayor or City Clerk to address you by name (or phone number) and for the audible Zoom notification that you have been unmuted.

Once you begin your public comment, your three minutes will begin.

If you would prefer to submit public comment in writing, please email your comments to [email protected]. If you are commenting on a specific agenda item or items, please state the agenda item number(s) in the subject line of the email. All comments received via email will be provided to the City Council or Planning Commission in writing and included as a part of the record of the meeting.

If you have a disability which requires an accommodation or an alternative format to assist you in observing and commenting on this meeting, please contact the Deputy City Clerk, Kevin Patterson, at [email protected] or (707) 665- 3622 48 hours in advance to ensure arrangements for accommodation. ###
The Cotati City Council welcomes you to its meetings that are generally scheduled for the 2 nd and 4th Tuesday
of every month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated.

City Council meeting agendas, minutes and recordings are posted on the City’s Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org. For questions about the agenda or to receive the City Council agenda by e-mail, contact the Deputy City Clerk at [email protected] or 707-665-3622.

Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.

Cotati City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cotati City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

Disabled Accommodation: Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate formats to persons with disabilities as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Deputy City Clerk at (707) 665-3622 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

Public Comment (Action items): Public comment on any one agenda item where the City Council will be taking some action is limited to no more than three (3) minutes per person. Action items are typically designated on the agenda title.

Public Comment (Non-Action items): Public comment on non- action agenda items shall be received during the designated portion of the agenda. Comments shall be limited to no more than three (3) minutes for all nonaction agenda items.

Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions/direction of the City Council of the City of Cotati in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cotati at, or prior to, the public hearing(s).

City Council meetings are conducted according to City Council Policy 2021-01: City Council Rules. This policy available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

Persons wishing to address the Council are not required to identify themselves or complete a speaker card; (Gov’t. Code § 54953.3); however, this information assists the Mayor by ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and it assists the City Clerk in preparing the City Council meeting minutes.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED

UNDER THIS AGENDA (ACTION)
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APR 26, 2022 6:00 PM B. COTATI CITY COUNCIL - STRATEGIC PLANNING SPECIAL MEETING - MAY 17, 2022 6:00 PM

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Meeting Orientation for New Attendees/Viewers. In conformance with the Brown Act and the adopted City Council Rules, the meeting agenda includes items labeled as Action Items, where the City Council will consider the item and citizens are afforded the opportunity to provide comments relevant to the item being discussed. The meeting agenda also includes a Citizens Business item, which is the designated place on the agenda where citizens have the right to say whatever they wish.

Cotati City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

The City Council may, or may not, choose to respond to comments, as the Government Code allows. However, if the City Council declines to respond, it should not be perceived as giving credence to or agreeing with any statements that the City Council or its members believe are incorrect, misinformed or purposefully biased.

B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the maintenance of our streets, parks, and public buildings. See details on the web at cotaticity.org
C. Citizens interested in receiving City of Cotati community alerts via text or email are encouraged to sign up with Nixle by downloading the Everbridge app from the IOS or Android app store or by texting your zip code (94931) to 888777.

D. Like always, we love to hear from you, so please feel free to contact the City at 707- 792-4600 or [email protected]. If you have a non-emergency issue after normal business hours, you can contact us at 707-792-4611 and of course if you have an emergency, please contact 9-1-1. Continue to look for updates on the City's website and social media channels available on Facebook, Instagram, Nixle, and Nextdoor.

6. PRESENTATIONS
A. PRESENTATION BY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the MarinSonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District. No action will be taken.

7. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)

8. CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Any member of the public wishing to speak to the Council on any item(s) listed on the Consent Calendar or any matter(s) not listed on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council may do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda during this period. Pursuant to City Council Policy 2021-01, comments of any member of the public are normally restricted to a total of three (3) minutes in length per person for matters not on the agenda and a total of three (3) minutes per person in length for any and all items on the Consent Calendar.

The Mayor may extend the time limit for a reasonable time where a disability accommodation has been requested.

A. PUBLIC COMMENT

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STREAMLINING ORDINANCE
It is recommended that the city Council adopt an ordinance amending the land use code to implement General Plan policies that will streamline the review and approval of multifamily housing development and remove barriers to multifamily housing development.

B. SB1 LIST OF PROJECTS FY22/23
Cotati City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

It is recommended the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
C. REQUEST FOR FY 21-22 CITY COUNCIL CONTRIBUTION FOR

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
It is recommended that the City Council approve a request from the Cotati Chamber of Commerce for $15,000 financial support in the current fiscal year (2021-2022).

D. AWARD POCKET PARK AND LAGUNA PATHWAYS CONSTRUCTION
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Pathways Improvements Project Construction Contract to US Engineering, Inc.and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract and associated construction support agreements for the Project, including any needed Change Orders or amendments to those contracts up to the approved project budget.

E. SET PH FOR 2022-23 OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution setting a Public Hearing date to receive all oral and written protests to the outstanding backflow testing charges and levying of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

F. SET PH FOR 2022-23 SEWER DELINQUENCIES
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution setting a public hearing date to approve itemized report of sewer charges and penalties outstanding and directing levying of assessment for fiscal year 2022-2023.

G. LLAD 22-23- ACCEPT ER, AND SET PH DATE
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution of intent to levy and collect annual assessments, approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report and set the time and date of the Public Hearing for the City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

10. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. POLICE POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the policy compliance review of the police department.

B. POLICE 2021 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY
It is recommended that the City Council receive and discuss the annual police chief report to the community for 2021.

Cotati City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

C. CONCEPT APPEAL ORDINANCE
It is recommended that the City Council review the information provided by staff, consider the various options identified and provide direction on a potential ordinance.

D. OPPOSITION LETTER FOR AB 2011 AND SUPPORT CAL CITIES

BUDGET PRIORITIES
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to AB 2011 and a letter of support for Cal Cities Fiscal Year 22/23 budget requests.

12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS

14. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

15. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
A. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.

16. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS/ADJOURNMENT TO

CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL- LITIGATION (CALIFORNIA GOVERMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(4)) 1 CASE
B. CONFERENCE WITH UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES (GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER OF DESIGNEE. EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION:

UNREPRESENTED

17. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

18. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City's website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans' Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before May 20, 2022.
/s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday April 26, 2022
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Mark Landman Mayor Remote
Susan Harvey Vice Mayor Remote
Laura Sparks Councilmember Remote
Ben Ford Councilmember Remote
John C. Moore Councilmember Remote
Staff present: City Attorney John Bakker, City Manager Damien O’Bid, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Patterson, Police Chief Michael Parish, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott, Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter, Director of Community Development Noah Housh, Senior Planner JP Harries

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED

UNDER THIS AGENDA (ACTION)
No public comment
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APR 12, 2022 6:00 PM RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Sparks, Ford, Moore
B. COTATI CITY COUNCIL - STRATEGIC PLANNING SPECIAL MEETING - APR 19, 2022 6:00 PM

4.A
Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 26, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Sparks, Ford, Moore

6. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
No changes
No public comment

7. CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
No public comment.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)

4.A
Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 26, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
SECONDER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Sparks, Ford, Moore
A. COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ORD. REVISIONS - RETAIL CONSUMPTION LOUNGE
B. CONTRACT - BACKFLOW TESTER

9. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
A. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STREAMLINING
Presentation by Senior Planner JP Harries
Councilmembers comment
Public Comment:

Stephanie Picard Bowen
After a lengthy discussion, Vice Mayor Harvey moved to introduce the ordinance as written, with the exception of removing all items as described in Item #4 on packet page 578. The City Council majority asked for a future item that permitted City Council hearings, before proceeding with Item #4.

RESULT: INTRODUCED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Sparks, Ford, Moore

11. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. MAYORS & COUNCILMEMBERS ASSOCIATION - ASSOCIATION
CLERK
Presentation by City Manager Damien O'Bid
Councilmembers comment
No public comment
Council gives direction to support the hiring of a Clerk for the Mayors and Councilmembers Association of Sonoma County.

4.A
Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 26, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Report by City Manager Damien O'Bid

13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Councilmembers report out on local and regional meetings and events

14. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS
No public comment

15. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
A. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

16. ANNOUNCMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS/ADJOURNMENT TO

CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Landman adjourns to closed session
A. CONFERENCE WITH UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES (GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION:

UNREPRESENTED

17. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Landman announces that there is nothing to report out of closed session

18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landman adjourns the meeting at 9:45pm

4.A
Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 26, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday May 17, 2022
6:00 PM STRATEGIC PLANNING SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Landman calls the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

Attendee Name Title Status
Mark Landman Mayor Remote
Susan Harvey Vice Mayor Remote
Laura Sparks Councilmember Remote
Ben Ford Councilmember Remote
John C. Moore Councilmember Remote
Staff present: City Manager Damien O'Bid, Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter, Director of Community Development Noah Housh, Director of Public Works & City Engineer Craig Scott, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Patterson II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment:

Neil Hancock of Cotati
Pursuant to California Government Code section 54954.3(a), members of the public wishing to address the Council/Board may do so at the beginning of the special meeting, and such comments shall be limited to the special meeting topic.

III. AB 361 TELECONFERENCING

1. AB 361 TELECONFERENCING RULES
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Sparks, Ford, Moore
IV. STUDY SESSION

4.B
Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 17, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes May 17, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. BUDGET STUDY SESSION FOR ENTERPRISE (WATER, SEWER, &

INTERNAL SERVICE) FUNDS AND CAPITAL FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
Presentation by Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter & City Manager Damien O'Bid
Councilmembers Comment
Public Comment:

Neil Hancock of Cotati
Laurie Ann Barber of Cotati
V. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

1. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED.

VI. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS/ADJOURNMENT TO

CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Landman adjourns to closed session at 7:09 pm.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL-EXISTING LITIGATION
(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)). JOHN PATRICK RILEY V CITY OF COTATI ET AL, CASE NO. 14:21-CV-06244- JST
B. CONFERENCE WITH UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES (GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION:

UNREPRESENTED
VII. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Landman announces there is nothing to report out of closed session.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landman adjourns the meeting at 9:43pm

4.B
Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 17, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PRESENTATIONS
To: City Council
Subject: Presentation by the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District. No action will be taken.

Attachments:

MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (PPTX)

6.A
Packet Pg. 12
Marin/Sonoma
Mosquito & Vector
Control District
Update to City of Cotati
May 24, 2022

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Integrated Vector
Management Program
u Stresses prevention via outreach, education as primary strategies u Physical control and biological control are also key approaches (source reduction)
u Full Programmatic Environmental Impact Report was completed and certified in 2016
u Larvicide materials applied are mostly biorational e.g. naturally occurring soil bacteria, or mosquito hormone
u Many of the products used by the District are certified for use in organic operations (all listed on our web site)
u District works closely with organic growers and beekeepers

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Local Mosquito Threats
Culex tarsalis
Western Encephalitis Mosquito
West Nile Virus
Culex stigmatosoma
Banded Foul Water
Mosquito
West Nile Virus
Culex erythrothorax
Tule Mosquito
West Nile Virus
Culiseta inornata
Large Winter Mosquito
West Nile Virus
Culiseta particeps
No common name
West Nile Virus
There are 22 different species of mosquito found in Marin and Sonoma Counties. Emerging species of mosquito such
as the Yellow Fever & Asian Tiger mosquitoes could bring the threat of new diseases.

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Inventory of Mosquito Sources
These 468 active sources are checked regularly

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) District Activity in Cotati (2021)

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Local West Nile virus activity during 2021
Ø One bird and two samples of mosquitoes
tested positive for West Nile virus
Ø No Human Cases in Sonoma County
Ø Statewide: 147 cases, 12 fatalities

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Tick Testing Program
Adult: Western Black-legged Tick

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Tick Testing Program
Nymphal Stage

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Tick Collecting & Testing Results: Sonoma County

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Public Outreach &
Education: • Press Democrat/Marin IJ • Social Media: Nextdoor • Newsletter sent to subscribers • Seven radio stations • Presentations to community groups & in workplaces
• Targeted display ads on streaming
services e.g. Hulu, Vimeo
• Partnerships with Sonoma County
Regional Parks & Conservation
Corps for Waste Tires (Cotati)

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Social Media Posts

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Challenges Facing the District
u Shifts in the climate are changing when and
where different mosquito populations are
occurring
u Invasive Aedes species of mosquitoes
continue to spread northward from SoCal
and are now established in Placer and Yolo
counties. They can transmit diseases such as
Zika, Yellow Fever, Chikungunya & Japanese
encephalitis
Aedes aegypti
Yellow Fever Mosquito

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Innovation
Drone helps check sites for mosquito
larvae, saving time and fuel Updated truck graphics enhance agency visibility

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Financials: FY 22-23 Budget
u Total Revenues$10.8m
u Balanced budget
u Budget Increase from prior year:3%
u Modest surpluses in recent years used to reduce
accrued unfunded OPEB liability
u Portion of budget spent on pension costs: 12%

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Pension (MCERA)
u Pension Funded Ratio • 95%
u As July 1, 2021, no unfunded pension
liability remained but outcome depends on
sustained investment performance over
next few years.
u Proportion of PEPRA active members increasing

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Thanks
-
Any Questions?
Philip Smith, District Manager
[email protected]
www.msmosquito.org
(707) 285-2200

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: MSMVCD Update to City of Cotati (Presentation by Mosquito & Vector Control District) Hello,
On Saturday May 14, my 2 year old and my wife walked out of Walgreens and noticed a large black rooster slowly coming towards them from the parking lot. They stopped, and then the Rooster ran towards them. My wife swooped down, picked up my daughter and began running around the cars. She was able to put my daughter in the car but couldn't escape herself and was attacked with beak/claws and was punctured on the back of her leg, bleeding. Not a large wound but small holes, with claw scratches all over. She's also pregnant, so because of our concern of an infected wound she went to urgent care and got antibiotics to cover her just in case. I called the Walgreen supervisor immediately (Redwood Highway) and she told me to call animal control. I was told by Cotati PD and Animal control services (northbay Animal services and Sonoma county animal control) that they could do nothing because they no longer contract with Cotati, and that I need to speak with city council for action, about your aggressive chickens/rooster. These animals have been a nuisance in this parking lot for quite some time. It's absolutely absurd that not the police nor animal control can do something about aggressive animals and I have to go thru this channel. What if this animal bites several people today? What if it pecked out my toddler's eyes or my wife now gets an infection and god forbid something happens? My wife was lucky enough to pick up my toddler but clearly the animal was going for the kid. Where is the line that something is done immediately instead of waiting for a city council meeting.

This shouldn't have to be this way, it's why we have animal control.

But two different animal control departments and your local police department were useless on the phone call on Saturday 5/14. Do we have to wait until something serious happens? I have a Cotati PD case # now.

The other item to address is that if these chickens are city controlled they should be up to date on vaccines and tagged, or monitored in some way but I bet that's not the case. They need to be relocated and they need to be controlled and owned by the city if that's what everybody claims, not just have them free range in a parking lot in front of a pharmacy and a coffee shop posing a threat.

Update: Today 5/18 I was notified by the chief of cotati PD Michael Parish by phone and email that they will in fact try to capture this particular rooster and remove them. I'm thankful, I'm sure there are many residents who also appreciate that. Thank you to whomever passed this along and took it seriously enough. It may seem minor, and it is compared to our larger problems, but my wife was injured, and my toddler could've fared worse.

Will you guys pay for my wife's urgent care visit? or what about the prescription? Isn't the City liable if you are "owning" the chickens and they caused bodily harm. I'd like to continue to ask, if the other free range chickens/roosters are being fed by folks and enabled to feel more comfortable approaching people, is it the city's responsibility to tag them? vaccinate them? make sure if there are future issues they are dealt with immediately? What is the plan. I know there's a strong sense of community here and we enjoy the outdoors and our agriculturally friendly focus, but wouldn't it be a better idea to place them in a more secured area so we can view them from afar with our children, instead of running loose in a busy area wondering if one will snap? We're hoping there was only one aggressive bird, but maybe there's more.

Thanks for your attention and your care in this matter, and very much appreciate Chief Parish for doing something about this. Thank you for your time.
818-337-8135
Eli Piyevsky

8.A
Packet Pg. 29
Communication: Public Comment (CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type:

To: City Council
Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Cotati Land Use Code to streamline the review of certain multifamily projects and remove barriers to multifamily housing development
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Jon-Paul Harries, Senior Planner
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city Council adopt an ordinance amending the land use code to implement General Plan policies that will streamline the review and approval of multifamily housing development and remove barriers to multifamily housing development.

Background
On April 26, 2022, the City Council introduced the attached ordinance intended to implement certain General Plan policies that will streamline the review and permitting of certain multifamily projects and remove barriers to multifamily housing development.

As discussed in the attached staff report from the April 26 meeting, the proposed ordinance amends the land use code to be consistent with certain action items and programs set forth in the Cotati General Plan, and does the following:

1. Increases the maximum allowed lot coverage on parcels in the NM (Neighborhood, Medium Density) zoning districts from 50% to 55%.

2. Increases the maximum allowed lot coverage on parcels in the NU (Neighborhood, Urban) zoning districts from 60% to 75%.

3. Allows for 35-foot-tall structures in the NU zoning district without the need for a use permit.

At the April 26 meeting, the City Council also considered a section of the ordinance that would have eliminated the requirement for a use permit to develop multifamily housing in the NM and NU zoning districts; however, after a significant amount of discussion, the City Council decided to remove that section from the ordinance and table the discussion on that item until a later date.

9.A
Packet Pg. 30
Attachments:

Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (DOC)
Resolution PC 2022-3_Multifamily streamlining (PDF)

9.A
Packet Pg. 31
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Introduction of an ordinance amending the Cotati Land Use Code to streamline the review and permitting of certain multifamily housing projects and remove barriers to multifamily housing development.

Date: April 26, 2022
Written by: Jon-Paul Harries, Senior Planner
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce the ordinance amending Title 17 of Cotati Municipal Code (Land Use) to streamline the review and permitting of certain multifamily housing projects and remove barriers to multifamily housing development.

Background
The attached proposed ordinance is intended to implement several of the action items and programs set forth in Cotati’s General Plan that would streamline the review and permitting of certain multifamily housing projects and remove barriers to multifamily development.

Multifamily development is permitted in the residential NM (Neighborhood, Medium Density) and NU (Neighborhood, Urban) zoning districts, and can also be developed as part of a mixeduse project in the city’s commercial zones and specific plan areas. The proposed ordinance would only affect multifamily projects in the NM and NU zoning districts and amends the Land Use Code as follows:

1. Increases the maximum allowed land coverage on parcels in the NM zoning districts from 50% to 55%.

2. Increases the maximum allowed land coverage on parcels in the NU zoning districts from 60% to 75%.

3. Increases the maximum allowed height in the NU zoning district from 28 feet to 35 feet.

Currently, structures in the NU zoning district can be built to 35 feet in height only if granted a use permit or if 40 percent or more of the units in the development will be affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households.

4. Removes the requirement for a use permit to develop multifamily housing in the NM (Neighborhood, Medium Density) and NU (Neighborhood, Urban) zoning districts, and would identify multifamily housing development as a Permitted Use in the MN and NU

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) zoning districts. New or expanded multifamily developments, however, would still be subject to discretionary Design Review approval by the Planning Commission or City Council depending on the project.

Analysis/Discussion
Meeting the housing needs of Cotati’s residents as well as accommodating the city’s share of regional housing needs is identified as an important goal for Cotati in the city’s General Plan and its Housing Element. Cotati’s General Plan identifies many goals, policies, and programs related to the retention and development of affordable and market-rate housing. Among them are several specific action items and programs related to multifamily housing development that would streamline the review and permitting of certain multifamily housing projects and remove some barriers to multifamily housing development, including the following:

General Plan - Land Use Element
• Action LU 1b: Review the standards provided in the Land Use Code and amend as necessary for consistency with General Plan policies and allowed uses, including:
o Increase maximum building height in the Neighborhood, Urban zone to 35 feet, without the requirement for a use permit.
o Increase the maximum site coverage to 55% in the Neighborhood, Medium Density zone and to 75% in the Neighborhood, Urban zone. • Action LU 4a: Review and update the City’s development permitting process to provide a streamlined and straightforward process. At a minimum, the review may consider:
o Methods to streamline and simplify the process, including the process for review by City staff as well as various committees and commissions. o Opportunities to reduce redundancies and delays.

General Plan - Housing Element
• Program 2-6: Barrier Removals for Multi-Family Development o The Land Use Code will be amended to remove two potential barriers to the provision of multi-family housing. One amendment will be to remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement for multi-family development of five or more units in the NU Zone, and the second is to reduce the parking requirements for studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units (currently 2.25 spaces) to one space for studio and one-bedroom units and no more than two spaces for two- and threebedroom units. • Program 3-9: Monitor Use Permit Requirements for Affordable Housing o Monitor the requirement for a Use Permit for multi-family projects larger than 4 units in the NU Zone to ensure that affordable housing projects are being accommodated. If the requirement for a Use Permit is shown to be an impediment

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) to the development of affordable housing projects in the NU Zone, review the feasibility of allowing multi-family projects larger than 4 units in the NU Zone as a Permitted Use.

Amendments to certain development standards to be consistent with the General Plan Action LU 1b, noted above, directs the city to amend or “clean up” its zoning code to be consistent with specific development policies adopted as part of the General Plan. The General Plan development policies addressed in the proposed ordinance include: 1) increasing the maximum amount of land coverage allowed on parcels in the NM zoning districts from 50% to 55%, 2) increasing the maximum amount of land coverage allowed on parcels in the NU zoning districts from 60% to 75%, and 3) allowing for 35-foot-high structures without a use permit in the NU zoning district.

Changing these zoning code standards to be consistent with the General Plan will remove barriers to multifamily housing development by allowing for a small, but not insignificant, increase in development capacity in the NM and NU zoning districts. Developers have expressed that the land coverage limitations can make it difficult to achieve density minimums and provide adequate parking. Increasing the amount of allowable land coverage in the NM and NU districts will allow for larger structures and parking areas and will help to alleviate this barrier to multifamily development. Similarly, allowing for 35-foot-tall structures in the NU zoning district without a Use Permit can serve to streamline the review and permitting of multifamily housing projects. As further discussed below, City approval of multifamily housing projects will not be a ministerial procedure and such projects will still be subject to a public discretionary Design Review process and the City will be required to make findings similar to those for a Use Permit prior to project approval.

Elimination of Use Permit requirement for multifamily projects in NM and NU zones Eliminating the Use Permit requirement for multifamily housing developments is a permit streamlining measure that contributes to implementation of General Plan Action LU 4a and Housing Element Programs 2-6 and 3-9 identified above. The proposed draft ordinance would eliminate the Use Permit requirement for all multifamily housing projects located in the NM and NU zoning districts (see Figure 1 on the following page).

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) Figure 1 – Cotati Zoning Map
* Note: There are no NM or NU zoning districts located west of Highway 101

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) Housing Element Programs 2-6 and 3-9 specifically direct the city to consider eliminating the use permit requirement in the NU zoning districts. This amendment is included in the draft ordinance. Additionally, the proposed ordinance includes NM in the zoning districts where a use permit would not be required. Staff has included the NM district in the proposed ordinance because eliminating the use permit requirement implements the more general direction provided in Action LU4a and, as further discussed below, will not make the review and permitting of multifamily developments a ministerial process or allow future multifamily developments byright. Design review approval from the Planning Commission or City Council at a noticed public hearing would still be required.

The NM and NU zoning districts are areas where the City has already determined multifamily housing development is appropriate and desirable. The primary effects from eliminating the use permit requirement in NM and NU zoning districts would be that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review would be limited to aspects of design review, and the city would not be required to make certain use permit findings prior to project approval. However, since multifamily housing projects will remain subject to design review approval, the City will be required to make the certain findings prior to project approval. As shown in the following table, the findings to approve a use permit are very similar to the findings to approve design review and are largely redundant.

Staff report continues on the following page

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) Table 1 – Use Permit v. Design Review Findings
Use Permit Findings
CMC §17.62.050(F)
Design Review Findings
CMC §17.62.040(F-G)

1. The proposed use is allowed within the
applicable zoning district and complies with
all other applicable provisions of this land
use code and the municipal code;

2. The proposed use is consistent with the
general plan and any applicable specific
plan;

3. The design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the proposed activity are
compatible with the existing and future land
uses in the vicinity;

4. The site is physically suitable for the type,
density and intensity of use being proposed,
including access, utilities, and the absence
of physical constraints; and

5. Granting the permit would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare, or
materially injurious to persons, property, or
improvements in the vicinity and zoning
district in which the property is located.

1. Project complies with Section 17.62.040
(Design Review);

2. Provides architectural design, building
massing and scale appropriate to and
compatible with the site surroundings and
the community;

3. Provides attractive and desirable site layout
and design, including building
arrangement, exterior appearance and
setbacks, drainage, fences and walls,
grading, landscaping, lighting, signs, etc.;

4. Provides efficient, safe, and visually
attractive public access, circulation and
parking;

5. Provides appropriate open space and
landscaping, including the use of waterefficient landscaping, and native plants where appropriate;

6. Addresses site planning design
considerations related to city services,
traffic flows and patterns, and
environmental conditions in a manner that
ensures maximum aesthetic cohesiveness;

7. Is consistent with the general plan and
applicable specific plans; and

8. Complies with any applicable city design
guidelines, design standards, and/or design
review policies.

Given the city’s examination and consideration of areas when they are initially zoned for multifamily development, the redundancy in the findings to approve design review and the findings to approve a use permit, and given that all areas zoned NM and NU in the city are urban infill locations, Staff has concluded that there would be minimal adverse impacts or reduced project scrutiny by eliminating the use permit requirement for multifamily housing projects located in the NM and NU zoning districts.

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) Planning Commission
On March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 1, adopted Resolution PC-2022-3 recommending City Council approval of the proposed ordinance (see Exhibit A). The Commission questioned how the development potential of individual parcels would be affected by the ordinance, and sought clarification on the differences between use permit approvals and design review approvals. The Commission was supportive of the ordinance, but one dissenting Commissioner felt that some multifamily projects could have a significant impact on a neighborhood and that the use permit requirement allowed for increased scrutiny and evaluation of a project beyond its design.

Financial Considerations
The proposed ordinance will not have a direct adverse financial impact on the city. The staff time to prepare the ordinance will be reimbursed through a portion of the SB 2 Planning Grant awarded to the city in 2019. Staff time to review and process multifamily housing projects is recovered through design review application and building permit fees.

Environmental Issues
Section 15168(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that certain projects are exempt from further environmental review if they are consistent with a previously adopted General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that “later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” The proposed code changes are a “later activity” of the program EIR that was certified for the Cotati General Plan. Relative to what was analyzed in the program level EIR, the proposed code changes do not result in environmental effects that were not previously examined. As such, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), the City can “approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” Further, the requirement that multifamily housing developments must receive Design Review approval (a discretionary action) ensures multifamily housing projects will undergo environmental review under CEQA to address site specific environmental concerns.

Cotati General Plan EIR
The Cotati General Plan was adopted March 24, 2015, by Resolution Number 2015-12. The General Plan identifies the City’s vision for the future and provides a framework to guide decisions on growth, development, and conservation of open space in a manner consistent with the goals and priorities of residents and businesses. The City of Cotati General Plan program level EIR provides for streamlining and/or tiering opportunities under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) The Cotati General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2013082037), was certified on March 24, 2015 by Resolution Number 2015-11. The General Plan EIR reviewed potentially significant environmental effects resulting from plan implementation and identified policies that mitigate impacts. Nonetheless, significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under the General Plan. Therefore, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which balance the merits of approving the Plan despite the significant environmental effects.

A copy of the City of Cotati’s General Plan and EIR are available at the Community Development Department, 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California 94931, during normal business hours, and online at http://cotati.generalplan.org/.

Consistency with the City of Cotati General Plan and EIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15168) The City of Cotati is proposing changes to the Land Use Code to streamline the review and permitting of multifamily housing developments and remove barriers to their development. The code changes are intended to encourage housing development within existing urbanized areas near jobs and transit in accordance with the General Plan and Housing Element goals and policies. As discussed above, the proposed Land Use Code changes implement specific action items and programs identified in the General Plan and Housing Element, including:
• Action LU 1b: Review the standards provided in the Land Use Code and amend as necessary for consistency with General Plan policies and allowed uses; • Action LU 4a: Review and update the City’s development permitting process to provide a streamlined and straightforward process;
• Program 2-6: Barrier Removals for Multi-Family Development; and • Program 3-9: Monitor Use Permit Requirements for Affordable Housing The proposed zoning amendments implement the General Plan and Housing Element and were analyzed in the EIR. The proposed code changes do not result in new unexamined environmental effects; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.

Attachments:

EXHIBIT A - Planning Commission Resolution PC-2022-3(DOC)

9.A.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Staff Report - City Council April 26, 2022 (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance)

9.A.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Resolution PC 2022-3_Multifamily streamlining (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance)

9.A.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Resolution PC 2022-3_Multifamily streamlining (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance)

9.A.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Resolution PC 2022-3_Multifamily streamlining (Multifamily housing streamlining ordinance) ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AMENDING SECTION 17.24.020 (ALLOWABLE LAND USES) AND SECTION 17.24.030 (STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USES) OF THE COTATI

MUNICIPAL CODE TO STREAMLINE THE REVIEW OF CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY

HOUSING PROJECTS AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the availability and affordability of housing is a substantial concern for individuals of all demographics, ages, and economic backgrounds in communities throughout California; and
WHEREAS, over the last several years the State of California has adopted numerous legislative bills intended to increase the supply of housing in California, including the Building Jobs and Homs Act (SB 2, 2017) which supports development of this Ordinance through its SB 2 Planning Grants program; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the City Council adopted the updated Cotati General Plan, and on May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted the Housing Element, which sets forth policies and programs intended to remove constraints and promote the development of additional affordable housing in Cotati; and
WHEREAS, adoption of changes to Land Use Code are necessary to implement the objectives of the General Plan and Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Land Use Code amendments and recommended City Council approval of the implementing draft ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council introduced this ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard.

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

SECTION 1. Recitals Made Findings.

The above recitals constitute a part of the findings made by the City Council in adopting this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Record.

The Record of Proceedings (“Record”) upon which the City Council makes its decision includes, but is not limited to: 1) the General Plan and Housing Element adopted by the City Council in Packet Pg. 43
2015, 2) the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified for the General Plan, and 3) all staff reports, City files, records, and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City Council related to the adoption of the zoning amendments.

SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City Council of the City of Cotati does hereby find that the Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to streamline the review of certain multifamily housing projects and remove barriers to multifamily housing development fulfills certain policies and objectives identified in the 2015 General Plan and Housing Element, and is consistent with the program level Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013082037) for the Cotati General Plan Update (certified on March 24, 2015 (Resolution No. 2015-11)). Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 4. Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code.

Section 17.24.030, Tables 2-10 and 2-11, and Figure 2-14 are amended, as shown in strike-out (deleted) and underline (added) text, as follows:

Table 2-10
NM Zone Standards
Development Standard NM Zone Requirement
Setbacks – Minimum setbacks required, as shown in Figure 2-11. See Section 17.30.020 for exceptions.

Front 20 ft.

Side – Interior (each) 5 ft.; 10 ft. for multifamily structures; none required for rowhouse units.

Side – Street side 10 ft.

Rear 20 ft.

Garage 10 ft. back from street-facing facade of main structure, exclusive of porch.

Accessory structures See Section 17.42.160 (Residential accessory uses and structures) Building frontage – Building frontage types allowed, design requirements, and allowed encroachments into setbacks. Frontage types are defined in Section 17.24.040.

Allowed frontage types Common yard, porch
Allowed encroachments See Section 17.30.020(F), Table 3-1 Site coverage – Maximum percentage of site area that may be covered by structures and pavement.

Maximum coverage 50%55%
Height limit – Maximum allowable height of structures. See Section 17.30.040 (Height limits and exceptions) for height measurement requirements, and height limit exceptions. See Figure 2-12.

Main structure 28 ft.

Accessory structures See Section 17.42.160
Packet Pg. 44
Table 2-11
NU Zone Standards
Development Standard NU Zone Requirement
Build-to-lines – Required separation of primary structure from specified property line, as shown in Figure 2-13. See Section 17.30.020 for exceptions.

Front 15 ft.

Setbacks – Minimum setbacks required as shown in Figure 2-13. See Section 17.30.020 for exceptions.

Front See build-to-lines required above
Side – Interior (each) 10 ft. for 1-story building walls; 15 ft. for 2-story building walls; none required for rowhouse units.

Side – Street side 15 ft.

Rear 15 ft.

Garage 10 ft. back from street-facing facade of main structure, exclusive of porch.

Accessory structures See Section 17.42.160
Building frontage – Building frontage types allowed, design requirements, and allowed encroachments into setbacks. Frontage types are defined in Section 17.24.040.

Allowed frontage types Common yard, porch, forecourt, stoop Allowed encroachments See Section 17.30.020(F), Table 3-1 Site coverage – Maximum percentage of site area that may be covered by structures and pavement.

Maximum coverage 60%75%
Height limit – Maximum allowable height of structures.1 See Section 17.30.040 for height measurement, and height limit exceptions. See Figure 2-14.

Main structure 28 ft.; 35 ft. with use permit35 ft.

Accessory structures See Section 17.42.160
1 Maximum height is twenty-eight feet, except buildings up to thirty-five feet are allowed without a use permit for development that provides forty percent or more units affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households as defined by Sections 50105 and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code; however, multifamily buildings adjacent to existing single-story residential development shall continue to be restricted to a maximum height of twenty-eight feet Packet Pg. 45

SECTION 5. Severability
The provisions of this ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word, or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.

SECTION 6. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.

SECTION 7. Publication or Posting.

The City Clerk of the City of Cotati shall cause this Ordinance to be published or posted as required in Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Packet Pg. 46
John Bakker, City Attorney
This document is a true and correct copy of Ordinance Number and has been published or posted pursuant to law. California Government Code § 40806
_______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 47
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: FY22/23 SB 1 List of Projects as required by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Background
In August 2017, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the final FY 2017-18 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1). The passage of SB1 established a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) that requires local agencies to demonstrate that a project, funded by SB1, has been approved and described in adequate detail in a City resolution by July 1
st. The RMRA funds have been provided to cities on a monthly basis starting January 2018.

Analysis/Discussion
To be eligible for funding, the City must provide a City resolution to the CTC by July 1, 2022, of a list of projects planned to be funded with RMRA funds. This is an ongoing annual requirement for the City to remain eligible for the funds. The approved project list must include four statutorily-required elements for each project:

1. Location

2. Description

3. Estimated useful life

4. Anticipated construction date.

The City’s 2021 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) lists all City streets with their condition and generally associated pavement rehabilitation method. The PMP guides the City’s street preservation efforts and informed the 2023 Street Preservation Project (Project). A figure showing the extents of the project is attached to the resolution. The pavement condition has been

9.B
Packet Pg. 48
determined for this area and recommended treatment method(s)s provided to the City. The FY 22/23 estimated SB 1 funding can provide for pavement treatments for approximately 3,979 centerline feet of the following streets within the 2023 Street Preservation Project: McGinnis Circle, Ross Street, Park Avenue, Jorgensen Street, and Forno Way. The pavement preservation is to consist of dig outs, crack sealing and slurry seal. These treatments have a useful life of approximately 6 years. The 2023 Street Preservation Project is anticipated to begin in August 2022 and extend through October 2022.

Financial Considerations
SB1 requires that RMRA funds not replace local funding sources, including General Fund, gas tax, and Measure M, and the City must maintain a “Maintenance of Effort” (in other words a certain level of funding to repair local roads) as if SB1 funds were not available. The Maintenance of Effort is defined by SB1 and is derived from the annual State Controller’s Report.

The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has prepared guidelines for agencies to follow in meeting the SB1 requirements. The guidelines establish May 1, of each as the deadline for agencies to submit the project resolutions. Due to Covid 19, the deadline has been extended to July 1, for 2022. The estimated SB1 amount for the City of Cotati for FY22/23 is $135,000, which is being incorporated into the City’s draft FY 22/23 budget and accounted for separately from other local funds being used for street preservation projects.

Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because this action is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378. The appropriate CEQA analysis will be conducted as part of the design development for the named project.

9.B
Packet Pg. 49
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COTATI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of Cotati are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1 by resolution, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $135,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022/23 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the 6th year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will increase the scope of the City’s essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public beyond what otherwise would have been included in the project without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City has developed the SB 1 project list following its Pavement Management Plan and has provided opportunity for public input at City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being spent on the most high priority and cost effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate 3,979, centerline feet of residential streets this year and similar sized projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2021 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in the “fair” condition category and this revenue will help us maintain the overall quality of our road system; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2022/23 streets project, funded by SB 1, is to rehabilitate McGinnis Circle, Ross Street, Park Avenue, Jorgensen Street, Forno Way, and the pavement preservation is to consist of dig outs, crack sealing and slurry seal; and Packet Pg. 50
WHEREAS, the estimated useful life of the planned improvements is expected to be 6 years and the 2023 Street Preservation Project is anticipated to begin in August 2022 and extend through October 2022; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive impact into the future; and
WHEREAS, the action of adopting a resolution to meet the State legislative requirements to remain eligible to use the SB 1 funding for routine street maintenance projects does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Cotati hereby finds the following:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following is the City’s Fiscal Year 2022/23 “list of projects” planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Perform digouts, crack sealing and slurry seal on approximately 3,979 centerline feet of McGinnis Circle, Ross Street, Park Avenue, Jorgensen Street, and Forno Way with treatments having an anticipated life span of 6 years, and construction occurring in Fiscal Year 22/23 (project extents shown on attached figure).

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the May 24th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Attachments:

Yr 2023 Map - SB1 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 51
Scenario Treatments
Current Funding Level - 5 Yr CIP - 2023 Project Period - Printed: 5/10/2022

CITY OF COTATI
Test
Feature Legend

2.5"HMA OL/Mat/5"BR/EdgeTaperGrind
4"HMA Inlay/Mat/5"BR/R&RMat

DIGOUT, CRACK SEAL, SLURRY
EDGE GRD+20%DIG+FAB+3IN OL
FDR

SLURRY SEAL

9.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Yr 2023 Map - SB1 (SB1 List of Projects for FY22/23) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Request from the Cotati Chamber of Commerce for Financial Support Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve a request from the Cotati Chamber of Commerce for $15,000 financial support in the current fiscal year (2021-2022).

Background
In the past 6 fiscal years (FY14/15-20/21) the Cotati City Council has provided funding support in the amount of $15,000 in each of those years to the Cotati Chamber of Commerce (Chamber).

The Chamber recently submitted a letter requesting funding in the amount of $15,000, which is attached.

Analysis/Discussion
The Chamber is focused on growing the number and increasing the viability of local businesses through a variety of program benefits. The Chamber provides marketing and networking opportunities for all member businesses and, in addition, serves as the City’s Visitor Center. The Chamber also partners with the City with economic development, and the business visitation program, which is used to understand business challenges and look for solutions or ways to assist them in being successful. During the current fiscal year, the Chamber was a key partner in getting COVID-19 information out to the Cotati business community. Additionally, there are on-going discussions regarding maintenance of the business listings on the recently installed kiosk signs.

Through production of annual local events such as the Music Festival and Oktoberfest, the Chamber helps to grow the City’s desirability as a visitor destination. The requested support would further these marketing and promotions activities which are not readily, or legally cannot be, accomplished by the City.

Financial Considerations
The Chamber has requested $15,000 for this current fiscal year. The current budget includes a

9.C
Packet Pg. 53
City Council Contributions budget of $25,000, with $15,000 allocated for this request. The remaining funds have been utilized for funding requests by outside non-profit organizations or citizen groups, including the waiver of some park fees and staff costs at multi-year community events in La Plaza Park, in accordance with the adopted park rental policy. In accordance with prior City Council action for COVID-19 relief, fees and staff time have been waived for events and rentals, which have generally been absorbed by the City operating budget. For this direct grant request, sufficient funds remain in the City Council contributions budget in 2021/22 to fund this request.

Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

Attachments:

Grant Request 2022-2 (PDF)

9.C
Packet Pg. 54
April 11, 2022
Cotati City Council Members:

For your consideration during your 2022-23 budget sessions, Cotati Chamber of Commerce is requesting a grant of $15,000 for providing business promotion and visitor center support. As you know, the COVID-19 pandemic caused an enormous stress on the Chamber. We lost most of our funding during the 2020 and 2021 year due to the shutdown. We also lost 15-20% of our membership renewal due to business closures and the lack of new business this past year. We spent the majority of the 2021 year continuing to distribute ever-changing information and resources, connecting with membership and working to help Cotati businesses in anyway possible.

Once the State reopened, we were able to host the Cotati Music Festival in October. It was a great success for the town, tourism and local businesses. We were able to turn a profit, but not a large as we hoped. We didn’t have as much time to secure sponsorships, but that should change this coming year.

Here’s a list of some of the efforts the Chamber makes on behalf of the City (before and during the COVID shutdown):
• Serving as Information Center, giving directions and information to all walk-ins, phone inquiries, and email inquires
• Partnered with the City of Cotati by providing all information regarding a business directory for downtown kiosks
• Distributing city and county information to residents, visitors, and potential re-locators • Representing Cotati at regional Chamber events and Economic Development Board quarterly meetings
• Hosting quarterly information and education meetings for Chamber members including a State of the City by the mayor, marketing and communication learning opportunities, and other sessions as
requested by members
• Host in person and virtual mixers, ribbon cuttings or attend member special events, including anniversaries and business expansions
• A bi-weekly electronic newsletter that goes to more than 650 subscribers that highlights new chamber members, events and happenings by Chamber members and city events and updates
• Provide new content daily for businesses on social media. We also share all city updates and other updates from local organizations and business members through social media • Passing along information about member businesses to the Community Voice, Press Democrat, and other online community news sources
• Working in collaboration with Cotati’s recreation department, local designers, and a local printer to produce and distribute Explore Cotati, detailing Chamber businesses alongside recreation opportunities
for all ages
• Partnering with the Cotati Historical Society and hosting monthly historic walking tours starting Spring of 2022. These tours should bring more tourism and business to Cotati. • Hosting events throughout the year to attract visitors to Cotati who interact with local businesses and learn what Cotati has to offer. Those include:
• Music Festival, which attracts 850+ attendees
• Oktoberfest, a well-established event attracting 800+ attendees Cotati Chamber of Commerce 216 E. School Street, Cotati CA 94931 cotati.org

9.C.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Grant Request 2022-2 (Request for FY 21-22 City Council Contribution for Chamber of Commerce) • Shop & Stroll, an annual event held downtown
• Sponsor and help host the Cotati Farmer’s Market, where we host a booth and handle all beverage sales for each event
• Co-host the Business Expo (a new annual event) along with Rohnert Park Chamber and Hispanic Chamber, promoting local businesses
We thank you very much for acknowledging in this manner the work that the Chamber does to promote Cotati’s business community.

At this time, we would like to request the approved funding be provided to the Chamber.

Sincerely,
Liz Derammelaere
Executive Director
CC: Erin Armstrong, Chamber of Cotati 2022 President
Cotati Chamber of Commerce 216 E. School Street, Cotati CA 94931 cotati.org

9.C.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Grant Request 2022-2 (Request for FY 21-22 City Council Contribution for Chamber of Commerce) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Award of the Construction Contract for the Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Pathways Improvements Project
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Pathways Improvements Project Construction Contract to US Engineering, Inc.and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract and associated construction support agreements for the Project, including any needed Change Orders or amendments to those contracts up to the approved project budget.

Background
The City’s Fiscal Year 2021/22 Annual Budget includes projects to improvement Pocket Park and the existing pathways extending from McGinnis Court to Marsh Way and to the bridge across the Laguna De Santa Rosa. On November 9, 2021, the City Council approved design contracts for these projects. The designs have been completed and the projects advertised to bid.

Upon award of the construction contract, the improvements are to be constructed with completion expected in early August.

Analysis/Discussion
On May 4th, 2022, the City received and opened four bids for the subject project and the bids are summarized on the attached bid tabulation. The low bid is from US Engineering, Inc for a not to exceed amount of $163,760 which is 3.5 percent below the engineer’s estimate. The bid has been reviewed by City staff and has been determined to be responsive and is recommended for award.

Moe Engineering has provided design services for these projects and has been requested to provide Construction Management and Inspection services during construction. Moe Engineering has submitted a proposal for the requested services and City staff has reviewed it and determined it to be fair and reasonable.

Financial Considerations
The City’s adopted Fiscal Year 21/22 Annual Budget includes $74,000 for design and construction of the Loretto and Marsh to McGinnis Pathway Resurfacing Project and $50,000 for the Pocket Park Improvements Project. The total Project cost for both of these efforts, including

9.D
Packet Pg. 57
design through construction plus contingency, is projected to be $216,300. Therefore, a budget appropriation of unappropriated general funds for an amount of $92,300 is requested.

Environmental Issues
The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15301 Existing Facilities, part (c) and Section 15303 because the Project is a minor alteration of a public street that involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.

Attachments:

Bid Tabulation Form - Pocket Park & Laguna Trail Imps. (PDF) Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (PDF)

9.D
Packet Pg. 58

BID TABULATION SUMMARY SHEET
Pocket Park & Laguna Trail Pathway Improvements ProjectBid Opening Date: 5/4/22 Bidder #1 Bidder # 2 Bidder # 3 Bidder # 4US Engineering, Inc. Piazza Construction Schaefer Engineering, Inc. Michael Paul Company, Inc. Median Average Item # Estimated
Quantity Units Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Base BidPocket Park Items

1. Mobilization 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,150.00 $ 5,150.00 $ 5,475.00 $ 5,475.00 $

2. Traffic Control and Construction Area Signs 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 3,250.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 3,125.00 $ 3,125.00 $

3. Pathway Preparation 1,040 SF 10.00 10,400.00 13.00 13,520.00 16.00 16,640.00 20.00 20,800.00 14.50 $ 15,080.00 $ 14.75 $ 15,340.00 $

4. Pathway Edging 400 LF 22.00 8,800.00 32.00 12,800.00 18.25 7,300.00 15.00 6,000.00 20.13 $ 8,050.00 $ 21.81 $ 8,725.00 $

5. Aggregate Base 20 TON 250.00 5,000.00 525.00 10,500.00 275.00 5,500.00 50.00 1,000.00 262.50 $ 5,250.00 $ 275.00 $ 5,500.00 $

6. Pathway Surface Paving 1,040 SF 12.00 12,480.00 21.00 21,840.00 18.00 18,720.00 45.00 46,800.00 19.50 $ 20,280.00 $ 24.00 $ 24,960.00 $

7. Benches 2 EA 1,000.00 2,000.00 5,440.00 10,880.00 5,750.00 11,500.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 4,220.00 $ 8,440.00 $ 3,797.50 $ 7,595.00 $

8. Lighted Bollards, Including Conduit, Wiring & Pull Box 5 EA 1,200.00 6,000.00 6,940.00 34,700.00 5,600.00 28,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 3,800.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 3,935.00 $ 19,675.00 $

9. Pull Box 1 EA 8,500.00 8,500.00 350.00 350.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,712.50 $ 2,712.50 $

10. Railing 1 LS 4,800.00 4,800.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 8,800.00 8,800.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 6,100.00 $ 6,100.00 $ 6,450.00 $ 6,450.00 $

11. Drinking Fountain 1 EA 3,200.00 3,200.00 19,285.00 19,285.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 7,600.00 $ 7,600.00 $ 9,371.25 $ 9,371.25 $

12. Irrigation Header, Including Control Wire and Valve Boxes 1 LS 3,500.00 3,500.00 5,200.00 5,200.00 10,200.00 10,200.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 $ 5,225.00 $ 5,225.00 $

13. Backflow Assembly 1 EA 3,200.00 3,200.00 5,600.00 5,600.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 3,075.00 $ 3,075.00 $ Subtotal 75,880.00 Subtotal 144,475.00 Subtotal 129,960.00 Subtotal 118,600.00 Subtotal 106,150.00 Subtotal 117,228.75 Laguna Trail Pathway Items14. Mobilization 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 4,250.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 5,025.00 $ 5,025.00 $

15. Traffic Control and Construction Area Signs 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 $

16. Pathway Removal & Preparation 1,765 SF 10.00 17,650.00 10.00 17,650.00 6.50 11,472.50 45.00 79,425.00 10.00 $ 17,650.00 $ 17.88 $ 31,549.38 $

17. Pathway Edging 500 LF 22.00 11,000.00 24.00 12,000.00 14.00 7,000.00 10.00 5,000.00 18.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 17.50 $ 8,750.00 $

18. Aggregate Base 34 TON 250.00 8,500.00 338.00 11,492.00 180.00 6,120.00 45.00 1,530.00 215.00 $ 7,310.00 $ 203.25 $ 6,910.50 $

19. Pathway Surface Paving 1,765 SF 22.00 38,830.00 15.00 26,475.00 16.00 28,240.00 20.00 35,300.00 18.00 $ 31,770.00 $ 18.25 $ 32,211.25 $

20. Minor Concrete: ADA Curb Ramp 1 EA 2,900.00 2,900.00 12,868.00 12,868.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 6,067.00 $ 6,067.00 $

21. Adjust Utility Boxes to Grade 2 EA 500.00 1,000.00 250.00 500.00 400.00 800.00 500.00 1,000.00 450.00 $ 900.00 $ 412.50 $ 825.00 $ Subtotal 87,880.00 Subtotal 83,585.00 Subtotal 66,632.50 Subtotal 138,255.00 Subtotal 78,580.00 Subtotal 94,088.13 $ 228,060.00 163,760.00 $ 196,592.50 $ 256,855.00 $ 184,730.00 $ 211,316.88 $

9.D.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Bid Tabulation Form - Pocket Park & Laguna Trail Imps. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna

2950 Montecito Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 544 - 6274
May 19, 2022
Craig Scott, City Engineer
City of Cotati
Public Work Department
201 West Sierra Ave.

Cotati, CA 94931
Subject: Proposal for Construction Management (CM) & Inspection Services for Loretto Ave Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Path Public Improvements City of Cotati

Dear Craig:

We are pleased to provide this proposal for CM and inspection services for the subject project. We understand the scope of work to be providing City staff augmentation as described below. Also, we understand the project includes construction management on behalf of the City and inspection of improvements shown on the City-approved improvement plans. CM & inspection will include; erosion control and dust control measures, clearing & grubbing, rough grading, underground infrastructure improvements (irrigation, bollard lighting, water service to drinking fountain at Pocket Park), onsite pathways and ancillary improvements.

The services included in this proposal are:
 Construction management of the contractor’s activities, performing in a role as augmented City staff, including review of submittals, interface with City departments, and reporting to City Engineer, following the City of Cotati procedures, provided by the City (as may be modified to suit the City), City staff may assist with this work.
 Construction inspection of improvements to assure conformance with approved plans, City Standards and City codes. City staff may assist with this work.
 Construction Management and Inspections performed by David Silzle, Nathan Valles & James Roney overseen by John Moe, billed at the appropriate rate per individual performing the task, Associate Engineer/Inspector or Senior Engineer per attached Fee Schedule.

9.D.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna Pathways Construction) Proposal for CM & Inspection Services, Loretto Ave – Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Path

Page 2 of 3 ends

May 2022
We offer the following estimated cost proposal for the above-described services. The construction contract allows 40 working days for the contractor to complete their work. Our proposal allows for CM and Inspections services for this anticipated construction duration.

Task 1 – CM & Inspection of the Public Improvements
- Project Setup/Coordination/Permit issuance
- Meetings
- Field review
- Review Submittals
- Inspections:
 Compaction and preparation of embankments, excavations, and subgrade.  Placing and compacting of base material.
 Forming and placing of Granitecrete (or approval equivalent) for all pathways.
 Forming and placing the concrete ramp at Marsh Way
 Excavation and bedding for structures and pipes, irrigation, water and electric bollard light facilities, prior to backfill.
- Reporting, final site cleanup and closeout
TOTAL $16,958.00
We propose to provide the above Engineering Construction Management & Inspection Services based on time and materials listed on the attached Estimated Level of Effort for an amount not to exceed $16,958.00 amount and our attached Fee Schedule.

The following items are specifically excluded from this proposal:
 Professional Engineering design services.
 Geotechnical Engineering services.
 Structural, Traffic, Electrical, Mechanical engineering services.  Architectural and landscape architectural services.
 Payment of any fees associated with the submittal or completion of this project.  Coordination of any sub-consultants.

If you have any questions or would like clarification of the proposed services, please feel free to call.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal. We look forward to working with you on this project.

9.D.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna Pathways Construction) Proposal for CM & Inspection Services, Loretto Ave – Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Path

Page 3 of 3 ends

May 2022
Sincerely,
John L. Moe, PE
President, Moe Engineering, Inc.

Attachments: Estimated Level of Effort
2022 Fee Schedule

9.D.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna Pathways Construction) City of Cotati
Date:

Estimated Level of Effort
Category Principal Sr. Eng./LS/
Project Mngr
Assoc. Eng./
Inspector
Assist. Eng. Eng. Tech Task Project
Rate $ 232.00 $ 203.00 $ 175.00 $ 156.00 Amount Total
Task 1 - CM & Inspection for Private On-Site Mass Grading

1.1 Project Setup / Coordination / Permit issuance Hours 2 2 4 Amount 464.00 $ 406.00 $ 700.00 $ - $ - $ 1,570.00 $

1.2 Pre-Construction Meeting Hours 2 4
Amount - $ 406.00 $ 700.00 $ - $ - $ 1,106.00 $

1.3 Review of Submittals Hours 2 6
Amount - $ 406.00 $ 1,050.00 $ - $ - $ 1,456.00 $

1.4 Inspections (assume 8 weeks @ 5 hours/week) Hours 2 12 40 Amount 464.00 $ 2,436.00 $ 7,000.00 $ - $ - $ 9,900.00 $

1.5 Final clean up and close out Hours 2 4 8
Amount 464.00 $ 812.00 $ 1,400.00 $ - $ - $ 2,676.00 $

1.6 Mileage & Reimbursables Hours
Amount - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250.00 $
Total Task 1 16,958.00 $
Labor Cost - 2022
Moe Engineering, Inc.
5/19/2022
Job No. 2021-042
CM & Inspection Services for Loretto Ave Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Path Public Improvements
Pocket Park & Laguna Trails Estimated Level of Effort - CM & Inspection.xlsx 5/19/2022

9.D.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna Pathways Construction)

FEE SCHEDULE
Effective 2022
=============================================================== Principal $232.00/hour
Senior Engineer $203.00/hour
Land Surveyor $203.00/hour
Associate Engineer/Inspector $175.00/hour
Assistant Engineer $156.00/hour
Engineering/Survey Technician $145.00/hour
Drafting Technician $127.00/hour
Administrative Support $ 87.00/hour
Field Survey Crew (2-person) $348.00/hour
All charges and fees including subconsultant fees, cost of prints, copies, travel, telephone toll charges and other non-labor related expenses paid by this firm to others on behalf of the client shall be billed at the cost of the charge or fee plus 15% handling and accounting fee. All invoices are due within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

Annual rate escalation will be calculated at 3% on a calendar-year basis.

9.D.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Proposal - Pocket Park & Laguna Trails CM & Inspection, May 2022. (Award Pocket Park and Laguna Pathways Construction) RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AWARDING

THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE POCKET PARK AND LAGUNA TRAIL PATHWAYS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO US ENGINEERING, INC. AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES

AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ANY NEEDED CHANGE ORDERS AND

AMENDMENTS, UP TO THE AUTHORIZED PROJECT BUDGET AMOUNT
WHEREAS, the City’s Fiscal Year 2021/22 Annual Budget includes projects to improvement Pocket Park and the existing pathways extending from McGinnis Court to Marsh Way and to the bridge across the Laguna De Santa Rosa; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council approved design contracts for these projects and the designs have been completed and the projects advertised to bid; and WHEREAS, upon award of the construction contract, the improvements are to be constructed with completion expected in early August; and WHEREAS, on May 4th, 2022, the City received and opened four bids for the subject project and the low bid is from US Engineering, Inc for a not to exceed amount of $163,760 which is 3.5 percent below the engineer’s estimate; and WHEREAS, the bid from US Engineering, Inc has been reviewed by City staff and has been determined to be responsive and is recommended for award; and WHEREAS, Moe Engineering has provided design services for these projects and has been requested to provide Construction Management and Inspection services during construction, and Moe Engineering has submitted a proposal for the requested services and City staff has reviewed it and determined it to be fair and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Fiscal Year 21/22 Annual Budget includes $74,000 for design and construction of the Loretto and Marsh to McGinnis Pathway Resurfacing Project and $50,000 for the Pocket Park Improvements Project (subsequently combined and referred to as the “Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Pathways Improvements Project (Project)”); and WHEREAS, the total Project cost for both of these efforts, including design through construction plus contingency, is projected to be $216,300, therefore, a budget appropriation of unappropriated general funds for an amount of $92,300 is requested.

WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15301 Existing Facilities, part (c) and Section 15303 because the Project is a minor alteration of a public street that involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.

NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Cotati that:

1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference; and

2. The construction contract for the Pocket Park and Laguna Trail Pathways Improvements Project (Project) is awarded to US Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed Packet Pg. 65
$163,760.00; and

3. The Construction Management and Inspection Agreement with Moe Engineering, Inc. is approved; and

4. A budget appropriation is approved in the amount of $92,300 for a total revised Project budget of $216,326; and

5. The City Manager (or designee) is authorized to execute the construction contract for the Project, the construction management and inspection agreement and any needed change orders, amendments and miscellaneous Project expenses up to the Project’s budgeted amount of $216,326.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the May 24th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 66
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Setting a Public Hearing Date for Consideration of Objections to the Outstanding Backflow Testing Charges and Levying of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution setting a Public Hearing date to receive all oral and written protests to the outstanding backflow testing charges and levying of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Background
The City of Cotati (City) is required by State law to ensure all backflow devices in the water distribution system are tested annually. The City established backflow testing requirements with Ordinance No. 773. This Ordinance transferred the responsibility for testing and associated costs from the City of Cotati to the property owner and also allowed levying of assessment of outstanding backflow charges onto their property taxes. Under California State law, the City is required to hold a public hearing annually to set the assessment rates for the following year for each outstanding backflow testing charge.

Analysis/Discussion
The City notifies all property owners annually of the need for testing and certification of their backflow devices. A portion of the property owners conduct their own testing, and submit the certifications to the City. Other property owners rely on the City to conduct the testing and certification. Following testing, any necessary repairs, and certification, the City invoices the property owner for the cost of the service. The City will then send two additional notices to pay, if the initial invoice is not paid.

Most property owners pay the City in a timely manner. However, some are not responsive to requests for payment, and did not submit payment for services performed during Fiscal Year 2020-2021. These properties are listed in the attached resolution. In this case, because the City is required to incur the cost of holding a public hearing and place these delinquent charges on the property tax assessment, the City also charges these remaining accounts administrative fees and penalties. This fiscal past fiscal year (July 2021-June 2022) has fewer delinquent accounts than

9.E
Packet Pg. 67
the prior year (July 2020-June 2021).

Adoption of the attached resolution will establish June 28, 2022 as the date for the public hearing to receive oral and written protest to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessments for the outstanding backflow testing charges.

Financial Considerations
The costs of back flow testing, including administrative fees and penalties, will be assessed to the owners of the property for which the testing was performed.

Environmental Issues
None.

9.E
Packet Pg. 68
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI

ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO RECEIVE ALL ORAL AND

WRITTEN PROTESTS TO THE OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 773 adopted on May 25, 2005 added Chapter 13.20 regarding backflow testing expenses being considered a lien upon property; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Cotati an itemized report showing outstanding backflow testing charges identified below; and WHEREAS, California State law requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to establish the outstanding backflow testing charges and direct levying of assessments thereof; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati hereby establishes June 28, 2022, as the date for the public hearing to receive all oral or written protests to the amounts of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessments which are listed as follows by parcel number, and directs the City Clerk to give the prescribed notice of hearing.

APN Outstanding Charges
046-111-
022
125.00
144-760-
009
125.00
144-282-
014
125.00
144-420-
028
125.00
144-770-
017
125.00
144-140-
002
125.00
144-770-
066
125.00
144-440-
024
125.00
144-800-
003
125.00
144-770-
040
125.00
144-770-
047
125.00
144-760- 125.00
Packet Pg. 69
027
144-200-
001
125.00
144-010-
029
125.00
144-770-
019
125.00
144-800-
001
125.00
144-262-
015
125.00
144-770-
054
125.00
144-770-
012
125.00
144-770-
009
125.00
144-292-
027
125.00
144-292-
034
125.00
046-640-
017
125.00
144-522-
006
125.00
144-292-
031
125.00
144-292-
062
125.00
144-190-
021
125.00
144-770-
011
125.00
144-770-
018
125.00
144-282-
012
125.00
046-111-
053
455.00
144-070-
027
235.00
144-281-
026
125.00
144-151-
034
125.00
Packet Pg. 70
144-010-
071
125.00
144-780-
051
125.00
144-770-
015
125.00
144-292-
036
125.00
144-770-
049
125.00
144-770-
055
125.00
144-760-
035
125.00
144-470-
013
125.00
144-292-
038
125.00
TOTAL $5,815.00
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the May 24th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 71
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Setting a Public Hearing Date for Consideration of 1. Objections to a Report of Sewer Charges and Penalties Outstanding and 2. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Itemized Report of Sewer Charges and Penalties Outstanding and 3.

Directing Levying of Assessments
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution setting a public hearing date to approve itemized report of sewer charges and penalties outstanding and directing levying of assessment for fiscal year 2022-2023.

Background
Typically, these are accounts with sewer only, without the option of shutting off the water. The Administrative Services department has invoiced the property owner for their sewer charges every 2 months at the same time as all other water/sewer customers in the City. However, the sewer bills have not yet been paid.

Analysis/Discussion
Pursuant to Cotati Municipal Code section 13.43, adoption of the attached resolution will establish June 28, 2022 as the date for the public hearing to receive oral and written protest to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessment of outstanding sewer charges. If adopted by the City Council after that public hearing, the assessments will be placed on the property tax rolls for payment by the property owner.

Financial Considerations
The costs of sewer services are expected to be paid by the assessment, including a 10% late fee and ½% per month penalty.

Environmental Issues
None.

9.F
Packet Pg. 72
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI SETTING A

PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ESTABLISHING THE OUTSTANDING SEWER

CHARGES AND DIRECTING LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Cotati an itemized report showing outstanding sewer charges identified below; and WHEREAS, California State law requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to establish the outstanding sewer charges and direct levying of assessments thereof; and WHEREAS, the charges include direct sewer charges plus penalties, in accordance with Cotati Municipal Code Section 13.43.070 Notice and hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati hereby establishes June 28, 2022, as the date for the public hearing to receive all oral or written protests to the amounts of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 assessments which are listed as follows by parcel number, and directs the City Clerk to give the prescribed notice of the hearing:

APN Outstanding Charges
144-230-016 $611.02
Total $611.02
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the May 24th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 73
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Resolution of intent to approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District, levy and collect annual assessments, and set the time and date of the Public Hearing for the Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution of intent to levy and collect annual assessments, approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report and set the time and date of the Public Hearing for the City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

Background
The ten original Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Landscaping and Lighting Act”) to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments. To simplify the process and reduce administration costs, the 2017 proceedings combined the ten Districts into one District with ten separate “Zones.” A Preliminary Engineer’s Report has been prepared for the District, detailing work done and individual budgets for each of the ten Zones. The Engineer’s Report is to be considered for acceptance and a date is to be set for the Public Hearing for the levying of the assessments.

Analysis/Discussion
The Landscaping and Lighting Act requires that the City undertake certain proceedings for any fiscal year in which assessments are to be levied and collected. On January 25, 2022, the City Council began the required annual proceedings for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year by appointing the City Engineer as Engineer of Work, and directed the preparation of the Engineer’s Report. The Engineer’s Report has been prepared and filed in accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act and is being presented to the City Council for their consideration.

9.G
Packet Pg. 74
This is the second of three City Council meetings regarding annual review of the assessment district. At this time, the Council typically adopts a Resolution of Intent to levy and collect assessments and preliminary approval of the Engineer’s Report. At the third and final meeting, the Council will conduct a public hearing and may then authorize the levying and collection of assessments for FY 2022-23. At that time, the assessments cannot be increased above those stated in the Resolutions of Intent and the preliminary Engineer’s Report.

The date of the required public hearing is proposed to be June 28, 2022.

Preliminary Engineer’s Report
The Preliminary Engineer’s Report begins with a background and summary of the proposed assessments for FY 22-23 and is followed by separate sections describing each Zone, what services are included for each Zone, including capital projects (i.e. major repairs, re-plantings, or other improvements), the estimated costs for FY 22-23, the allocation of the assessment to the lots, and an estimate of each Zone’s reserve fund balance. Following these sections, the report has attachments; Attachment A describing the method of apportionment of the assessments, and Attachment B with a description of which properties are within each zone and the zone diagrams.

For this past year, all Zones received routine maintenance, there may be replantings and repairs in other zones once City staff has evaluated the landscaping conditions and priorities as well as budgets in each of the ten zones. Zones 2, 4 and 5 have annual per lot assessments of $40.00, $32.00, and $36.00 which are very low and generally cover utilities, minimal labor and administrative cost. These zones continue to be a challenge financially as the City cannot increase the annual assessment without a majority of the residents within the zone approving the increase.

Annual assessments are at a fixed maximum amount for all the zones except zones 7, 8, 9, and

10. These zones have an annual inflation factor, equal to the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the City of San Francisco. The CCI for FY 22-23 is 9.2 percent. Due to the abnormally high year over year CCI increase, increased discretion was used in determining the rate adjustments and the result was a five percent increase for Zones 7 and 8, a seven percent increase for Zone 9, and reduced for Zone 10. These increases reflect the projected expenses and reserve balances as presented in the respective sections of the report.

Financial Considerations
All costs associated with these annual proceedings and the annual operation, maintenance and administration of the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District are intended to be recovered from the annual assessments levied on the properties within the District. It may be necessary to have a loan from the City’s General Fund if improvements or repairs become necessary, but it is the intent that these borrowed funds be paid back through zone revenue over time.

Annual assessments are to remain at previous year’s levels for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ($158.00, $40.00, $290.00 [$435.00 for triplex], $32.00, $36.74, and $133.50, respectively). The Zone 7 assessment is proposed to increase from $229.50 to $241.00. The Zone 8 assessment is

9.G
Packet Pg. 75
proposed to increase from $445.00 to $467.50. The Zone 9 assessment is proposed to increase from $177.50 to $190.00. The Zone 10 assessment is proposed to be reduced 5 percent to $394.00.

The maximum assessments for Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10 are proposed to be increased by the ratio of the January 2022 Construction Cost Index for San Francisco to the CCI for the closest month to when those Zones were formed (consistent with provisions in the resolutions forming those respective Zones) and multiplied by the original assessment.

Environmental Issues
The action of approving the preliminary annual engineer’s report, declaring the City’s intention to levy the annual assessment, and scheduling a public hearing for the levying and collection of assessments for the Cotati Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Attachments:
2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (PDF)

9.G
Packet Pg. 76
Annual Engineer's Report
City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Draft
May 2022
Prepared By:

Craig A. Scott, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) FY 2022-23
City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits, as directed by the City Council on January 25, 2022, the enclosed Engineer’s Report on the 24th day of May, 2022.

By:__________________________________________
Craig A. Scott, PE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Diagrams thereto attached was filed with the City on the 25th day of May, 2022.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
By:___________________________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Diagrams thereto attached was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Cotati, California, on the 14th day of June, 2022.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California

By:___________________________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and the Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Sonoma on the ___day of _, 2022.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California

By:___________________________________________

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

FY 2022-2023 ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF COTATI LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972)
FY 2022-2023 Annual Assessment
Craig A. Scott, Engineer of Work for the City of Cotati Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, City of Cotati, Sonoma County, California, prepares this annual Engineer’s Report, as directed by the City Council of the City of Cotati, pursuant to Section 22620 of the Streets & Highways Code (Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972) for the Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Background
The ten Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Landscaping and Lighting Act”) to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments. Fiscal Year 2017-18’s annual assessment process was combined with the action of consolidating the ten District’s into one District to simplify the process and reduce administration costs. The City now has a single District with ten individual “Zones” each having retained their identical and separate characteristics.

The ten zones consist of the following subdivisions: Valparaiso Vista (Zone 1), Quail Hollow IV (Zone 2), Sommers (Zone 3), Macklin I (Zone 4), Sierra Meadows (Zone 5), Oak Knolls (Zone 6), Garden Gate (Zone 7), Park Meadows (Zone 8), Santero Way Developments (Zone 9), and Altman Acres (Zone 10). Under California State law, the City is required to hold a public hearing annually to set the assessment rates for the following year for each assessment zone.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972, an annual Engineer’s Report must be prepared and filed with the City in order to levy and collect assessments on any following fiscal year. Annually, the City Council directs the City Engineer to prepare and file the Engineer’s Report on the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District to establish assessment zone rates. Once the preliminary Engineer’s Report has been filed, the City Council can then adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy and collect annual assessments for FY 2021-22, then preliminarily approves the filed annual Engineer’s Report and sets the time and date of the public protest hearing. The Engineer’s Report outlines the proposed budgets, assessments, improvements, and changes to the zones within the Assessment District. These budgets/costs are updated with each subsequent annual Engineer’s Reports as required by the 1972 Act.

To take annual inflation into account, four of the assessment zones have an inflation adjuster (Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10). The annual assessment for these Zones is to be adjusted by the change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI) over the previous twelve month period. The adjustment for FY 22-23 is therefore 9.2 percent. Applying this rule to the initial assessment and the CCI at the time the Assessment Zone was formed, results in the maximum assessment that can be charged without holding a protest vote. An annual CCI adjustment to the annual

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

assessment is not mandatory. If the annual Engineer’s Report recommends any adjustment up to the sum of the previous year’s maximum assessment plus the allowable annual CCI increase, notices are not required to be sent nor shall a vote be required. If however, the annual Engineer’s Report recommends any adjustment that exceeds the sum of the previous year’s maximum assessment plus the allowable annual CCI increase, noticing and/or voting shall be required in accordance with the provisions applicable to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218. Applying this rule to the initial assessment, the CCI at the time the Assessment Zone was formed, and the January 1, 2022 CCI for San Francisco of 14301.24 results in the maximum assessment that can be charged without holding a protest vote. The maximum assessments for the four zones that have CCI adjustments are shown in the following table.

Table 1
Zone Initiated CCI SF at Date
Zone was Initiated Multiplier
Initial
Assessment
per Unit
Maximum
Assessment
7 02/14/2001 7399.07 1.933 $148.00 $286.08
8 10/13/1999 6816.7 2.098 $354.43 $743.59
9 10/09/2002 7644.46 1.871 $154.82 $289.67
10 10/09/2002 7644.46 1.871 $333.78 $624.50
The table below summarizes the proposed FY 2022-2023 assessments to levy and collect for each of the ten zones.

Table 2
Zone Assessment Zone Name FY 21/22 Annual
Assessment
Current
Maximum
Annual
Assessment*
Proposed
Assessment to
Levy Per ESD
1 Valparaiso Vista $158.00 $158.00 $158.00
2 Quail Hollow IV $40.00 $40.00 $40.00
3 Sommers $290.00 $290.00 $290.00
4 Macklin Phase 1 $32.00 $32.00 $32.00
5 Sierra Meadows $36.74 $36.74 $36.74
6 Oak Knoll $133.50 $133.50 $133.50
7 Garden Gate $229.50 $286.08 $241.00
8 Park Meadows $445.00 $743.59 $467.50
9 Santero Way $177.50 $289.67 $190.00
10 Altman Acres $414.50 $624.50 $394.00
*Only Assessment Zones 7, 8, 9, and 10 allow for inflationary adjustment (Consumer Price Index for San Francisco).

The original landscaping and lighting improvements within all 10 Zones of the Assessment District are completed and have been accepted by the City. The proposed changes, budgets and assessments for FY 2022-2023 are included in the description of each zone below. See ‘Attachment A, Method of Apportionment of Assessment’ of this report for a detailed description

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

of the apportionment methodology for each zone. The FY 20-21actuals are the actual revenues and expenses for the complete fiscal year. The FY 21/22 estimated values are derived by using actual expenses through the most current data available at the time this report was drafted, then extending the expenses to June 30 using a prorated estimate. FY 22-23 revenues and expenses are projected values based on prior years and expected cost increases due to inflation and planned maintenance and capital expenses.

Attachment A is a statement of the method used by the Engineer of work to determine the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel within the assessment district.

Attachment B contains the assessment diagrams (maps) showing all of the parcels of real property within the boundaries of the 10 assessment zones. The APN’s are shown in the assessor’s maps available at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office.

Attachment C this attachment contains descriptions of any improvement plans that may be needed for the installation of any improvements identified in the report. If plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the plans and specifications of this Engineer’s Report and are included in it by reference.

Zone 1: Valparaiso Vista
Background
On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-35, approving the Engineer’s Report, and on June 26, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-38, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Valparaiso Vista Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

This zone includes 7,416 square feet of landscape area and five LED, 120 volt, 100 watt lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the City performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis.

The City fertilizes and structural prunes on a yearly basis. Street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $1,321.00.

Description FY 20-21 Actuals FY 21-22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $292.00 $240.00 $252.00
Contract Services $336.00 $424.00 $445.00
Contract Capital $1,200.00
City Labor $0.00 $270.00 $284.00
Annual Zone Administration $298.00 $320.00 $340.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Total Expenses $2,126.00 $1,254.00 $1,321.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $2,370.00 $2,370.00 $2,370.00
Assessment Interest $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
Total Revenue $2,405.00 $2,405.00 $2,405.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $5,386.00 $6534.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $2,405.00 $2405.00
Estimated Expenses $1,254.00 $1,321.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $6,534.00 $7,618.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-2023 is $2,370.00.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be divided equally among all of the individual parcels within the assessment zone. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Fifteen (15) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-400-051 $158.00
2 144-400-052 $158.00
3 144-400-053 $158.00
4 144-400-054 $158.00
5 144-400-055 $158.00
6 144-400-056 $158.00
7 144-400-057 $158.00
8 144-400-058 $158.00
9 144-400-059 $158.00
10 144-400-060 $158.00
11 144-400-061 $158.00
12 144-400-062 $158.00
13 144-400-063 $158.00
14 144-400-064 $158.00
15 144-400-065 $158.00
Total Annual Assessment $2,370.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Zone 2: Quail Hollow IV
Background
On February 28, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 509 granting tentative approval for the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. Condition No. 11 of said Ordinance requires that a source of maintenance funding shall be provided for the landscaping to be placed between the back of sidewalk and property line fence along Myrtle Avenue. Then, on December 12, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-62, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Quail Hollow IV Subdivision Landscaping Maintenance Assessment Zone confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscaping within Myrtle Avenue Right-of-Way and the curve return portion of the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Aguirre Way Right-of-Way of Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. The funds are to be used solely for maintenance of landscaping within the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. There are no lights to be maintained within this Zone.

City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance within the Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis. The City fertilizes and structurally prunes on a yearly basis.

In FY 18/19, the City performed routine maintenance and replanted missing or damaged plants.

In Fiscal Year 21/22 the City removed and replaced the sidewalk in two places which were damaged by tree roots. After consulting with the LLAD residents, the City removed the redwood trees that caused the damage The LLAD continues to have insufficient funds for capital projects as well as routine maintenance and, therefore, the work was completed from a loan to the LLAD from the City’s General Fund.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The actual base maintenance cost for this Zone in FY 20/21 increased from prior years due to the need to irrigate the newly installed landscaping. This increased expense is reflected in the utilities line item below and is not sustainable. Therefore, until the landscaping becomes established, an annual loan from the City’s General Fund will be needed to fill the revenue shortfall.

The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $3,738.00.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $1,107.00 $1,218.00 $1300.00
Contract Services $407.00 $420.00 $450.00
Capital Projects $19,000.00
City Labor $1,127.00 $1,100.00 $1,300.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Annual Zone Administration $441.00 $500.00.00 $550.00
General Fund Loan
Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $3,082.00 $22,238.00 $3,600.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $1,842.00 $20,998.00 $2,360.00
Total Assessment $1,240.00 $1,240.00 $1,240.00
Assessment Interest $0.00 0 0
Total Revenue $3,082.00 $22,238.00 $3,600.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 -$4,153 -$25,151.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $1,240.00 $1,240.00
Estimated Expenses $22,238.00 $3,738.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 0-$25,151.00 $0.00-$27,649.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-2023 is $1,240.

Zone 2 has an annual need for a loan from the General Fund as the streetscape along Myrtle Avenue requires irrigation and maintenance that exceeds the zone's assessment revenue.

At present, this zone is not expected to be self-sufficient without an increase in the annual assessment which requires approval by the majority of the owners of the assessed lots. Without an approved increase of the annual assessment, and with continued maintenance of the streetscape, this Zone will continue to receive a General Fund loan annually.

Assessment Spread
Thirty-one (31) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 046-610-017 $40.00
2 046-610-018 $40.00
3 046-610-019 $40.00
4 046-610-020 $40.00
5 046-610-021 $40.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

6 046-610-022 $40.00
7 046-610-023 $40.00
8 046-610-024 $40.00
9 046-610-025 $40.00
10 046-610-026 $40.00
11 046-610-027 $40.00
12 046-610-028 $40.00
13 046-610-029 $40.00
14 046-610-030 $40.00
15 046-610-031 $40.00
16 046-610-032 $40.00
17 046-610-033 $40.00
18 046-610-034 $40.00
19 046-610-035 $40.00
20 046-610-036 $40.00
21 046-610-037 $40.00
22 046-610-038 $40.00
23 046-610-039 $40.00
24 046-610-040 $40.00
25 046-610-041 $40.00
26 046-610-042 $40.00
27 046-610-043 $40.00
28 046-610-044 $40.00
29 046-610-045 $40.00
30 046-610-046 $40.00
31 046-610-047 $40.00
Total Annual Assessment $1,240.00
Zone 3: Sommers
Background
On March 28, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-11, approving the Engineer’s Report, and on March 28, 1989, adopted Resolution No. 89-11, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Sommers Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of Landscaping and Lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Sommers Subdivision. The funds are to be used solely for maintenance of landscaping and lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Sommers Subdivision.

This Zone includes six driveway lights and 3,047 square feet of fronting La Salle Avenue landscaping. City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis. The City fertilizes and structurally prunes on a yearly basis as well as places mulch as needed in planter area. Driveway lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. The City installed ADA compliant curb ramps on either side of the subdivision’s driveway in FY 19/20. The City plans to prune the street-trees in FY22/23.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $1,912.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $742.00 $800.00 $820.00
Contract Services $275.00 $300.00 $320.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor+Materials $586.00 $600.00 $650.00
Annual Zone Administration $167.00 $200.00 $250.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,770.00 $1,900.00 $2,040.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $2,465.00 $2,465.00 $2,465.00
Assessment Interest $98.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $2,465.00 $2,465.00 $2,465.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $12,972.00 $13,537.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $2,465.00 $2,465.00
Estimated Expenses $1,900.00 $2,040.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $13,537.00 $13,962.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 22/23 is $2,465.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be assessed at $290.00 per parcel with duplex per year and $435.00 per parcel with triplex per year. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Eight (8) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-282-020 $290.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

2 144-282-021 $290.00
3 144-282-022 $290.00
4 144-282-023 $290.00
5 - Triplex 144-282-024 $435.00
6 144-282-025 $290.00
7 144-282-026 $290.00
8 144-282-027 $290.00
Total Annual Assessment $2,465.00
Zone 4: Macklin
Background
On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-34 initiating proceedings to establish the Macklin Subdivision Phase I Landscape Maintenance Assessment Zone, in accordance with the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-34, approving the Engineer's Report, and on June 26, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-37, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Macklin Subdivision Phase I Landscape Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way of the Macklin Subdivision Phase I. The funds are to be used solely for landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way of the Macklin Subdivision Phase I.

This zone includes 1,170 square feet of landscaping. City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance for this zone within the City Right-of-Way. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis. The City fertilizes and structurally prunes on a yearly basis. Mulch was added in FY 16/17 but the area was not included in the Myrtle Landscaping project scope for soil amendments and plantings because the hedges and shrubs are in generally good health and appearance.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $1,253.00.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22Estimated FY 22/23Projected Utility Charges $130.00 $137.00 $145.00
Contract Services $330.00 $360.00 $380.00
City Labor $168.00 $300.00 $300.00
Annual Zone Administration $650.00 $650.00 $675.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,278.00 $1,447.00 $1,500.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0 $0

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $1,248.00 $1,248.00 $1,248.00
Assessment Interest 18.00 $0 $0
Total Revenue $1,266.00 $1,248.00 $1,248.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $2,178.00 $1,979.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $1,248.00 $1,248.00
Estimated Expenses $1,447.00 $1,500.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $1,979.00 $1,727.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 22/23 is $1,248.00.

Assessment Spread
Thirty-nine (39) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 046-620-001 $32.00
2 046-620-002 $32.00
3 046-620-003 $32.00
4 046-620-004 $32.00
5 046-620-005 $32.00
6 046-620-006 $32.00
7 046-620-007 $32.00
8 046-620-008 $32.00
9 046-620-009 $32.00
10 046-620-010 $32.00
11 046-620-011 $32.00
12 046-620-012 $32.00
13 046-620-013 $32.00
14 046-620-014 $32.00
15 046-620-015 $32.00
16 046-620-016 $32.00
17 046-620-017 $32.00
18 046-620-018 $32.00
19 046-620-019 $32.00
20 046-620-020 $32.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

21 046-620-021 $32.00
22 046-620-022 $32.00
23 046-620-023 $32.00
24 046-620-024 $32.00
25 046-620-025 $32.00
26 046-620-026 $32.00
27 046-620-027 $32.00
28 046-620-028 $32.00
29 046-620-029 $32.00
30 046-620-030 $32.00
31 046-620-031 $32.00
32 046-620-032 $32.00
33 046-620-033 $32.00
34 046-620-034 $32.00
35 046-620-035 $32.00
36 046-620-036 $32.00
37 046-620-037 $32.00
38 046-620-038 $32.00
39 046-620-039 $32.00
Total Annual Assessment $1,248.00
Zone 5: Sierra Meadows Subdivision
Background
On September 11, 1996 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-66 approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Sierra Meadows Subdivision Lighting Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of lighting in the Sierra Meadows Subdivision City Right-of-Way. The funds are to be used for electrical costs and incidental expenses associated with street lighting within the Sierra Meadows Subdivision City Right-of-Way. There is no landscaping in this Zone.

This Zone includes six LED 120 volt, 70 watt lights and three LED, 120 volt, 100 watt lights. Street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

The reserves were depleted in FY 17/18 and a General Fund loan of $308.00 was needed to keep the reserves from being negative. With minimal maintenance efforts and no emergency expenditures, the zone paid back the General Fund in FY 18/19.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The estimated annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $977.00.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY22/23 Projected Utility Charges $293.00 $308.00 $327
Contract Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $37.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $538.00 $565.00 $593.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $868.00 $873.00 $920.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $1,102.20 $1,102.20 $1,102.20
Assessment Interest $11.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $1,102.00 $1,102.00 $1,102.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $1,536.00 $1,765.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $1,102.20 $1,102.00
Estimated Expenses $873.00 $920.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $1,765.00 $1,947.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 22/23 is $1,102.20.

Assessment Spread
Thirty (30) parcels in assessment area

Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-730-001 $36.74
2 144-730-002 $36.74
3 144-730-003 $36.74
4 144-730-004 $36.74
5 144-730-005 $36.74
6 144-730-006 $36.74
7 144-730-007 $36.74
8 144-730-008 $36.74
9 144-730-009 $36.74
10 144-730-010 $36.74

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

11 144-730-011 $36.74
12 144-730-012 $36.74
13 144-730-013 $36.74
14 144-730-014 $36.74
15 144-730-015 $36.74
16 144-730-016 $36.74
17 144-730-017 $36.74
18 144-730-018 $36.74
19 144-730-019 $36.74
20 144-730-020 $36.74
21 144-730-021 $36.74
22 144-730-022 $36.74
23 144-730-023 $36.74
24 144-730-024 $36.74
25 144-730-025 $36.74
26 144-730-026 $36.74
27 144-730-029 $36.74
28 144-730-031 $36.74
29 144-730-032 $36.74
30 144-730-033 $36.74
Total Annual Assessment $1,102.20
Zone 6: Oak Knoll Subdivision
Background
On March 11, 1998, the City Council of the City of Cotati, California, adopted Resolution No. 98- 14 initiating proceedings to levy an annual assessment for the landscaping and lighting improvements of the City of Cotati Oak Knoll Subdivision Landscape and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District, Sonoma County, California (“Assessment District”), pursuant to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). On June 23, 1999, the City Council adopted resolution 99-37 approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Oak Knoll Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

On April 9, 1997, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 97-22 granting tentative approval for the Oak Knoll Subdivision. Condition No. 2 of the Resolution requires a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Oak Knoll Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on March 25, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-21 forming the Landscaping and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District for the Oak Knoll Subdivision.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

All individual lots within the boundary of Oak Knoll Subdivision shall be included within the assessment zone, with the exception of all dedicated public streets and Parcel “A” as shown upon the recorded map of Oak Knoll Subdivision.

This Zone includes five street lights, LED, 120 volt, 100 watt diffuser bulbs.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning. High pressure sodium street lights were replaced with energy efficient LED’s in FY 15/16 and these expenses were charged to the zone in FY 16/17. Additionally, street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $2,159.00.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $510.00 $561.00 $589.00
Contract Services $550.00 $600.00 $620.00
City Labor + Materials $174.00 $500.00 $500.00
Annual Zone Administration $449.00 $450.00 $450.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,683.00 $2,111.00 $2,159.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $3,204.00 $3,204.00 $3,204.00
Assessment Interest $148.00 $0 $0
Total Revenue $3,352.00 $3,204.00 $3,204.00
Estimated Fund Balance
FY 2021-22(Estimated) FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $19,934.00 $21,027.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $3,204.00 $3,204.00
Estimated Expenses $2,111.00 $2,159.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $21,027.00 $22,072.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-2023 is $3,204.

Method of Assessment Spread
The parcels within the Oak Knoll Subdivision receive special benefits of well-maintained public landscaped areas and streetlights. These special benefits include enhanced neighborhood

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

identity and quality of life, as well as a sense of community along with increased property values.

Based on the foregoing, each of the individual parcels within the assessment zone, will be assessed an amount equal to 1/24th of the total assessment since they receive equal share of the special benefits mentioned above. Parcel “A” is a driveway serving lots 7, 8, 9, and 10. As Parcel “A” does not receive any of the special benefits, it is not assessed.

Assessment Spread
Twenty-four (24) parcels in assessment area

Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-340-028 $133.50
2 144-340-029 $133.50
3 144-340-030 $133.50
4 144-340-031 $133.50
5 144-340-032 $133.50
6 144-340-033 $133.50
7 144-340-034 $133.50
8 144-340-035 $133.50
9 144-340-036 $133.50
10 144-340-037 $133.50
11 144-340-038 $133.50
12 144-340-039 $133.50
13 144-340-040 $133.50
14 144-340-041 $133.50
15 144-340-042 $133.50
16 144-340-043 $133.50
17 144-340-044 $133.50
18 144-340-045 $133.50
19 144-340-046 $133.50
20 144-340-047 $133.50
21 144-340-048 $133.50
22 144-340-049 $133.50
23 144-340-050 $133.50
24 144-340-051 $133.50
Total Annual Assessment $3,204.00
Zone 7: Garden Gate
Background
On February 14, 2001 the City Council of the City of Cotati Adopted Resolution No. 01-10 initiating proceedings to establish the Garden Gate Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Assessment Zone, in accordance with the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. Then, on April 11, 2001, the City Council adopted

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Resolution No. 01-28 forming the Landscaping and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District for the Garden Gate Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscape and lighting in the Garden Gate Subdivision Right-of-Way. The funds are to be used for electrical, landscape and incidental expenses associated with street lighting as well as Parcel A & B Landscape Maintenance within the Garden Gate Subdivision.

This Zone includes a total landscaping area for Parcel A & B of 2,900 square feet and five LED, 120 volt, 70 watt lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including general weekly clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning. Street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. In FY21/22 one leaning tree was removed and two trees were topped for safety as they were close to a house. New mulch is planned for FY22/23.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the lighting and Parcels A & B landscaping for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is $2,671.00.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $835.00 $919.00 $1,011
Contract Services $330.00 $360.00 $360.00
City Labor $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Annual Zone Administration $264.00 $300.00 $300.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,429.00 $2,579.00 $2,671.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $3,367.50 $3,442.50 $3,615.00
Assessment Interest $113.00 $0 $0
Total Revenue $3,481.00 $3,442.00 $3,615.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $15,646.00 $16,510.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $3443.00 $3,615.00
Estimated Expenses $2,579.00 $2,671.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $16,510.00 $17,454.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-23 is $3,615.00 which is a 5.0 percent increase over FY 2021-22.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be divided equally among all of the individual parcels within the Assessment Zone. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Fifteen (15) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel
Number Annual Charge
1 144-720-042 $241.00
2 144-720-043 $241.00
3 144-720-044 $241.00
4 144-720-045 $241.00
5 144-720-046 $241.00
6 144-720-047 $241.00
7 144-720-048 $241.00
8 144-720-049 $241.00
9 144-720-050 $241.00
10 144-720-051 $241.00
11 144-720-052 $241.00
12 144-720-053 $241.00
13 144-720-058 $241.00
14 144-720-059 $241.00
15 144-720-060 $241.00
Total Annual Assessment $3,615.00
Zone 8: Park Meadows
Background
On October 13, 1999, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 99-72 granting tentative approval for the Park Meadows Subdivision. Condition No. 43 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Park Meadows Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on April 11, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-30 forming the landscaping and street light maintenance assessment district for the Park Meadows Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The Zone consists of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way and Parcel "A" of the Park Meadows Subdivision.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

This Zone includes 38,475 square feet of landscape area and sixteen 120 volt, 70 watt high pressure street lights. Up until FY 18/19, this Zone had eleven lights, however five of the lights installed as part of the City-Wide Lighting Project are within this Zone and their installation and ongoing maintenance costs are charged to this Zone.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning. Street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. The City installed five lights along pathways in this zone in FY 18/19 for a total cost of $30,000.

Capital Projects planned for FY 21-22 consist of improving the pathway from McGinnis Circle to the Laguna De Santa Rosa bridge, the pathway to Marsh Way, and repairs to the split rail fence.

The total cost of these Capital Improvements is anticipated to be $25,000. This work is to extend into FY22-23.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the fiscal year 2022- 2023 is $32,004.00.

Description FY20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $5,531.00 $6,084.00 $6,388.00
Contract Services $3,850.00 $4,200.00 $4,200.00
City Labor $124.00 $500.00 $500.00
Capital Project $0.00 $5,000 $20,000.00
Annual Zone Administration $831.00 $873.00 $916.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $10,336.00 $16,657.00 $32,004.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $14,921.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $16,949.00 $17,355.00 $18,232.50
Assessment Interest $140.00 $0 $0
Total Revenue $17,089.00 $17,355.00 $18,232.50
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $24,081.00 $24,779.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $17,355.00 $18,232.50
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Expenses $16,657.00 $32,004.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $24,779.00 $11,008.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-23 is $18,232.50 which is a 5 percent increase over

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

FY 2021-22.

Method of Assessment Spread
The parcels within the Park Meadow Subdivision will receive special benefits of well-maintained public landscaped areas and streetlights. These special benefits include enhanced neighborhood identity and quality of life, as well as a sense of community along with increased property values.

Based on the foregoing, each of the individual parcels within the assessment zone, will be assessed in an amount equal to 1/39th of the total assessment since they receive equal share of the special benefits mentioned above. Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" are open space areas, therefore they are not assessed.

Assessment Spread
Thirty-nine (39) parcels in Assessment Area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel
Number Annual Charge
1 144-740-001 $467.50
2 144-740-002 $467.50
3 144-740-003 $467.50
4 144-740-004 $467.50
5 144-740-005 $467.50
6 144-740-006 $467.50
7 144-740-007 $467.50
8 144-740-008 $467.50
9 144-740-009 $467.50
10 144-740-010 $467.50
11 144-740-011 $467.50
12 144-740-012 $467.50
13 144-740-013 $467.50
14 144-740-014 $467.50
20 144-740-020 $467.50
21 144-740-021 $467.50
22 144-740-022 $467.50
23 144-740-023 $467.50
24 144-740-024 $467.50
25 144-740-025 $467.50
26 144-740-026 $467.50
27 144-740-027 $467.50
28 144-740-028 $467.50
29 144-740-029 $467.50
30 144-740-030 $467.50
31 144-740-031 $467.50
32 144-740-032 $467.50
33 144-740-033 $467.50
34 144-740-034 $467.50
35 144-740-035 $467.50

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

36 144-740-036 $467.50
Lands of Dluzak
37 144-740-046 $467.50
38 144-740-047 $467.50
39 144-740-048 $467.50
Total Annual Assessment $18,232.50
Zone 9: Santero Way
Background
On October 9, 2002, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 02-91 granting tentative approval for the Santero Way Developments. Condition No. 59 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the Cotati Station Phase I Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on July 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-58 forming the landscaping and street light maintenance assessment district for the Santero Way Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscape and lighting within the City Right-of-Way in the Santero Way Developments. The funds are to be used for electrical power, landscape maintenance, water, park furniture maintenance. Additionally, the funds are used for incidental expenses associated with public street lighting and landscape maintenance of the public park within the Santero Way Developments.

This Zone includes 31,000 square feet of landscape area including the Santero Way Park and seventeen LED, 120 volt, 70 watt street lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly lawn mowing, edging, and general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning. However, the Santero Way Homeowners Association (HOA) has been contracting and paying for the landscape expenses for this Zone from the beginning. City staff met with the HOA Board to discuss the City paying for these services retroactively in FY 17/18 and for future years under a services agreement. The discussions also included identifying potential capital projects to rehabilitate park features including tree replacement, irrigation repair, replacing the drinking fountain, repair and/or replacement of benches and tables, replacement of playground ground cover, completing a playground evaluation, and repair root damaged sidewalks for sidewalks within the Zone. The HOA Board heard this item at their May 24, 2018 Board meeting and approved these CIP items for FY 18/19, increasing the Capital Improvements budget to $20,000, invoicing the City retroactively for FY 17/18 maintenance expenses, and working on an agreement with the City to invoice the Zone for annual maintenance costs. On February 28, 2019 the HOA Board met and supported having the City contract directly with a landscaping company for maintaining the park and street landscaping strip. The City has negotiated an agreement with a landscaping company with the

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

effecting start date of July 1, 2019. Cost tables below include the landscape maintenance expenses as Zone expenses. Park lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $25,599.00. The Zone’s reserves are projected to go negative by the end of FY22/23. City staff will endevour to limit contract services to maintain a positive reserve balance.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $5,248.00 $5,773.00 $5,535.00
Contract Services $15,931.00 $16,730.00 $17,570.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,020.00
Annual Zone Administration $1,337.00 $1,404.00 $1,474.00 General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $22,516.00 $24,907.00 $25,599.00

Zone Reserve Used $10,160.00 $12,482.00 $12,299.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $12,146.00 $12,425.00 $13,300.00
Assessment Interest $210.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $22,516.00 $24,907.00 $25,599.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2020-21
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $24,124.00 $11,642.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $12,425.00 $13,300.00
Estimated Expenses $24,907.00 $25,599.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $11,642.00 -$657
The total proposed assessment for FY 2021-22 is $13,300.00 which is a 7.0 percent increase over FY 2020-21.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be equally divided among the seventy (70) dwelling units. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Seventy (70) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel
Number Annual Charge
1 144-770-001 $190.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

2 144-770-002 $190.00
3 144-770-003 $190.00
4 144-770-004 $190.00
5 144-770-005 $190.00
6 144-770-006 $190.00
7 144-770-007 $190.00
8 144-770-008 $190.00
9 144-770-009 $190.00
10 144-770-010 $190.00
11 144-770-011 $190.00
12 144-770-012 $190.00
13 144-770-013 $190.00
14 144-770-014 $190.00
15 144-770-015 $190.00
16 144-770-016 $190.00
17 144-770-017 $190.00
18 144-770-018 $190.00
19 144-770-019 $190.00
20 144-770-020 $190.00
21 144-770-021 $190.00
22 144-770-022 $190.00
23 144-770-023 $190.00
24 144-770-024 $190.00
25 144-770-025 $190.00
27 144-770-027 $190.00
28 144-770-028 $190.00
29 144-770-029 $190.00
30 144-770-030 $190.00
31 144-770-031 $190.00
32 144-770-032 $190.00
33 144-770-033 $190.00
34 144-770-034 $190.00
35 144-770-035 $190.00
36 144-770-036 $190.00
37 144-770-037 $190.00
38 144-770-038 $190.00
39 144-770-039 $190.00
40 144-770-040 $190.00
41 144-770-041 $190.00
42 144-770-042 $190.00
43 144-770-043 $190.00
44 144-770-044 $190.00
45 144-770-045 $190.00
46 144-770-046 $190.00
47 144-770-047 $190.00
48 144-770-048 $190.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

50 144-770-050 $190.00
CAP 1A 144-770-051 $190.00
CAP 1B 144-770-052 $190.00
CAP 2A 144-770-053 $190.00
CAP 2B 144-770-054 $190.00
CAP 3A 144-770-055 $190.00
CAP 3B 144-770-056 $190.00
CAP 4A 144-770-057 $190.00
CAP 4B 144-770-058 $190.00
CAP 5A 144-770-059 $190.00
CAP 5B 144-770-060 $190.00
CAP 6A 144-770-061 $190.00
CAP 6B 144-770-062 $190.00
CAP 7A 144-770-063 $190.00
CAP 7B 144-770-064 $190.00
CAP 8A 144-770-065 $190.00
CAP 8B 144-770-066 $190.00
CAP 9A 144-770-067 $190.00
CAP 9B 144-770-068 $190.00
CAP 10A 144-770-069 $190.00
CAP 10B 144-770-070 $190.00
Total Annual Assessment $13,300.00
Zone 10: Altman Acres
Background
On October 9, 2002, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 02-91 granting tentative approval for the Altman Acres Subdivision. Condition No. 59 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment Zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the Altman Acres Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on October 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-94 forming the Altman Acres Subdivision.

The Zone is maintaining landscaping and lighting in the Altman Acres Subdivision City Right-ofWay and along Old Redwood Highway Right-of-Way fronting Lots 1 through 7. All funds shall be used for electrical, landscape, and incidental expenses within the Altman Acres Subdivision.

This Zone includes 11,750 square feet of landscape area and five LED, 120 volt, 100 watt street lights.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

City staff met with residents at the HOA Board meeting on Friday November 19, 2021, and discussed requested cleanup and replanting of the streetscape fronting Old Redwood Highway.

This would be a capital project requiring the City to hire a contractor. This work has been added to the budget for Fiscal Year 22/23. City Staff met again with the community at the HOA Board meeting on May 17, 2022 and due to the increasing reserves, staff agreed to propose a 5 percent reduction in the assessment for 2022/23 and setting a reserve target of $20,000 subject to receiving a quote from landscape contractor(s) for re-landscaping the street-scape. Since the meeting, the City received one quote for $26,800. This quote is consistent with what was discussed at the May 17, 2022 HOA Board meeting.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $2,661.00.

Description FY 20/21 Actuals FY 21/22 Estimated FY 22/23 Projected Utility Charges $1,334.00 $1,450.00 $1,500.00
Contract Services $385.00 $420.00 $420.00
Capital Projects 0.00 0.00 30,000.00
City Labor $263.00 $300.00 $300.00
Annual Zone Administration $230.00 $250.00 $270.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $2212.00 $2,420.00 32,490.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $5,672.00 $5,803.00 $5,516.00
Assessment Interest $44.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $5,716.00 $5,803.00 $5,516.00
Estimated Fund Balance

FY 2021-22
(Estimated)
FY 2022-2023
(Projected)
Estimated Starting Reserve
Fund Balance July 1 $32,826.00 $36,209.00
Estimated Assessment
Revenue $5,803.00 $5,516.00
Estimated Expenses $2,490.00 $32,490.00
Estimated Ending Reserve
Fund Balance June 30 $36,209.00 $9,235.00
The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-23 is $5,516.00 which is a 5 percent reduction from FY 2021-22. Reserve target is $20,000.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be equally divided among the fourteen (14) dwelling units. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

Assessment Spread
Fourteen (14) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel
Number Annual Charge
1 046-640-001 $394.00
2 046-640-002 $394.00
3 046-640-003 $394.00
4 046-640-004 $394.00
5 046-640-005 $394.00
6 046-640-006 $394.00
7 046-640-007 $394.00
8 046-640-008 $394.00
9 046-640-009 $394.00
10 046-640-010 $394.00
11 046-640-011 $394.00
12 046-640-012 $394.00
13 046-640-013 $394.00
14 046-640-014 $394.00
Total Annual Assessment $5,516.00

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

ENGINEER’S REPORT ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Method of Apportionment of Assessment - A statement of the method used by Engineer of Work to determine the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel within the Assessment District.

Attachment B - Assessment Diagrams – An Assessment Diagram (maps) showing all of the parcels of real property within the boundaries of the ten Assessment Zones. The A.P.N.’s are shown in the Assessor’s Maps available at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office.

Attachment C - Improvement Plans – This portion of the Engineer’s Report describes any improvement plans that may be needed for the installation of the improvements. If plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the plans and specifications are part of this Engineer’s Report and are included in it by reference.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

ATTACHMENT A

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
The following is a brief description of the manner in which the annual assessment has been apportioned to each parcel within the Assessment Zones:

Each parcel within each of the zones of the Assessment District receives a direct special benefit from improvement covered by this assessment as follows:

Valparaiso Vista Zone 1 - Zone 1 includes the maintenance of 7,416 square feet of landscaping along Redwood Highway and Valparaiso Avenue and five street lights within the development. The parcels within this zone receive a direct special benefit from these amenities that are an asset to the values of the homes.

Quail Hollow IV Zone 2 - Zone 2 funds the annual costs associated with the operation and maintenance of Quail Hollow, the back-on landscaping along portions of Myrtle Avenue. Additionally, maintenance of the landscaping provides a direct benefit for the parcels as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Sommers Zone 3 - The related Assessment Zone improvements in Zone 3 include six driveway lights. Additionally, the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Macklin Zone 4 - The related improvements in Zone 4 includes 1,170 square feet of “backon” landscaping along Myrtle Avenue. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping, as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Sierra Meadows Zone 5 - The related improvements in Zone 5 include nine street lights within the development. Residents within this zone directly benefit from the lighting, as maintaining the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial lighting features specific to residents within this zone.

Oak Knoll Zone 6 - The related improvements in Zone 6 include the island landscape maintenance on Christensen Court and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Garden Gate Zone 7 - The related improvements in Zone 7 include 2,900 square feet of “back-on” landscape along a portion of East Cotati Avenue and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Park Meadows Zone 8 - The improvements in Zone 8 include 38,475 square feet of “back-on” landscape along a portion of East Cotati Avenue and eleven street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Santero Way Zone 9 - The improvements in Zone 9 include a 31,000 square feet landscaped park and seventeen street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Altman Acres Zone 10 - The improvements in Zone 10 include a 11,750 square feet landscaped area along Old Redwood Hwy and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

The method of apportionment (spread) equates all parcels in Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 and 10 within the boundaries of the Assessment Zone to an Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling (ESD) unit use, or portion thereof. The following basic use units reflect the relative benefit accruing to parcels of land within a City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Zone:

1. Single dwelling parcel 1 unit

2. Multiple dwelling unit parcel 1 unit per dwelling

Once the total number of ESD units is determined for each of the Zones, the total number of ESD units within each Zone shall be divided into each respective Zone’s operation and maintenance expenses for the upcoming fiscal year (see Part B). This will result in the proposed annual assessment per ESD for the upcoming fiscal year. The annual assessment per ESD shall be multiplied by the total use units established for each parcel, or portion thereof, to determine the proposed total annual assessment for each parcel within each Zone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Annual assessments are apportioned in this manner due to the relative benefit of the improvements to each of the parcels within each separate Zone. Since the improvements are easily accessible to all the parcels within each Zone, the level of benefit is equally spread to each parcel.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) Although Section 22663 of the Streets and Highways Code typically requires that public property not be assessed, Article XIII, Section 4(a) of Proposition 218 now requires that public agencies shall not be exempt from assessment. However, the creek area, wetlands and public rights-of-way and easements within various Zones preclude construction of structures for other uses that conflict with the allowable zoning of these areas. Therefore, these publicly owned areas without a dwelling and used exclusively for greenbelt, or open space, or the common area of any planned unit development, receive no special benefit and do not receive an annual assessment.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

ATTACHMENT B

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS
Attached are the Assessment Diagrams (Maps) for the ten Assessment Zones. Please note the lines and dimensions of each parcel, as well as the distinctive Assessor’s Parcel Number, are shown on the Assessor's Maps for the City of Cotati available at the County of Sonoma Assessor's Office.

The attached pages also provide the reference to the appropriate Assessor Books at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office for the respective subdivisions in each of the ten Zones.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) Zone 1 - Valparaiso:

Lots 51 through 65 (15 total) and associated right-of –way street frontages lying within the Valparaiso Vista PUD Subdivision filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 144 of Maps, Page 40.

Zone 2 - Quail Hollow:

Lots 17-47 (31 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 46 of Maps, Page 61.

Zone 3 - Sommers:

Lots 20-27 (8 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within The Sommer Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 144 of Maps, Pages 28.

Zone 4 - Macklin:

Lots 1-39 (39 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within Macklin Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 46 of Maps, Page 62.

Zone 5 - Sierra Meadows:

Lots 1-26, 29, and 31-33 (30 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Sierra Meadow Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page 73.

Zone 6 - Oak Knoll:

Lots 1-26, 29, and 31-33 (30 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Oak Knoll Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page34.

Zone 7 - Garden Gate:

Lots 42-53, 58-60 (15 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Garden Gate Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page72.

Zone 8 - Park Meadows:

All the land lying within the Park Meadows Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page47.

Zone 9 - Santero Way:

The boundary of the Santero Way Developments Landscape and Lighting Assessment Zone coincides with the exterior boundaries of the Cotati Station Subdivision, Phase 1, recorded in Book 654 at Pages 44 through 49, Sonoma County Records. All individual Lots 1-50 and twenty (20) Condominium units

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) within the boundaries of the Cotati Station Subdivision, Phase 1 (for a total of 70 dwelling units) are included in the assessment Zone.

Zone 10 - Altman Acres:

Lots 1-14 (14 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Altman Acres Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 46 of Maps, Pages 64.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date)

ATTACHMENT C

IMPROVEMENT PLANS
If improvement plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the improvement plans are part of this Engineer’s Report and are included in it by reference.

9.G.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 2022-2023 LLAD Report - Draft (LLAD 22-23- Accept ER, and Set PH Date) RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ANNUAL ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR THE CITY OF COTATI LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT; AND

SETTING THE TIME AND DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 WHEREAS, the original ten Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment Districts within the City (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”) to levy and collect assessments under the Act to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, the City Council consolidated the ten Districts into one District, containing ten separate Benefit Zones, each of which match identically the original ten original Districts, to simplify the annual assessment process and subsequently reduce administration costs; and
WHEREAS, the revenues and expenses of each of the ten individual Benefit Zones will be kept separate and the individual annual budget of each separate Benefit Zone has been tracked, in the same manner as currently occurs for the separate Districts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, an annual Engineer’s Report is required to be prepared and filed outlining estimated costs, methods of spreading costs, a description of properties in the Assessment District and their proposed assessments in order to levy and collect assessments in any following fiscal year; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution appointing Craig Scott, P.E. as the Engineer of Work, directing the preparation and filing of the annual FY 2022-23 Engineer’s Report, and describing the potential changes to the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, the annual operation, maintenance and other incidental costs associated with the entire Assessment District includes improvements in the following Zones 1 through 10:

1. Valparaiso Zone 1 ‐ Zone 1 includes the maintenance of 7,416 square feet of landscaping along Redwood Highway and Valparaiso Avenue and five street lights within the development. The parcels within this zone receive a direct special benefit from these amenitiesthatare an asset to the values of the homes.

2. Quail Hollow Zone 2 ‐ Zone 2 funds the annual costs associated with the operation and maintenance of Quail Hollow, and the back-on landscaping along portions of Myrtle Avenue.

Additionally, maintenance of the landscaping provides a direct benefit for the parcels as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Packet Pg. 112

3. Sommers Zone 3 ‐ The Assessment District improvements in Zone 3 include six driveway lights on La Salle Avenue. Additionally, the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

4. Macklin Zone 4 ‐ The related improvements in Zone 4 includes 1,170 square feet of “back‐on” landscaping along Myrtle Avenue. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping, as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape featuresspecific to residents within this zone.

5. Sierra Meadow Zone 5 ‐ The improvements in Zone 5 include nine street lights within the development on Oretsky Way. Residents within this zone directly benefit from the lighting, as maintaining the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial lighting features specific to residents within this zone.

6. Oak Knoll Zone 6 ‐ The related improvements in Zone 6 include the island landscape maintenance on Christensen Court and five streetlights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

7. Garden Gate Zone 7 ‐ The improvements in Zone 7 include 2,900 square feet of “back‐on” landscape along a portion of East Cotati Avenue at Dyquisto Way and five streetlights.

Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

8. Park Meadows Zone 8 ‐ The improvements in Zone 8 include 38,475 square feet of landscape along McGinnis Circle, two pathways from McGinnis – one ending at Marsh Way and the other to a pedestrian bridge across the Laguna De Santa Rosa leading to Loretto Avenue, and sixteen streetlights (five streetlights were added in FY 2018/19).

9. Santero Way Zone 9 ‐ The improvements in Zone 9 include a 31,000 square feet landscaped park and seventeen streetlights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

10. Altman Acres Zone 10 ‐ The improvements in Zone 10 include a 11,750 square feet landscaped area along Old Redwood Hwy across from Clothier Lane and five street lights (two along Old Redwood Highway and three along John Roberts Drive). Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone; and WHEREAS, the Engineer of Work has prepared and filed with the City the annual Engineer’s Report for FY 2021-2022 as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and Packet Pg. 113
WHEREAS, all interested persons are referred to the Engineer’s Report, a copy of which is attached to the staff report for this item and is also on file with and available for inspection in the City Clerk’s Office; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the proposed operation and maintenance costs, the boundaries of the ten zones of the Assessment District and the proposed FY 2022-23 assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the proposed FY 2022-23 annual assessments to levy and collect are proposed to stay the same as that assessed FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, for Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10 the FY 2022-23 maximum annual assessments will be adjusted up by the allowable Construction Cost Index for San Francisco extending back to the formation of the District; and
WHEREAS, for Zone 7, the proposed FY 2022-23 annual assessment by parcel to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $11.50 from FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, for Zone 8, the proposed FY 2022-2023 annual assessment by parcel to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $22.50 from FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, for Zone 9, the proposed FY 2022-2023 annual assessment by parcel to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $12.50 from FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, for Zone 10, the proposed FY 2022-2023 annual assessment by parcel to levy and collect is proposed to be reduced by 5 percent from FY 2021-22; and WHEREAS, for FY 2022-23 the annual assessments proposed to be levied and collected are: $158.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 1, $40.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 2, $290.00 per unit [$435.00 for triplex] for all properties within Zone 3, $32.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 4, $36.74 per unit for all properties within Zone 5, $133.50 per unit for all properties within Zone 6, $241.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 7, $467.50 per unit for all properties within Zone 8, $190.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 9, and $394.00 per ESD unit for all properties within Zone 10.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution; and
Packet Pg. 114

2. Proposal to Levy Assessments. The City Council intends to levy and collect assessments during Fiscal Year 2022/2023 and preliminarily approves the filed FY 2022-23 Engineer’s Report with the estimate of the costs and expenses to operate and maintain the said improvements and their incidental expenses as it pertains to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for the proposed Cotati Landscape & Lighting Assessment District and its component Benefit Zones for FY 2022-23; and

4. Inflation Adjustment. In order to take inflation into account, the City Council approves the allowance for an annual increase to the maximum assessments in accordance with the annual Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area for Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10; and

5. Public Hearing. A public protest hearing will be held on June 28, 2022 at 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, and the meeting will be conducted virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing using the following online livestream meeting portal link:
http://cotaticityca.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx
At that time, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the levy and collection of annual assessments for FY 22-23 for the District; and

6. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 22620 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highway Code; and

7. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish the Notice of Hearing required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for said public hearing.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the May 24th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

To: City Council
Subject: Police Policy Compliance Review
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the policy compliance review of the police department.

Background
In 2020, the City Council directed staff to initiate a third-party policy compliance review of the police department. This was one of many additional measures to ensure transparency and compliance with best practices. Additionally, poor compliance with policy is often a precursor to an organizational culture that often results in policing issues.

Analysis/Discussion
To conduct the review, the City hired George Hills, which used a subject matter expert to review compliance with departmental policies, as well as recommendations on industry best practices.

Both the report and a memorandum on the current status of recommendations are attached to this staff report.

Financial Considerations
Funding for the review was available within the adopted budget, so no additional appropriations were requested.

11.A
Packet Pg. 116
Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

Attachments:

Status on Police Department Study Memo (PDF)
City of Cotati Police Department Study (PDF)

11.A
Packet Pg. 117
City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067

MEMORANDUM
Date: May 10, 2022
To: Cotati City Council
From: Michael Parish, Chief of Police
Re: Status on Police Study Recommendations
This memo is intended to update the City Council and the community on the status of the Police Study recommendations.

Use of Force Review
Question: Does CPD report Use of Force incidents to the State Department of Justice (DOJ) as required by Government Code §12525.2?
Government Code §12525.2 requires reporting cases of serious use of force to DOJ, similar to what is also now required under SB 1421. This includes use of firearms, great bodily injury, etc. There were no available documents because there were no events to report.

Question: Do Cotati Police Officers receive training on the Use of Force policy? The CPD has begun incorporating annual UOF trainings into annual evaluations, in addition to the other ongoing training on de-escalation, alternatives to use of force, implicit bias, Crisis Intervention Training, and incident simulators. The CPD now also has the SAFE team as a resource and has received training from the SAFE team on how to most effectively utilize them to reduce the potential for UOF incidents.

Question: Does Cotati Police Department appropriately document incidents in which force was applied? The CPD has updated this process since the review was conducted, including requiring the officer to selfinitiate the UOF form, and transitioning from a departmental UOF form to UOF reporting integrated into the police Record Management System (RMS). The UOF report is required for any level of force above basic handcuffing, including pointing a firearm or taser at someone.

Question: In accordance with 300.9 of the CPD policy manual, does the department conduct an annual review of use of force incidents?
The UOF tracking and reporting tools added at the end of 2020, and more recently incorporated into the RMS system, will allow the CPD to readily pull annual reporting information and conduct analysis of trends and

11.A.A
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Police Policy Compliance Review) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 develop training, equipment or policy recommendations. Additionally, the CPD also began collecting RIPA data in 2021, which is sent to the California Department of Justice daily for review and data validation.

Question: Does CPD have a Deadly Force Review Board, as outlined in CPD Policy 302.4 et al.? Historically, such a board has not been needed, as no deadly force incidents have occurred. Currently, the protocol in Sonoma County is that one of the 3 larger police agencies (Santa Rosa, Sheriff, or Petaluma) would respond to and investigate an officer use of deadly force. Once completed, the investigation is sent to the County District Attorney to review if criminal prosecution is warranted. Alternatively, the State Attorney General’s Office may criminally prosecute the case. Pursuant to recently enacted California Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), the California Department of Justice is required to investigate all incidents of an officerinvolved shooting resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. Historically, these critical incidents in California had been primarily handled by local law enforcement agencies and the state’s 58 district attorneys.

In parallel with this criminal process, there will also be an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation of the incident. In cases where deadly force is used, this would be conducted by a third-party expert.

The purpose of the Deadly Force Review Board is to review the Officer Involved Shooting investigation (once the IA and criminal investigations are completed) and determine if changes to equipment, training, procedures, or policies are warranted.

Question: Does the Cotati Police Department participate in the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection program?
The CPD is currently exploring participation in this program. In California, Government Code §12525.2 requires reporting cases of serious use of force to DOJ, similar to what is also now required under SB 1421.

The FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection program collects similar data, including the use of force that causes great bodily injury, death or shooting at a person. The CPD hasn’t had any reportable events under any of these statutes or the voluntary FBI program.

The FBI posts this data at the following website: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force Question: Do CPD officers receive training and certification to carry a Conducted Energy Devices? The CPD has added inspections during line up (the start of all shifts) to ensure that conducted energy devices (aka Tasers) are properly configured. During inspections, supervisors ensure that Tasers are on the nondominate side of the equipment vest or belt. With the recent Taser upgrade, all officers have received Taser training on the upgraded devices.

11.A.A
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Police Policy Compliance Review) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 Question: Are CPD officers trained and authorized to carry/use other control devices as outlined in CPD policy 308.3?
In addition to conducted energy devices (i.e. Tasers), the CPD officers may be trained and certified to carry other control devices, such as OC pepper spray and a baton. The CPD is currently testing the Bolla Wrap as another device available to restrain suspects from a distance who are non-compliant and a potential risk to themselves, the officers, or others around them. In all cases, the CPD has added an annual documented inspection process during evaluations to ensure that CPD officers are trained and certified to carry any control devices that they use.

Question: Are supervisory/management personnel trained in their responsibilities during an officer involved shooting?
The CPD has added critical incident training for all supervisors and is currently in the process of training supervisors so that our supervisors (corporals and sergeants) are well versed on how to effectively handle the various emotional, procedural, and legal issues.

Vehicle Pursuits
The CPD meets or exceeds all policies and best practices, so no modified procedures or practices are currently recommended in this high-risk activity. Officers are trained, in most cases, to not engage in high-speed pursuits to minimize the risk of injuries or property damage to the general public. The importance of this is also routinely tested during annual evaluations.

Property and Evidence
Question: Does CPD staff follow appropriate procedures for cataloging, storing, and releasing property/evidence (CPD Policy 804.3, 804.5)?
Currently, evidence is normally booked in lockers afterhours for processing the next workday. Following this audit, the CPD fully enclosed a caged area for locking larger evidence items after hours and is in the process currently of ensuring 24/7 video surveillance of the area. When complete, it will ensure fully secure and monitored storage for larger evidence items.

Items requiring refrigeration (DNA evidence, toxicology) are stored in evidence lockers and placed into refrigeration on the next business day, which meets the current evidence handling/storage requirements.

11.A.A
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Police Policy Compliance Review) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 Question: Does CPD follow established policy relative to the random and routine inspection of the property/evidence room?
The CPD has implemented inspections of evidence storage area, including monthly Sergeant inspections, unannounced annual inspections by the Police Chief, and an annual written audit by a Sergeant appointed by the Police Chief.
p:\forms\letterheadmemo.doc

11.A.A
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Police Policy Compliance Review) City of Cotati Police Department Study
September 23, 2021
Hills
3043 Gold Canal Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 859-
[email protected]

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review)

CITY OF COTATI POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW The following study, conducted by Lewis Consulting Services, is a review of Cotati Police Department’s compliance with areas of existing policy. Police and City leaders requested the study focus on policies that are considered “high risk” as it relates to the potential for negative outcomes and/or significant risk to citizens, staff, and ultimately City liability. The initiative to request such an introspective review is commendable and illustrates that the city understands their role leading a workforce faced with the difficult task of providing public safety services. By ensuring the department is appropriately adhering to policy and/or identifying areas in which policy and practice contradict, the leaders of this organization have demonstrated their commitment to safeguard their mission to provide quality public safety services.

Lewis Consulting Services’ experience, as it relates to conducting such a study is as follows:

James Lewis (Consultant-President)
James Lewis served more than 30-years with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s department in Sacramento California before retiring in March 2016 as the department’s 2nd in command. As the Undersheriff, James lead the day-to-day operations of the 2,000+ member department that serviced the 944 square miles of unincorporated Sacramento County.

Prior to his appointment to the role of Undersheriff, James served for 6 ½ years as the Chief of Corrections for Sacramento County where he oversaw the day-to-day operations of 2-jail facilities with an average daily population of 4,000 inmates as well as the operation of a full-service, county operated Correctional Health division, alternative sentencing program, civil operations, and court security.

Prior to appointment to the Sheriff’s Executive Staff, James commanded a patrol division that serviced a diverse unincorporated portion of Sacramento with more than 100,000 residents over 20 square miles. In addition to patrol command, James held commands in narcotics, air operations and security services, management positions in special operations, sheriff’s staff and supervisory positions in media, investigations, court security and corrections. This breadth of experience has provided opportunities to experience all aspects of professional law enforcement, giving him a unique perspective of the challenge’s agencies and their municipalities face.

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Robert Chalfant, Esq., Litigation Manager
Mr. Chalfant has defended public entities on high profile claims in state and federal courts across California for over 20 years. 2001, The majority of his caseload involves constitutional law claims brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and all related state torts. He has tried to verdict civil rights cases in state and federal court and argued appeals on behalf of public entities before both federal and state courts of appeal.

Past cases include officer-involved shootings, unlawful searches and seizures, excessive force, use of tasers, use of restraints, use of canines, failure to protect inmates, deliberate indifference to inmate’s serious medical needs, malicious prosecution, substantive and procedural due process, takings, discrimination, sexual harassment, defamation, and cases brought under the ADA.

METHODOLOGY
The Cotati Police Department subscribes to Lexipol, a widely known reputable vendor that develops, provides, and maintains policy manuals for law enforcement agencies. This vendor has a diverse leadership/development team with extensive experience in the field. The product they provide has been tested, is routinely reviewed, and proven to be of the highest quality.

The importance of this relationship cannot be overstated, as failure to maintain and train to effective policies, in an environment in which conditions are in constant motion, is a recipe for unnecessary risk exposure.

The focus of this study is on the adopted policies compared to existing Cotati Police practices to ensure 1) the agency is compliant with policy as written and 2) that existing policies are appropriate for the task.

Areas of concentration are:
• CPD Policy 300-310: Use of Force
• CPD Policy 314: Vehicle Pursuits
• CPD Policy 804: Property and Evidence
To conduct this study we, in cooperation with Cotati Police Department (CPD) staff, reviewed written policy, both vendor supplied and those directed by Police administration, and compared these documents against actual practice. This document serves as the result of that review and will show areas of substantial compliance or areas in which improvements are needed.

USE OF FORCE (CPD POLICY 300-310):

Use of force is one of the most significant areas of risk for any police agency. The application of force and the determination as to whether that force was appropriate or necessary is

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) scrutinized now more than ever. Oversight starts internally with police supervisory and executive staff, continues through the City Manager and then the elected City Council.

Additionally, oversight can include the local district attorney or the state attorney general in some cases. One would not have to look very far into law enforcement/community relations history to find examples in which failures in policy compliance or ineffective policy development had undesirable outcomes.

As a foundation, Use of Force as it relates to the profession of law enforcement is currently measured against what is considered a standard of what an officer would consider “objectively reasonable”. This standard and all aspects of use of force for law enforcement are covered in Penal Code, Government Code, and case law.

Question: Does existing CPD policy meet the current standard for a Use of Force policy? Substantial Compliance: The CPD Use of Force policy mirrors existing case law, includes recent changes relative to case law and is clearly within current standards. The way this policy is maintained is appropriate, and any updates are provided, reviewed, and acknowledged by CPD staff. Additionally, required as part of existing policy and statute is the public availability to department policy. CPD complies with this requirement, as all policies are easily accessible on the department’s website.

Question: Does CPD report Use of Force incidents to the State Department of Justice (DOJ) as required by Government Code § 12525.2?
Documentation Unavailable: CPD Policy 300.5.2, which aligns with Government Code § 12525.2 requires, as of January 1, 2017, the agency to report annually incidents involving use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury. At the time of this review, staff was unable to locate evidence of such reporting, although anecdotally members believe reporting is routinely completed. Given the lack of availability of this documentation, LCS is unable to determine compliance with this policy, however given the narrow nature of this requirement it is entirely possible there were no remarkable events to report.

Question: Do Cotati Police Officers receive training on the Use of Force policy? Substantial Compliance: As required under section 300.8 of the CPD policy manual, Officers review existing policy as part of their initial training and are required to demonstrate their knowledge of this policy during field training.

Recommendation: Given the evolutionary nature of this aspect of law enforcement, annual review, during annual evaluation periods and documentation of this review would ensure staff is aware of any changes to the Use of Force policy.

Question: Do Cotati Police Officer receive training on Use of Force, beyond what is required to graduate a basic police academy?

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Substantial Compliance: CPD officers receive additional training at a minimum every (2) years during “Perishable Skills” training, hosted by the Santa Rosa Junior College. The curriculum includes practical exercises in which officers demonstrate hands-on proficiency in the trained techniques. In addition, CPD Executive Staff has committed to training that focuses on deescalation techniques and alternatives to use of force, which effectively equips officers with tools to avoid the use of force unless necessary.

Question: Does Cotati Police Department appropriately document incidents in which force was applied?
Substantial Compliance: As required in section 306.8 of CPD policy, officers that use force, demonstrate force, apply handcuffs or restraints during an arrest routinely include documentation of this application of force in their arrest/crime reports.

Notable Improvement to Requirement: In addition to the documentation in reports, CPD has developed an internal policy that requires officers to complete an internally generated “Use of Force Tracking and Reporting form”. This form, which is aligned with the spirit of existing policy, goes beyond what is required by policy and ensures the application of force, however slight is documented.

In reviewing these forms, LCS found instances in which this additional reporting form resulted in greater scrutiny over events that might otherwise have been dismissed as routine. Review of body worn camera footage, detailed accounts of officer’s/offender’s actions and documented supervisory acknowledgement of the event are significant positive outcomes from requiring this document as part of the overall documentation of an event.

Note: Currently the process by which the Use of Force Tracking and Reporting form is completed is following a supervisor’s review of incident reports. During this review, the supervisor will identify instances in which force was used and direct the completion of the UOF report. This form is again reviewed by a supervisor who will choose an appropriate course of action that may include:
• Additional interviews of witnesses, suspects
• Review of camera footage
• Require additional documentation in incident reports
• Initiation of administrative investigation
While the current process is capturing use of force incidents that may otherwise be inconspicuously contained in incident reports, CPD should consider a change in culture that would require the officer to initiate the report before supervisory review.

CPD Policy 300.5.1 requires officers to report, to a supervisor, any use of force that:
(a) The application caused a visible injury.

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) (b) The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
(c) The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. (d) The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation. (e) Any application of a TASER device or control device. (f) Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains. (g) The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. (h) An individual was struck or kicked.
(i) An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.

The UOF reporting form, for any of the above instances creates an environment in which officers take additional ownership over their tactics and increase the transparency of their actions.

Continued supervisory review of both completed UOF reports, and incident reports will act as a safeguard to ensure documentation is appropriate and complete.

Question: In accordance with 300.9 of the CPD policy manual, does the department conduct an annual review of use of force incidents?
Review Unavailable: 300.9 of the CPD Policy Manual states: Annual Summary At least annually, the Operations Sergeant should prepare an analysis report on use of force incidents. The report should be submitted to the Chief of Police. The report should not contain the names of officers, suspects or case numbers, and should include:

1. (a) The identification of any trends in the use of force by members.

2. (b) Training needs recommendations.

3. (c) Equipment needs recommendations.

4. (d) Policy revision recommendations.

At the time of this review, staff provided use of force tracking and reporting forms as evidence of use of force analysis as required by this policy. While the review of these documents did not necessarily highlight the need for further action, tracking officer’s conduct through this medium and conducting a detailed annual analysis of the information contained in these reports could highlight patterns that require further scrutiny or identify officer’s actions that need further

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) administrative investigation. Additional value in an annual analysis is the opportunity to identify the need for improvement in training, equipment, or practice.

At the time of this review, annual reporting was not readily available, as UOF descriptions are currently included in the narrative of the police reports. This required police staff to read the narrative of each police report to find UOF information. To make the UOF descriptions readily available for annual review and reporting, the internal tracking form previously mentioned was added at the end of 2020. Additionally, in 2021, the department worked with the Sonoma County Public Safety Consortium (SCPSC), Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College to develop and implement the use of force tracking module that can be used for bulk annual reporting from the records management system in future years. This system will also now be available for all law enforcement agencies in Sonoma County that are members of the SCPSC.

Question: Does CPD have a Deadly Force Review Board, as outlined in CPD Policy 302.4 et al.?
Out of Compliance: The Cotati Police department does not have a review board as outlined in 302.4 et al. of the CPD policy manual. The composition and purpose of this board is clearly defined in the policy and its mission effectively outlined. While incidents requiring assembly of the members of this review board perhaps have not presented themselves, a proactive measure to identify individuals and convene such a board to train for the potential is needed.

Question: Does the Cotati Police Department participate in the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection program?
In 2015, the FBI began collecting data on national police use of force. The National Use of Force Data Collection program is voluntary for all federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement, and investigative agencies. The data collected (as described on the FBI.gov website) covers:
“The collection and reporting of data includes any use of force that results in:
• The death of a person due to law enforcement use of force. • The serious bodily injury of a person due to law enforcement use of force. • The discharge of a firearm by law enforcement at or in the direction of a person not” (This last sentence is incomplete and needs revision?)
If agencies experience no qualifying use-of-force incidents within a month, they submit a zero report.

The FBI website indicates 5,030 of approximately 18,514 eligible agencies participate in this reporting1. This number represents less than 1/3 of eligible agencies participate in the data collection program. Given there is no requirement in CPD policy, and the program is voluntary, compliance is not an issue. However, CPD would demonstrate their leadership in the law 1 FBI National Use of Force Data Collection www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) enforcement profession by participating in this program, which harvests invaluable data available for analysis and comparison.

Question: Do CPD officers receive training and certification to carry a Conducted Energy Devices?
Substantial Compliance: Only officers who have successfully completed department-approved training are issued and carry Conducted Energy Devices. The device provided, more commonly referred to as a Taser® (which references the brand name of the device) is the only approved device used by CPD.

Training, both initial and refresher, complies with best practices and is consistent with manufacturers recommendations, case law and existing policy. Use of the Taser during an event is documented on a Taser Use Report, as well as the Use of Force Review form. This documentation is also consistent with best practice and gives CPD staff the opportunity to more closely scrutinize the incidents in which the use of this device was deemed necessary.

Recommendation: Catastrophic events involving the use of a firearm when a Taser was intended have occurred due to improper identification of the weapon. This can occur when officers improperly carry or train to carry the Taser in an “off-hand” configuration. While training and policy dictate this configuration, verification during uniform inspection or routine interaction with supervisory or management staff as a safeguard will greatly reduce the potential for misidentification during events in which officers are under duress.

Currently, CPD does not include or document this observation as part of a routine uniform inspection process.

Question: Are CPD officers trained and authorized to carry/use other control devices as outlined in CPD policy 308.3?
Substantial Compliance: CPD policy dictates that only departmentally issued or approved controlled devices can be carried or used by CPD officers. Officers carrying these devices must have successfully completed department-approved training in the use of any controlled device.

Officers are trained in the use of traditional control devices during initial academy training and during perishable skills refresher training. Additional training for newly acquired techniques/devices occurs on an as needed basis
Recommendation: Include in an annual uniform inspection process documentation of which control devices are being carried and their compliance with existing policy.

Question: Are supervisory/management personnel trained in their responsibilities during an officer involved shooting?

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Training Opportunity: Officer Involved Shootings (OIS) are among the most taxing events on a police agency. The impact from the shooting on the officer(s) mental health, the agency and the community require a well-planned initial response. After initial threats are mitigated and life saving measures are taken, supervisors responding to the scene must be prepared to effectively handle a variety of emotional, procedural, and legal issues. A composed comprehensive response is not an accident. Training, beyond what is considered “on the job training” that covers in depth the supervisory responsibilities is necessary to increase the odds of successfully navigating the challenges a supervisor will face.

Recommendation: Seek out an appropriate critical incident supervisor’s training course, that focuses on officer involved shootings and the supervisor’s role. Provide this training to all incumbent and future supervisors upon or prior to appointment.

VEHICLE PURSUIT (CPD POLICY 314)
Vehicle pursuits are among some of the most dangerous activities in which law enforcement engage. Personal safety, the safety of the subject being pursued, and the safety of the community are all considerations before initiating a pursuit and/or continuing one. CPD acknowledges these risks and maintains a culture that is both communicated to line staff and demonstrated by supervisors/administration actions that “public safety for all” is the highest priority.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) from 1996 to 2015, an average of 355 persons were killed annually in pursuit related crashes2.

Question: Does CPD have a written policy that governs officer’s actions during pursuit driving?
Substantial Compliance: CPD does have a comprehensive pursuit policy. The policy utilizes best practices to effectively outline expectations.

Question: Does CPD comply with the requirement to report all pursuits to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) using form 187A?
Substantial Compliance: CPD reports all pursuits within the required timeline to the CHP using the CHP 187A form. This form is intended to provide the CHP with data to prepare an annual report presented to the California Legislature as required by Senate Bill 719, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 4, 2005. This statistical report outlines the outcome of all reported pursuits.

Question: Does CPD participate in ongoing pursuit driving training? 2 Police Vehicle Pursuits, 2012-2013, Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 9, 2017

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Substantial Compliance: CPD officers attend bi-annual Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) training as part of a perishable skills training curriculum. This substantially complies with written policy, which was adopted to comply with Penal Code § 13519.8.

PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE (CPD POLICY 804):

Collecting, booking, and storing evidence is an essential function for every law enforcement agency. Integral to that process is properly maintaining a pristine chain of evidence to ensure the items can be effectively used in prosecutorial efforts.

To examine the property and evidence handling procedures, LCS reviewed current policy, toured the property room(s) and interviewed staff responsible for their maintenance. LCS conducted additional interviews with CPD administration to elicit concerns over the current state of the property section and determine if those concerns can be resolved through existing policy or amendments to policy/practice.

Question: Does existing policy (CPD Policy 804) mirror best practice for property and evidence handling?
Substantial Compliance: CPD policy does represent the industry standard for booking, storing, and securing property and evidence. The policy outlines appropriate procedures and expectations sections and progress from the initial collection to final disposition.

Question: Does the Cotati Police Department have safeguards in place to protect staff handling evidence?
Substantial Compliance: CPD follows established policy to ensure the safety of all staff. Safety considerations are especially important in the booking of firearms, edged weapons/syringes, and dangerous drugs.

Firearms, both confiscated and surrendered are checked to ensure all ammunition has been removed. Handguns are booked in boxes that are then stored in a separate room within the property section. Long guns are also stored in the firearms room, which is secured behind a locked door that is accessed by only those staff members that have a legitimate reason to access the room.

Sharp objects are booked in containers that limit the likelihood of injury during handling.

Syringes are similarly handled using containers that are designed to avoid accidental “sticks”.

Drugs are weighed and packaged in sealed containers to avoid accidental exposure. All narcotics substances are identified with a specific notation indicating the suspected substance, with special consideration for those packages suspected to contain especially dangerous substances like Fentanyl.

To safeguard staff handling packages containing possible dangerous drugs, officers make a conspicuous notation (sticker or other highly visible marking) on the outside of the packaging to

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) alert staff. When so noted, the package remains sealed while in CPD possession and may only be opened by qualified staff at an approved lab.

NOTE: Current policy (CPD Policy 804.4.2) calls for the “presumptive test” of substances suspected to be drugs prior to booking. This procedure, both in the CPD and other agencies in the region has been abandoned. The reason for this shift in policy is concern for officer safety, specifically the accidental exposure to dangerous substances like Fentanyl. Officers use their experience and expertise to identify and document the suspected drug(s) prior to booking.

Question: Does CPD staff follow appropriate procedures for cataloging, storing, and releasing property/evidence (CPD Policy 804.3, 804.5)?
Substantial Compliance: CPD Policy outlines the procedure for handling property. Specific handling instructions are included for the various property likely to be booked into CPD facilities.

The procedures outlined in the policy manual have been developed as a guideline and represent best practice. However, improvements to these practices are in place at CPD. One such example is the use of a bar coding system to automate the booking procedure.

Officers booking property are required to affix and register a bar code to items of evidence/property before booking them into the property lockers. The system creates a record for that piece of evidence which is a living catalog for that item until its final disposition (destruction, release to owner, adjudication, or sale). This procedure represents an improved best practice as maintaining the record is efficient and easily retrieved.

Interviews with staff and random sampling of evidence stored in the CPD property room confirm compliance with policy. The experience of the Community Services Officer (CSO) responsible for maintaining the property room and her description of the process for maintaining, releasing, and storing property/evidence indicate appropriate steps are being taken.

NOTE: One concern expressed by staff related to chain of evidence and storage of large items. Space constraints as well as lack of access to the property room by staff after hours results in larger items being stored in areas where access can only be moderately controlled. While their concerns are valid.

CPD administration has developed a mitigation plan to incorporate a capital improvement project to secure a currently unused dog kennel in the garage of the CPD facility. Securing this area with additional fencing and lock will allow officers to place larger items in the cage, providing greater security for the items until they can be more appropriately stored or moved to a more secure location.

Question: Does CPD have procedure for booking items contaminated with bodily fluids, as outlined in CPD Policy 804.3.4 (Exceptional Handling)?

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Substantial Compliance: The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services provides guidance on the collection and storage of items containing bodily fluids.3 Recommendations in this bulletin include:
• Allow stains to air dry as much as possible before placing in paper bag or envelope. • Package the “unstained control” separately from the evidence stain. • Package different evidence items in separate paper containers. • Ensure that the paper container is large enough to allow air circulation around evidence item.
• Clean paper can be placed on (or in) a bloodstained garment and the garment folded so that the paper prevents contact between different stains. Ensure that while items are drying that the stain pattern(s) are not altered or the stain(s) cross-contaminated with other wet stain(s).
• Metal or glass evidence item (e.g. knife or broken, glass bottle), should be secured with wire to the bottom of a cardboard box so that it does not pierce the sides of a paper container. If not secured, blood on a knife blade can become easily dislodged and lost.

Do not freeze metal or glass evidence items with blood or other body fluid stains.

Submit these items to the laboratory as soon as possible. • Tape seal, initial and date all paper bags or envelopes.

CPD staff is trained in both the collection and storage of this type of evidence. During the interview with the senior CSO responsible for this process, she was able to effectively describe the appropriate procedures as outlined in policy, which are recognized as best practice.

No contrary indications were noted during a tour of the facility.

Question: Does CPD follow established policy relative to the random and routine inspection of the property/evidence room?
Out of compliance: CPD policy 804.8 Inspection of the Evidence Room, requires:
(a) On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures.
(b) Unannounced inspections of evidence storage areas shall be conducted annually as directed by the Chief of Police.
(c) An annual audit of evidence held by the Department shall be conducted by a Sergeant (as appointed by the Chief of Police) not routinely or directly connected with evidence control.
3 Physical Evidence Bulletin, PEB 4 (rev 2002), Bureau of Forensic Services, Ca. DOJ

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) (d) Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual not associated to the property room or function to ensure that records are correct, and all evidence property is accounted for.

CPD staff did not recognize the requirements outlined in the above policy, did not remember an occasion in which the required inspections were completed, nor did they have specific staff assigned to conduct audits/inspections.

The policy outlines best practices to ensure property is being properly stored, and all procedures are being followed. Regular inspections of the property facility are critical to catch deviations from policy before they expose the city to unnecessary liability.

CPD administration readily acknowledged the deficiency in this area and are currently developing plans to ensure compliance.

OUTSIDE OF SCOPE OBSERVATIONS
While interviewing CPD administration, it became clear their focus is on providing the highest level of service possible given the resources at their disposal. The Chief and his staff are thoughtfully progressive and appear to be constantly looking for ways to improve the way they police the community and provide for their staff.

RIPA
Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) was “formed as part of AB953 (Weber, 2016)4. The bill, among other things, requires police agencies to collect and report demographic data from police encounters. This requirement was phased in statewide, with small agencies needing to comply by April 1, 2023.

The project to properly implement comprehensive data collection and analysis using efficient technology, while worthwhile is both expensive and burdensome. Many of the agencies still waiting to develop a solution will soon feel the pressure of an impending deadline. CPD’s progress in developing and implementing racial profiling tracking before the statutorily required deadline is an example in which the department is proactively addressing emerging issues. This tracking process, which is automated and available for analysis is currently in testing and will come completely online in the 3rd quarter of 2021 4 Assembly Bill No. 953, Ch.466, Weber; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

11.A.B
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Police Policy Compliance Review) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type:

To: City Council
Subject: Annual Police Chief Report to the Community
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Michael Parish, Chief of Police
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive and discuss the annual police chief report to the community for 2021.

Background
In 2021, the Chief of Police presented the first annual report to the City Council and the Community, which covered activities and statistics from 2020.

From conversations with the City Council and the community in 2020 and 2021, the City Council committed to the following measures for greater transparency:

1. Early implementation of RIPA data collection.

2. Creation of this annual report to the community.

3. Review of annual RIPA reports for best practices.

4. Re-affirm our commitment to train our officers above and beyond POST standards, including implicit bias training and de-escalation training.

5. Updating the citizen complaint form and making it available on the website.

6. Conducting a community survey on racism.

7. Working with a third party to conduct a policy compliance review to ensure policies/training/and practices are aligned.

Additionally, in 2021, the City also started the SAFE mental health crisis team with Rohnert Park and self-identified a need to update internal tracking of use of force events for improved transparency.

Analysis/Discussion
In 2021, the Police Department implemented these commitments, including:
- The addition of a use of force reporting form to capture all events above simple

11.B
Packet Pg. 135
handcuffing and multi-level supervisory review; and
- The early implementation of RIPA stop data, which began collection of a variety of officer perceived demographics from vehicle stops; and
- A review of high-risk policy areas, to ensure compliance with established policy. Poor policy compliance with established policies are a typical precursor to policing issues; and - Updated citizen complaint forms with additional information to follow current best practices, as identified by the RIPA Board, and added webform for citizen complaints; and
- Continued focus on training for de-escalation and implicit bias.

Additionally, the Police Department upgraded body worn cameras for additional features that help ensure automatic recording in high stress and emergency situations.

Targeted Traffic Enforcement Program
In addition to general traffic enforcement, the City is working to implement a targeted traffic enforcement program, including:
- Downtown Truck Enforcement
- Pedestrian Crossing Vehicle Enforcement
- Distracted Driving Vehicle Enforcement
- Zone/Beat Enforcement
- Speed Enforcement in high collision areas
The program is intended to focus on each enforcement area every 6 months.

Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Technology
In the month of March 2021, the Cotati Police Department began the deployment of APLR investigative technology. The department currently includes two patrol vehicles outfitted with APLR technology. The police department received funding for the ALPR’s through the State Homeland Security Grant totaling approximately $40,000. The purpose of the APLR’s is to identify lost or stolen vehicles/license plates or to help locate a vehicle involved in various crimes.

In 2021, the police department had two (2) successful recoveries of stolen vehicles from the ALPR. Additionally, a citizen reported a car stolen to Cotati Police Officers. Using the ALPR, officers discovered that our ALPR recorded the license plate of the car and located it in Cotati.

Our officers also use the ALPR system for investigations and for public safety by uploading wanted and dangerous vehicles into the system. Due to the rampant on-going “sideshow” issues in the Bay Area, Cotati Officers, utilizing the ALPR vehicle will respond to the “Sideshow” location and automatically log potential participants in the illegal activity. Instead of immediately chasing the suspect vehicles, and inherently creating risk of life and/or property as well as the potential for use of force, the collection of data is later used to safely serve a warrant to impound the vehicle used in the illegal activity.

11.B
Packet Pg. 136
Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE) Mental Health Crisis Response Team The City and Rohnert Park partnered to stand up a mental health crisis response team to better respond to people in crisis and get them services for better outcomes rather than relying on police to be social workers. The SAFE team is currently moving to collection of statistics for each community individually, but it was not available for this report. Additionally, the City is working with SAFE and other crisis teams in Sonoma County to develop uniform data collection categories using common methods.

The following are a combination of stories from the SAFE team and statistics from Cotati and Rohnert Park.

SAFE sample stories from December 2021
December brought more cold and inclement weather to the region, with associated complications to the lives of the unhoused. SAFE team assisted several individuals with transport to emergency warming sites in Santa Rosa and Petaluma, helped Catholic Charities reconnect with 2 clients who had previously initiated homeless services intakes, and distributed caps, gloves, and blankets donated by RPDPS and members of the public.

Family dispute mediations were another major theme for SAFE team responses in December.

One of the families that we had contacted in November due to violence between the children has engaged in family services through DHS and has reached out to SAFE team for managing disagreements in the household to proactively prevent physical conflicts. Similarly, a juvenile who was reunited with his mother earlier this year and required frequent RPDPS and MST responses over the summer, is now in residential mental health treatment, and the mother has requested support from the SAFE team when her temper is frayed and she struggles to communicate effectively with him during home visits; MST has not had to respond since October.

SAFE January 2022 statistics
Total Calls 77
Types Outcomes Transports
Counseling request 8 Advised 16 Memorial 8
Death notification 1 Assisted 27 Catholic C. 2
Public assist 44 Safety contract 1 Sutter 2
Suicidal subject 3 Refused 9 Hotel 2 (DV shelter
refusals)
Welfare checks 21 Transported 17 Kaiser 2
Wound care 0 UTL/GOA 4 Cancelled 3 Camp 1 (impaired
mobility)

11.B
Packet Pg. 137
SAFE February 2022 Statistics
Total Calls 128
Types
Counseling Requests 7
Death Notifications: 0
Public Assists: 91
Suicidal Subject: 2
Welfare Checks: 28
Wound Care:

Outcomes
Advised: 21
Assisted 58
Safety Contract: 1
Refused: 10
Transported: 30
UTL/GOA: 8
Transports
Memorial: 2
Catholic C: 3
Sutter: 5
Kaiser: 3
WiFi Wash 1
Valley of the Moon 2
Bank 1
CSU 1
PVH 4
Residential 4
Redwood Gospel Mission 1
Coffee Teen Shelter 2
County Office 1
SAFE sample stories from February 2022
A SAFE Team visit to a home was requested. When the team arrived, the family shared that they had a COVID exposure. The Team returned 5 days later to speak with the family. There are ongoing issues with how the mother treats the daughter. In the past, this treatment has resulted

11.B
Packet Pg. 138
with calls to the Cotati Police Department and/or the daughter being dropped off at the Police Department. Initially, the engagement with the SAFE Team started out rough with both the mother and daughter using very aggressive language and tones with each other. The SAFE Team was able to de-escalate the situation and able to have a conversation with both parties. Using Motivational Interviewing (MI) they were able to get both parties to recognize that they are powerful women. The SAFE Team supported them in realizing that how they were treating each other was causing harm to both of them. The daughter has agreed to start participating in PPSC Girls' Circle programming. The mother was given the number to contact PPSC Community Clinic for counseling. To date, the mother has not followed up, however the daughter will be in the next Girls' Circle group.

The RP Police was asked to co-respond with SSU Police to a traffic stop. The SAFE Team was dispatched as part of a public assist. The individual who was on the side of the road near the Expressway was waiting for a ride from someone. They were pulled over due to an expired registration. The driver shared that she has been living in her vehicle. The SAFE Team observed that she seemed to be taking good care of herself. She responded to the Team by showing artwork while they spoke. She shared that she did not need resources but did engage with the SAFE Team regarding trauma with her brother that had been ongoing. She was referred to PPSC Counseling programs. Her vehicle was ticketed. The next day the SAFE Team stopped by the location, but the vehicle had been moved.

The SAFE Team was dispatched out to a residence where a subject was threatening his parents with a bat. The subject threatened to kill himself if the parents did not give back his cell phone, which parents had taken away for bad behavior at school. The subject has had a history of angry outbursts since the 1st grade. The parents have tried to get him into therapy over the years, using Kaiser, but this has not proven to be helpful. The subject had made numerous holes in the walls of the home from previous acts of aggression. The SAFE Team empathized with the subject and discussed his behavior. The subject was remorseful and said he can't control his anger when he becomes frustrated with his parents. The Team spoke to him about him threatening to hurt himself, and he stated that he responds this way when he is angry or upset. The Team spoke with the parents about possible resources, such as therapy or mentorship. Referrals were made to the PPSC Mentor Me program and SAY.

The SAFE Team was dispatched for Public Assist for a 35 year old houseless female. The SAFE Team was able to make contact. The female shared that she needed housing assistance. She said she was already in contact with Catholic Charities. Due to health conditions, the subject cannot be surrounded by a lot of people. The SAFE Team checked in with Catholic Charities and made an appointment for her to meet with a Case Manager at Catholic Charities the next morning. The SAFE Team was able to make the transfer and helped her to get to her Case Manager.

The SAFE Team dispatched for a welfare check. An off-duty officer saw the subject running in the street, almost being struck by three vehicles. She was actively hearing her children’s voices in her head saying they were in danger and needed her help. Other reports included that she may have also been looking in random cars around the grocery store parking lot. The SAFE Team was able to engage. She was tearful and very paranoid but willing to have a conversation. She was volunteer transfer to Kaiser for treatment and was later placed on a 5150 hold.

11.B
Packet Pg. 139
SAFE March 2022 Statistics
Total Calls 96
Call types
• Counseling requests 3
• Public assists 75
• Suicidal subject 1
• Welfare checks 14
• Wound care 2
Initiated by
• Dispatch 90
• Flag down 2
• Self-initiated 4
Disposition
• Advised 9
• Assisted 51
• Refused contact 4
• Refused services 10
• Refused transport 1
• Transported 16
• Unable to locate 5
Cover requests
• Police 1
• Fire/EMS 0
Diversions
• ED diversions 6
• Jail diversions 2
PPSC SAFE Team Report April 2022

ROHNERT PARK & COTATI

11.B
Packet Pg. 140
Call Types
Prior Month
96 Calls
April 2022
112 calls
Total FY 21
22 572 calls
Counseling Requests 3 3 30
Death Notifications 0 0 1
Public Assists 76 80 391
Suicidal Subject 1 3 16
Welfare Checks 14 25 132
Wound Care 2 0 2
Initiated By
Dispatch 90 95 541
Flag Down 2 1 4
Self-initiated 4 16 26
Outcomes/Disposition
Advised 9 12 73
Assisted 50 54 294
Safety Contract 0 1 4
Refused Services 14 15 58
Refused Transport 1 2 5
Transported 17 18 103
Team Canceled On Arrival 0 2 3
UTL/GOA 5 8 34
Cover Request
Police 1 0 3
Fire/EMS 0 0 0
Diversions
ED Diversion 6 0 26
Jail Diversion 2 5 14
Transports
Memorial 3 4 21
Sutter (CSU) 1 4 20
Kaiser 3 4 18
Residential 2 2 13
Catholic Charities 0 1 9
Social Advocates for Youth 2 0 9
Petaluma Valley Hospital 2 0 7
Hotel 3 0 6

11.B
Packet Pg. 141
Bus/ Train Station 0 1 3
Valley of the Moon 0 0 3
Redwood Gospel Mission 0 1 2
Petaluma Health Center 0 0 1
COTS 0 1 1
PPD/RPDPS/Sheriff’s Office 1 0 1
Libraries 0 0 1
Animal Services/Veterinarian 1 0 1
AA/NA Meeting 0 0 1
Post Office/Bank 0 0 1
Community Center 0 0 1
Sam Jones 0 0 1
Muir Woods 0 1 1
The Wellness Center 0 1 1
Financial Considerations
No direct financial impacts to the First Annual Police Chief’s Report to the community, but data extraction and reporting currently requires extensive staff time. City staff are continuing to look at ways to streamline data extraction from the record management system. Implementation of the SAFE team requires an investment of approximately $180,000 per year. We are continuing to work regionally to obtain grants to partially offset costs.

Attachments:

CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (PDF)

11.B
Packet Pg. 142

COTATI POLICE DEPARTMENT
2021 ANNUAL REPORT
203 W. SIERRA AVE, COTATI, CA | NON-EMERGENCY 707-792-4611 | FAX 707-795-0168

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) The women and men of our Police Department are committed to providing quality public safety services to our community. I am very proud of our dedicated employees and volunteers who, through our daily activities, are making a positive difference by improving public safety and continuing the great quality of life in the City of Cotati. Our members of the Cotati Police Department are committed to being responsive to our community in the delivery of quality services. We recognize our responsibility to maintain order, while affording dignity and respect to every individual.

Our objective is to provide contemporary police services through a community partnership which promotes safe and secure neighborhoods, parks, roadways, and recreation/shopping/commercial areas visited by all.

As we move forward in 2022, we will continue our focus on 1) being fair in processes, 2) being transparent in actions, 3) providing opportunities to hear from our community, and 4) being impartial in decision making.

We will continue our community policing philosophy through personal outreach to stakeholders to remain proactive in reducing crime, increasing traffic safety, enhancing citizen and business engagement and overall wellbeing of the City. We will continue our focus of training on employee health and wellness, effective ways to engage people who are in mental health crisis, continue understanding implicit bias, provide new de-escalation options through equipment and training. The Cotati Police Department will continue to become a progressive department looking for unconventional ways to build trust and legitimacy in our City.

The 2021 Cotati Police Department Annual
Report is herein presented for your review. I
thank you for taking time to read this report. I
hold in high regard the opinions and input of
Cotati’s citizen’s and business owners.

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF
Michael Parish
Chief of Police
Officer Reinke, a young recruit, and Chief
Michael Parish

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVID-19 ............................................................................................................................. 1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART................................................................................................ 2 CRIME ANALYSIS & REVIEW............................................................................................. 3 CALLS FOR SERVICE 2020 VS 2021........................................................................... 3 COTATI ARREST STATISTICS 2019-2021................................................................... 4 COTATI VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS 2019-2021...................................................... 5 POLICE POLICIES.............................................................................................................. 12 HI-LO SIREN DRILL............................................................................................................ 12 COTATI PROPERTY CRIME STATISTICS 2019-2021................................................. 6 COTATI OTHER CRIME STATISTICS 2019-2021........................................................ 7 COTATI CITATIONS 2021............................................................................................. 8 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS........................................................................................................ 9 SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR EVERYONE (SAFE) TEAM........................................ 10 RACIAL & IDENTITY PROFILING ACT (RIPA).................................................................. 11 DEA PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKEBACK......................................................................... 13 TRAINING............................................................................................................................. 14 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW............................................... 12 RECRUIT TRAINING OFFICERS......................................................................................... 15 USE OF FORCE.............................................................................................................. 17-18 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)............................................................................... 16 BODY WORN CAMERA (BWC) UPGRADE........................................................................ 19 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICER MEETINGS........................................................................... 20 PATROL ............................................................................................................................... 21 ANIMAL CONTROL .............................................................................................................. 22 DISPATCH ............................................................................................................................ 23 MADD AWARD...................................................................................................................... 23 TRAFFIC OFFICER................................................................................................................ 24 K9 TEAM ............................................................................................................................... 24 CADETS & VOLUNTEERS.................................................................................................... 25 PARTNERSHIPS.................................................................................................................... 25 COMMUNITY OUTREACH.................................................................................................... 26 COMMUNITY INFORMATION............................................................................................... 26

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) The Pandemic continues to be a challenge for the Police Department’s normal operations.

We reopened our police building lobby in 2021 following County Health directives to allow citizens greater access to our department to conduct their affairs. Even though we modified our usual daily activities during the pandemic, we remained working 24/7 answering 911 calls, responding to calls for service and we continued our high visibility patrols.

COVID-19
1 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
PSA
Katie Hulderman
Chief Michael
Parish
Lieutenant
VACANT
Sergeant
Paul Goodin
Sergeant
Tyler Wardle
Sergeant
B Gallo
Corporal
Brian Deaton
Corporal
VACANT

DISPATCH
Kirsten Ott
Cristina
Montoya
Renee Harris
Michael Callen
Adrien McGoon
VACANT
Community
Services
Officer
Carrie Peoples

OFFICERS
Bennet Knight
Ryan Reinke
Anthony Garber
Jerry Cunningham
Ryan Sullivan
VACANT
Volunteers/
Cadets
2 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) CA
L
L
S
F
O
R
S
E
RVIC
E
2020

CRIME ANALYSIS & REVIEW
(average of 37 events per day)
3 2021
(average of 34 events per day)

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

COTATI ARREST STATISTICS
2019-2021
4 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

COTATI VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
5 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

COTATI PROPERTY CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
6 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

COTATI OTHER CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
7 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) C

ITATIONS
2021
8 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
9 In 2021, the Police Department received
a total of 10 complaints out of a total of
12,455 events, which is a complaint rate
of 0.08%. The total logged events does
not include numerous other interactions
with the department, such as daily
informal interactions, citizen business at
the Dispatch counter, etc.The police
department receives complaints through
a variety of sources, including the official
complaint "blue" form, city website,
emails, telephone, and in-person. For
every complaint received, the Police
Department investigates the allegations
The process begins with the Lieutenant reviewing the complaint, reviewing all available materials (such as police reports, body worn camera, etc.), followed by interviews of the complainant and any involved police staff. The Cotati Police Department was the first agency in Sonoma County to implement a full deployment of body worn cameras on all of our officers, which has greatly assisted in the review of complaints or other events.

For the purposes of this report, the complaints have been grouped in two ways: by outcome after investigation and by category of initial allegation. Of the 10 complaints received, the categories of initial allegations are as follows:

Procedural : 2 Conduct Unbecoming : 6 Use of Force : 0 Not Related to Department: 2 The definitions of the terms used are as indicated below. Not all terms are used this year due to the nature of the complaints received.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS:

OUTCOME AFTER INVESTIGATION
EXONERATED - Allegation is true but actions were lawful.

NOT SUSTAINED - Facts revealed do not substantiate the allegation.

WITHDRAWN/CLOSED - Case was closed as matter was withdrawn by the complainant or complainant was unresponsive to attempts to contact.

SUSTAINED - A true finding supported by facts, generally results in officer discipline and/or re-training.

UNFOUNDED - Not true. Actions alleged did not occur.

CATEGORY OF ALLEGATION
PROCEDURAL - This category of typically involves complaints of unfair parking enforcement, contesting traffic tickets, failure of the officer to act, etc.

CONDUCT UNBECOMING - This category of allegation is a complaint of rude or discourteous behavior of the officer.

USE OF FORCE - This category of allegation is a complaint regarding officer use of force.

In-Person: 0 Complaint “Blue” Form: 5 Webform: 1 Email: 1 Telephone: 3 and responds to the complaining party if they provided their contact information. The following are the sources of the complaints:

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR

EVERYONE (SAFE) TEAM
10 The SAFE Team provides three main services to the community

1. Response to issues relating to mental health, addiction and homelessness

2. Non-emergency response for people in need

3. Proactive and continued community outreach
Cotati and Rohnert Park have partnered to provide a mobile mental health crisis response team for our cities. The SAFE team began service November 1, 2021 starting with 12 hour daily coverage from noon to midnight. We are currently at 18-hour daily coverage, but our goal is to provide 24 hour daily SAFE response by the end of 2022. Our SAFE team is modeled after the successful Cahoots program in Eugene Oregon, which consists of a mental health professional, resource advocate and medic (nurse, paramedic or EMT).

SAFE works proactively to address low level issues and provides preventative outreach to help ensure individuals don’t end up needing a higher level of care. SAFE can identify shelter options for the homeless, mental health services for people in crisis, connect people with resources to address addiction and provide health care that does not meet the threshold of an ambulance response.

When SAFE is not responding to calls-for-service they conduct outreach to the homeless, including evaluating their condition and providing shelter and counseling information.

SAFE is intended to benefit everyone by
keeping police officers, firefighters and
paramedics available for appropriate
emergencies. During the initial startup of
SAFE, the earliest available statistics are from
December 2021. During that month, the
SAFE team responded to 87 calls (76 in
Rohnert Park and 11 in Cotati). The majority
of the calls were public assistance, followed
by welfare checks and counseling requests.

During this particular month, most calls came
in on Monday and Thursday, typically around
noon and 4 pm, and to a lesser degree 6 pm
and 10 pm.

If you observe someone experiencing mental health issues or homelessness you can contact SAFE by calling 707-792-4611 for non-emergencies or 911 for emergencies.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT
(RIPA)
11 The Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) was formed as part of AB953 (Weber, 2016).

The Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA Board) is a diverse group of members that represent the public, law enforcement and educators. At the direction of the Legislature, their charge was to eliminate racial and identity profiling, and improve diversity, racial, and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.

The RIPA Board goal is to strengthen law enforcement-community relations in California through collaboration, transparency, and accountability. The California Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Attorney General, has the primary oversight of the RIPA Board.

One of the responsibilities of the RIPA Board has been to develop the stop-data collection process. On July 1, 2018, the eight largest police agencies in California began collecting stop data and reporting the information to the DOJ.

The bill requires an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its first annual report to DOJ by April 1, 2023. (All police agencies in Sonoma County, including the Cotati Police Department, are in this category).

For transparency, the Cotati Police Department decided to collect RIPA data before the scheduled mandate. Our Police Department is a member of a Public Safety consortium.

Members of the consortium include the Sonoma Sheriff’s Department, cities of Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sonoma and Windsor (Sonoma and Windsor contract services with Sheriff’s Department).

Collectively, the consortium agencies started collecting RIPA data using patrol cars mobile computers and smart phones on July 1, 2021. The data is collected by the consortium and transmitted to the DOJ daily for review and quality control. This data set then becomes the single “point of truth” for validated data statewide. Later this year, DOJ will provide the statewide report on RIPA data from 2021.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

HI-LO SIREN DRILL
12 All Sonoma County Law Enforcement Agencies use “Hi-lo” sirens for emergency evacuations. Hi-Lo sirens have a distinct European emergency vehicle sound. When you Hear the Hi-Lo its’ Time to Go. We will only use Hi-Lo sirens for emergency evacuations. In the Fall of 2021, during the fire season, the Cotati Police Department, Sonoma State University Police Department and Rohnert Park of Department of Public Safety conducted a coordinated Hi-Lo Siren evacuation drill. In 2022 we will conduct another evacuation Hi-Lo Drill. To see which evacuation zone you live in, go to the City website (www.cotaticity.org) and click on the Police page.

POLICE POLICIES
Our department policy manual is available on the City Website. The California Legislature continues to enact laws that direct law enforcement towards police reform. Our policies were amended in 2021 ensuring our compliance with current law. Whenever there are changes to our policy, we republish the manual and repost it on our City Website.

POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY

COMPLIANCE REVIEW
The City of Cotati retained an independent auditor to review the Police Department’s compliance with areas of existing policy. City leaders and I requested the study focus on policies that are considered “high risk”, as it relates to the potential for negative outcomes and/or significant risk to citizens, staff, and ultimately City liability. By ensuring the department is appropriately adhering to policy and/or identifying areas in which policy and practice contradict, the City has demonstrated a commitment to safeguard the mission to provide quality public safety services.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

DEA PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKEBACK
Annually, the Cotati Police Department hosts a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) prescription drug takeback. Proper disposal of prescription drugs makes your home a safer place and it also benefits our environment. Throwing medications away in the garbage may be dangerous and lead to tragic accidents, as they can end up in the mouths of children or household pets. Many people also flush expired or unused medications down the toilet or drain, resulting in these drugs ending up in our lakes, streams, and water supplies.

The Cotai Police Department also has a bin in our public access lobby where you can dispose of prescription pills throughout the year. Please remove pills and bag them up so there is plenty of room for all to dispose of their unwanted and expired medications. 13 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

TRAINING
14 The Cotati Police Department is certified by the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST). Sergeant Paul Goodin is our training manager assigned to keep our department in compliance with POST. Some POST training is mandated, such as perishable skills. However, the Cotati Police Department routinely trains beyond POST mandates with our police officers, police dispatchers and other civilian staff.

In 2021, one of these extra trainings included “Principled Policing”. This course teaches policing approaches that emphasize respect, listing, neutrality, and trust (Procedural Justice) while also addressing the common implicit bias that can be barriers to the approaches. Developing an understanding of these two concepts will enable us to improve safety and well-being for the public and our officers alike.

Another extra training in 2021 was suicide prevention and response. “Callers in Crisis:

Suicidal Callers” was attended by our dispatchers and one officer. This course provided actual 911 call scenarios teaching techniques to build rapport with a suicidal caller and help the dispatcher get the information needed for the best potential outcome.

Finally, our police staff also attended two courses de-escalation training in 2021. These courses teach police officers and dispatchers methods to de-escalate volatile situations to improve outcomes and prevent harm. These trainings also include training on when to not respond, duty to intercede if it is believed that excessive force is being used, and when it’s safe to retreat to help de-escalate a situation.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

RECRUIT TRAINING OFFICERS
15 The Cotati Police Department is proud to have two Recruit Training Officers (RTOs) assigned to the Santa Rosa Junior College’s Public Safety Training Center (Regional Police Academy). Sergeant B Gallo and Sergeant Tyler Wardle are cadre at the Academy assisting full-time faculty and instructors to provide our future law enforcement officers with the knowledge and skills to better serve and protect California communities.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
16 In 2021, our City developed a LRSP by identifying the top systemic collision patterns throughout the City and top collision locations. The LRSP was a public effort, with key input by Public Works, traffic engineering experts and Police. This safety plan provides the City with a toolbox of countermeasures to reduce collisions through future traffic projects and traffic enforcement by our officers. The City will use the LRSP to make it safer for vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle travel in Cotati.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

USE OF FORCE
17 In 2021, the Cotati Police Department experienced zero (0) URSUS (California Department of Justice Use of Force Incident Reporting database) reportable use of force.

URSUS Criteria

1. An incident that involves the shooting of a civilian by a peace officer.

2. An incident that involves the shooting of a peace officer by a civilian.

3. An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer against a civilian results in serious bodily injury or death.

4. An incident in which the use of force by a civilian against a peace officer results in serious bodily injury or death.

In Cotati, we have adopted a far more expansive definition of use of force (UOF), including reviewing any incident beyond simple handcuffing. Reportable UOF events in Cotati include the display of force (such as unholstering any type of police tool, including taser, pepper spray, or firearm). In 2021, we began the year tracking Use of Force (UOF) using a paper form, but subsequently transitioned to using the police record management system software system for better tracking. When UOF occurs, officers record their incident using a checklist, which lists which officers were present (including mutual aid officers), what tool was used (i.e. Taser, control hold), whether officers or suspects received injuries and why force was used. When supervisors review the arrest/incident reports it is flagged for UOF. Sergeants read the report narrative, review the UOF module and view the officers Body Worn Camera.

As Chief of Police, I also review each UOF for any policy violations or an opportunity to consider alternate equipment, techniques, or training in the future to reduce or avoid the use of force.

Control Hold: Controlling someone who is not doing what they are being instructed to do Defensive Techniques: Defending yourself against someone who is actively attacking the officer
WRAP: A safe restraint system, designed to protect subjects, officers Firearm Displayed: Firearm removed from holster
Firearm Pointed: Firearm pointed at subject
Taser Displayed: Taser Removed form holster
Taser Deployed: Taser Darts Launched or Taser Contacting Subject.

Impact Weapon: Use of a baton on a subject
Pepper Spray: Use or pepper spray on a subject

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) Use of Force Summary
Firearm Displayed Arrest, active warrant.

Firearm Displayed Arrest, battery
Firearm Pointed Medical assist, felony vehicle stop.

Firearm Pointed Arrest, assist Sheriff’s Office on vehicle pursuit Firearm Pointed 5150 Hold, subject with loaded gun
Firearm Pointed Arrest, felony car stop
Firearm Pointed Arrest, felony car stop w/SSU assist
Firearm Pointed Arrest, assist Sheriff’s Office on felony car stop Firearm Pointed Arrest, felony pursuit and warrant, mutual aid Taser Deployed/Defensive Technique Arrest, auto burglary, assault on police officers with deadly weapon, threats to officers.

Use of Force Number of Events
Control Hold 15
WRAP 2
Control Hold/Defensive Technique 2
Taser Deployed/Defensive Technique 1
Control Hold/WRAP 1
Control Hold/WRAP/Taser Displayed 1
Control Hold/Taser Displayed 4
Firearm Displayed 2
Firearm Pointed 7
Shotgun Bean Bag 0
Taser Displayed 4
Taser Deployed 0
Impact Weapon 0
Pepper Spray 0
Totals 39

USE OF FORCE
(continued)
18 For the uses of force that included displaying or pointing a firearm, or using a Taser, the following table summarizes the incidents leading to this type of force being used.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

BODY WORN CAMERA (BWC) UPGRADE
19 For 2021 the Cotati Police Department transitioned from Generation 2 to Generation 3 BWC’s.

For transparency and accountability our police department was the first law enforcement agency in Sonoma County to issue BWC’s to all officers. Our BWC media is stored in a “cloud” when cameras are docked to download and recharge.

Moving from Generation 2 to Generation 3 BWC technology is a significant improvement, both in function and transparency. Sometimes during stressful circumstances, officers my not have the time or ability to activate their BWC. The upgrade automatically activates the new BWC when the officer’s firearm or Taser is drawn, vehicle emergency lights are activated and when the BWC detects gunfire.

The upgrade includes livestreaming capabilities when the BWC are activated. This allows for the 911 dispatchers or command staff to view live video from the officers BWC to allow for better outcomes.

Additionally, the new BWC has longer battery life and better video quality in all lighting conditions.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICER MEETINGS
Cotati Police Officers hosted two Neighborhood Officer meetings for each of the neighborhood areas in 2021. Cotati is comprised of six (6) areas (beats), which are coincident with evacuation zones. Maps of both beats and evacuation zones are available for view on the Police page of our City Website. An individual officer is assigned to each of the six areas and their phone numbers and emails are available to citizens and business owners to ask questions and make requests. Officers rotate annually to allow officers to better learn the areas and for residents and businesses to better know our officers. We invite you to attend one of our meetings.
20 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) PATROL
21 Our sworn police staff are here 24/7 to keep our community safe. The list of things that officers do on a daily basis is long, including the following summary of the main things our officers do to enhance the quality of life in Cotati.

Protect life and property through the enforcement of laws & regulations; Proactively patrols assigned areas
Conduct traffic and parking enforcement
Respond to calls for police service
Conduct preliminary & follow-up criminal and traffic investigations Conduct interviews
Prepare written reports and field notes of investigations and patrol activities Arrest and process criminals
Testify in court
Emergency duties required during adverse weather conditions Exercise sound judgment in determining when to use force and to what degree Operate a law enforcement vehicle under emergency conditions day or night Comprehend legal documents including citations, affidavits, warrants and other documents.

Active Community
Oriented Policing
Self-initiate traffic
and/or criminal
investigations
Supplement animal
control
Perform bar and
business checks

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

ANIMAL CONTROL
22 Community Services Officer Carrie Peoples is our designated animal control officer. When Carrie is not available, our police officers respond to calls for service regarding both domestic and wild animals. Carrie is also in charge of dog licensing for our City. Please license your dogs so that we can better serve you and your pet if they get loose or have other issues. Cotati contracts with Rohnert Park Animal Services for sheltering our animals.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

DISPATCH
The Cotati Police Department employs six (6) Police
Dispatcher/Clerks. Our police dispatch is a Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) receiving all 911
calls for law enforcement, fire, and medical
emergencies for both the City of Cotati and the
Sonoma State University campus (we have a
dispatch contract with SSUPD). In addition to 911
calls-for-service, our dispatchers answer regular
police business call for our City and the University,
and our dispatchers are also clerks who process
police records, Public Records Request and other
administrative duties. Our lobby is open to the public
24/7.
23 MADD AWARD
MADD changed the criteria for the Drunk
Driving Enforcement Award from a threshold
of 25 DUI arrests for a small agency to the
individual officer with the highest number of
arrests. Sergeant Tyler Wardle (who held the
rank of Police Officer in 2020) had 17 DUI
arrests, which was the highest of any Cotati
Police Officer in 2020 and was given the
MADD Award in 2021.

This is Sergeant Wardle’s second MADD
Award during his service with the City of
Cotati. Please join me in congratulating him
for his efforts to make Cotati a safer place.

With the ongoing Pandemic, there have been fewer cars on the road. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) recognized that because of a decreased volume of vehicle traffic, that fewer drunk driving arrests would occur.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

TRAFFIC OFFICER
Officer Ryan Reinke is our full-time Traffic
Officer. Officer Reinke completed Motor
Officer training in 2020. His primary duty is
traffic enforcement, concentrating on driving
behavior that causes accidents such as
speeding and distracted driving. Officer
Reinke is also assigned to traffic accident
investigations. If you have a traffic
complaint or request, please go to the
Police page of the City website to submit
your concerns.

K9 TEAM
We are fortunate to have Corporal
Brian Deaton and his partner REMO
as our K9 Team. REMO is a dualpurpose trained Police K9 for the apprehension of violent offenders and
the detection of Cocaine, Heroin and
Methamphetamine. We also make our
K9 Team available for mutual aid,
when requested by our law
enforcement partner agencies. REMO
was procured through the Sean's K9's
grant program.
24 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

CADETS & VOLUNTEERS
The police department has both Cadets and Volunteers, providing them with an opportunity to assist our department and learn about career opportunities in law enforcement. Our cadets are normally high school students who help with mutual aid for parades and other events in Sonoma County, including the Butter and Eggs Festival, the Apple Blossom Festival, and our own Kids Day Parade and Festival. Cadets also go on ride-a longs with officers, attend in house trainings and criminal justice field trips. Our volunteers help with daily duties at the police department such as processing alarm permits and maintaining the inventory of police equipment and supplies. Often our cadets and volunteers become police officers, deputy sheriffs and public safety dispatchers.

PARTNERSHIPS
The Cotati Police Department has a strong relationship with the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, Sonoma State University Police Department and the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety. Together, through teamwork, mutual aid, and allied training, we make all of our jurisdictions a safer place to live and improve the quality of life for our residents and businesses.
25 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community)

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Pandemic restrictions in 2021 limited the amount of in-person outreach events that we held.

However, we did host Coffee with a Cop events while observing masking requirements and social distancing. Additionally, we resumed National Night Out at La Plaza Park, after pausing it for 2020, including free food from a local restaurant, and partnering with our Recreation Department to show the Tom & Jerry movie. We also continued our Annual Holiday Toy Drive, partnering with the Rohnert Park/Cotati Rotary and Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District to collect, wrap and deliver many toys to children throughout the Cotati area. 26 COMMUNITY INFORMATION
I also want to take this opportunity to invite you to follow us on one or more of our social media platforms. Our police department has a robust public information presence to better engage with our residents and to be accessible to our community where they are. In addition to the police page of the City website, and regular pieces in the Cotati Connection newsletter, we use Facebook (now with over 4,300 “friends,”) Instagram (now with over 2,800 followers) and Nixle for time sensitive and emergency information. We encourage you sign up for Nixle alerts by downloading the Everbridge application on the Google or iOS app stores, or by texting your zip code to 888777.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: CPD ANNUAL REPORT 2021 (Police 2021 Annual Report to the Community) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type:

To: City Council
Subject: DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CITY

COUNCIL APPEALS OF APPROVALS UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE
Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review the information provided by staff, consider the various options identified and provide direction on a potential ordinance.

Background
On April 26, 2022, staff from the Community Development Department presented an Ordinance which included suite of proposed changes to the City’s land use code, implementing several General Plan and Housing Element policy and programs. These policies and programs provided direction to make changes regarding the City’s development review process for housing projects.

Housing Element Program 2-6 directed the removal of the Use Permit requirement for multifamily housing in the Neighborhood Urban (NU) Zoning District. As a separate component of this Ordinance, staff had included another recommended change to remove the Use Permit requirement for multi-family housing in the Neighborhood Medium (NM) Density Zoning District. Design Review approval from the Planning Commission in a fully noticed public hearing would remain under proposed changes.

Analysis/Discussion
In discussing the removal of the Use Permit requirement for multi-family housing in the NU and NM zoning districts, a majority of the City Council expressed a desire to explore options to mitigate the potential for problematic projects to move forward absent additional public input.

Specifically, they requested further discussion on the following options:

1. Not implementing Housing Element Program 2-6, which would remove the Use Permit requirement for multi-family housing in the NU District, or

11.C
Packet Pg. 172

2. Elevating all multi-family Design Review decisions to the City Council.

As indicated in the hearing, one of the goals in implementing this program is to assist the City in the adoption and approval of the City’s pending 6th Cycle Housing Element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Given the recent experiences of Southern California cities, many of which had their Housing Elements rejected, it is believed that the City will be better positioned to get certified by completing a program that was committed to in the existing Housing Element.

In response, staff has researched the potential impacts from the implementation of either of these directions with our Housing Element consultant (Jane Riley, 4Leaf), who was of the opinion (of the two choices above) that the identified targeted change in the Design Review process would likely be viewed as an added “impediment’ to the development of housing units, making rejection of the City’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element more likely. If this was the only option, our Housing Element Consultant suggested that it would be better to not implement Program 2-6.

While staff sees full implementation of Housing Element 2-6 as an important step, given the concerns raised by a majority of the City Council, staff has sought to identify a third option.

Option 3: Changes to the general Appeal Process
In jurisdictions throughout the State, it is common for the appeal chapter of the municipal code to include a provision that allows the City Council to appeal any land use action of a lower decision-making authority. In Sonoma County, the Town of Windsor and City of Sonoma have similar provisions. These policies are generally intended to ensure decisions that are deemed to have a significant or material impact on the quality of life of members of the community are thoroughly vetted and decided by those directly elected to represent those community members.

The Cotati Municipal Code currently has an allowance, but staff is recommending new language and deleting existing problematic language.

Given direction from the City Council, staff has proposed new language to create a process for a majority of City Council members to appeal any land use decision of a lower decision body within a given time frame. Draft ordinance language is provided below, and the existing Appeal Code language is attached for context.

17.84.030(A)(3)

11.C
Packet Pg. 173
City Council. The City Council may appeal any action of the Director of Community Development or Planning Commission. The decision to appeal an action must be made within 30-days following the action of the Director of Community Development or Planning Commission and shall require a majority vote of the City Council. The decision to appeal shall be made at the time the City Council agenda grants the City Council the opportunity to provide direction on future agenda items. If an appeal is made by the City Council, there shall be a presumption that the appeal is based on the concern that the appealed action may have significant and/or material effects on the quality of life of the citizens residing within the City of Cotati. No other reason need be or shall be stated by the City Council. No inference of bias shall be made because of such an appeal. Such an appeal shall be a de novo decision.

Additionally, in researching this item, staff discovered existing text in the appeals section that is recommended for removal, as it is problematic from a process standpoint and may trigger legal challenges if used. Therefore, in the existing Appeal Code language, staff recommends also striking the entirety of section “17.84.050 Directed Referral”.

It is believed that these proposed changes will both remove a potential existing impediment to housing and broadly ensure that decisions that are deemed to have a significant or material impact on the quality of life of members of the community are thoroughly vetted and decided by those directly elected to represent those community members.

Permitted or Conditional Use Permit?
Finally, it should be clarified that the Housing Element Program 2-6 specifically focused on removal of the use permit for multifamily development in the NU zone. Staff suggested that this also be extended to the NM zone, under the general policy to remove impediments, and this seemed to be consistent with the change to NU. Additionally, the use permit is not believed to add much value over the existing design review process. However, the City Council has the option to not take the staff recommendation on NM and only remove the use permit requirement for the NU zone, consistent with the specific program language.

Staff requests City Council direction and feed back on the proposed ordinance changes.

Financial Considerations
The direct and quantifiable impacts of this decision are identified as the cost of the staff time to

11.C
Packet Pg. 174
the general fund in working on the proposed Ordinance and code revisions. This is generally anticipated to be between 20-40 hours to bring such an ordinance before the City Council. There may be indirect or un-anticipated costs associated with not implementing the adopted Housing Element programs, however, these are uncertain and unable to be quantified.

Attachments:

Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (PDF)

11.C
Packet Pg. 175
5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 1/6 Chapter 17.84

APPEALS
Sections:

17.84.010 Purpose.

17.84.020 Appeal subjects and jurisdiction.

17.84.030 Filing of appeals.

17.84.040 Processing of appeals.

17.84.050 Directed referral.

17.84.010 Purpose.

This chapter establishes procedures for the appeal and review of determinations and decisions of the director or commission. (Ord. 885 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2019: Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.84.020 Appeal subjects and jurisdiction.

A. Director Decision. A determination or decision by the director or department staff may be appealed to the commission.

B. Director Decision on Design Review. A decision of the director in relation to the design review process may be appealed to the commission. See Section 17.62.040 (Design review).

C. Commission Decision. A decision by the commission may be appealed to the council. (Ord. 885 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2019: Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.84.030 Filing of appeals.

A. Eligibility. An appeal may be filed by:

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) 5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 2/6

1. Any person affected by an administrative determination or action by the director, as described in Section 17.84.020(A);

2. In the case of a planning permit and/or hearing decision described in Section 17.84.020, by anyone who, in person or through a representative, presented testimony at a public hearing in connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the city in writing of the nature of their concerns before the hearing or determination.

B. Timing and Form of Appeal. Appeals shall be filed with the director, on a city application form, within ten calendar days after the date of the decision or action being appealed. The appeal shall include the required filing fee. The written appeal shall specifically state the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal.

C. Scope of Planning Permit Appeals. An appeal of a decision by the director or commission on a planning permit shall be limited to issues raised at the public hearing, or in writing before the hearing, or information that was not known at the time of the decision that is being appealed.

D. Action Being Appealed Suspended. Pending a decision on an appeal in compliance with this land use code, all rights emanating from the permit, license, or other entitlement that is the subject of the appeal, and all relevant time periods, shall be suspended.

E. Multiple Actions. In the event an appeal is filed regarding a decision on one of multiple permits or city approvals concurrently granted for a single project (for example, the approval of a use permit is appealed on a project for which a negative declaration was approved at the same time), all concurrently granted city permits and approvals for the project shall be automatically appealed, and shall be considered and acted upon in compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 885 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2019: Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.84.040 Processing of appeals.

A. Scheduling of Hearing. After an appeal has been received in compliance with Section 17.84.030, the director shall schedule the matter for a commission agenda, or the city clerk shall schedule the matter for a council agenda, as applicable to the appeal.

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

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) 5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 3/6 C. Joining an Appeal. Only persons who file an appeal within the ten-day appeal period in compliance with Section 17.84.030 shall be considered appellants of the matter under appeal.

1. Any person who wishes to join an appeal shall follow the same procedures for an appellant in compliance with Section

17.84.030.

2. No person shall be allowed to join an appeal after the end of the ten-day appeal period.

D. Withdrawal of Appeal. Once filed, an appellant may withdraw an appeal only within the ten-day appeal period established by Section

17.84.030(B).

E. Findings and Decision.

1. General Procedure. The appeal body shall conduct a public hearing in compliance with Chapter 17.88 (Public Hearings). a. Scope of Review. When reviewing an appeal the review authority may consider any issue associated with the project for which a decision is being appealed, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. The review authority shall also consider any environmental determination applicable to the entitlement or decision being appealed. b. New Evidence. If new or different evidence is presented during the appeal hearing, the commission or council may refer the matter back to the director or commission, as applicable, for a report on the new or different evidence prior to a final decision on the appeal.
c. Decision. After a public hearing, the appeal body may:
i. Approve, modify, or disapprove the action appealed from, either in whole or in part, based on the record on appeal and the evidence received at the hearing on appeal; and
ii. Adopt additional conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary; or

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) 5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 4/6 iii. Disapprove the planning permit approved by the previous review authority, even if the appeal only requested modification or elimination of one or more conditions of approval.

2. Appeals to the Council. A decision by the commission may be appealed to the council as provided by Section 17.84.030 (Filing of appeals).
a. Authority of Council. The council shall have the authority to approve, modify, or disapprove the action appealed from, either in whole or in part, based on the record on appeal and the evidence received at the hearing on the appeal. The lack of an affirmative majority vote on the appeal, or a tie vote, shall constitute denial of the project appealed. b. Referral. The council may refer any appeal to the commission for a report and recommendation, or for further proceedings.

In this event, if the commission changes its decision, and the appeal is thereafter returned to the council, the appeal shall be deemed to be from the decision of the commission as modified. c. Finality of Decision. The findings, decision, and action of the council on an appeal shall be final.

3. Simultaneous Appeal and Directed Referral. When an action is both appealed and a directed referral is called (Section

17.84.050), both the appeal and the directed referral shall be heard by the council.

F. Effective Date of Appeal Decision. A decision by the commission on an appeal is effective on the eleventh day after the decision, when no appeal to the decision has been filed with the council. A decision by the council is effective as of the date of the decision. (Ord. 885 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2019: Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.84.050 Directed referral.

A. Purpose. This section provides a process for an individual council member to initiate a directed referral on an application where action has been taken and is normally final at a lower level of authority, and to have the matter heard by the commission or council, as determined by the council.

B. Grounds for Directed Referral.

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) 5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 5/6

1. If the council refers an action to the commission, the grounds for the directed referral shall be that the individual council member believes the matter should be determined by the commission.

2. If the council refers an action to itself, the grounds for the directed referral shall be that the individual council member believes the matter should be determined by the council.

C. Procedure for Directed Referral. The individual council member shall prepare and sign a written directive that specifies:

1. Whether the action will be referred to the commission or the council;

2. If the action will be referred to the commission, whether the commission’s decision shall automatically proceed to the council for review; and

3. Whether the directed referral is being initiated on the grounds specified in subsection (B)(1) or (B)(2) of this section. No other grounds or reasons for the directed referral shall be stated.

D. Time Limit. A directed referral shall be filed with the city manager within the time limit for appeals provided by Section 17.84.030(B) or, in the case of a decision for which no time limit for appeal is specified, within ten calendar days of the action being referred.

E. Action by Review Authority. Any matter brought before the review authority designated by the council as a directed referral shall be considered at a noticed public hearing.

1. All alternatives available to the review authority which considered the original application are also available to the review authority for the directed referral, which may approve, modify, approve with conditions, or disapprove the item.

2. When considering a directed referral, the review authority may consider any issue associated with the decision being referred, in addition to the specific grounds for the referral.

F. Participation by Initiator of Directed Referral. The council member who initiated a directed referral process shall have full participation rights in the hearing, unless actual bias or prejudice is otherwise shown. (Ord. 885 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2019: Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part),

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) 5/4/22, 2:53 PM Chapter 17.84 APPEALS
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1784.html#17.84 6/6 2004).

The Cotati Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 907, passed January 11, 2022.

Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Cotati Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: http://www.cotaticity.org/
City Telephone: (707) 665-3622
Code Publishing Company

11.C.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Chapter 17.84 APPEALS (Concept Appeal Ordinance) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Letter of Opposition to AB 2011 and Support of Cal Cities Budget Requests Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to AB 2011 and a letter of support for Cal Cities Fiscal Year 22/23 budget requests.

Background
Cal Cities, of which the City of Cotati is a member, actively tracks new legislation and ballot initiatives and often takes a position on the proposed legislation if they are believed to affect California cities. Periodically, Cal Cities will send out an “Action Alert” on pending legislation that, if signed into law, is believed to have a substantially negative or positive effect on communities throughout California. The Action Alert is a call to write letters of support or opposition and/or call our state legislators.

The City Council Rules allows the mayor to sign letters of support or opposition requested by Cal Cities if there is insufficient time to bring it to the full City Council. In this case, the proposed vote in the California State Assembly is slated for May 27, and the budget request is timely, so there is sufficient time to bring to the full City Council prior to the planned legislative action.

Analysis/Discussion
A summary of AB 2011 is included in the attached email received from Cal Cities. Cal Cities also provided a template letter of opposition that would be sent by the Mayor, in substantially the form attached, if approved by the City Council. Areas in grey highlight are custom additions for the City of Cotati.

11.D
Packet Pg. 182
A summary of the budget requests are included in the attached email received from Cal Cities.

Cal Cities is requesting $1.6 billion of the nearly $100 billion state surplus, including funding for housing and economic development, backfilling prior costs incurred by unfunded state mandates, and funding to assist in implementation of SB 1383 (Organic waste recycling).

Financial Considerations
No direct impacts, but potentially positive impacts if the all or part of the budget request is in the final state budget.

Attachments:

Cal Cities Request for Action (PDF)
AB 2011 (Wicks) Oppose Letter (DOCX)
Cal Cities Budget Priorities (PDF)
Unfunded Mandate Costs North Bay (PDF)
Cal Cities 2022-23 Budget Requests Letter (DOCX)

11.D
Packet Pg. 183
1 Damien O'Bid
Subject: FW: ACTION ALERT: AB 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 Attachments: AB 2011 (Wicks) CITY SAMPLE Oppose Letter 05.17.22.docx Members of the North Bay Division,
Attached please find a sample letter for your consideration to help us oppose AB 2011 (Wicks).

More information below.
-Nancy

ACTION ALERT
AB 2011 (Wicks)
Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022
OPPOSE
ACTION:

AB 2011 will be voted on the Assembly Floor by May 27.

All Assembly Members need to hear from their cities. Voice your opposition to AB 2011 by calling your Assembly Member and submitting a letter TODAY. A sample letter is attached.

Background: California is a geographically and demographically diverse state, which is reflected in its 482 cities and 58 counties. Local elected officials are charged by the California Constitution with protecting the many needs of their citizens. One way local governments do this is by determining what gets built in their community.

Local officials balance the need for additional housing with the need to create jobs and spur economic growth to fund essential local services like police and fire departments. Where appropriate, those officials enact ordinances to shape their communities based on local conditions and desires. These planning actions and decisions take place within the confines of state laws that require local governments to plan and zone for new housing, subject to certification by the California Housing and Community Development Department, and under threat of fines for improper denial.

What Does AB 2011 Specifically Do?
 Disregards state-mandated local planning efforts and forces cities to allow certain affordable housing and mixed-use housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation.
 Restricts a city’s ability to designate certain areas for commercial and retail activity only, regardless of whether housing is a compatible use.

11.D.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Cal Cities Request for Action (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) 2  Requires a local government to ministerially approve these projects, without condition, discretion, or a public hearing to allow members of the community to participate in the process.

Talking Points:
 AB 2011 is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to land use policy that fails to recognize or incorporate local flexibility, decision-making, and spur economic growth to fund essential local services like police and fire departments.
 We ask you to oppose AB 2011 to uphold local government decision-making and community involvement in the housing planning and approval process.  Cities are committed to planning and zoning for more housing in a manner that acknowledges state housing goals, but also respects community needs, input, and involvement.
 Nearly all cities are currently updating their housing plans to identify sites for more than two million additional homes. AB 2011 would disregard this process and mandate more housing in areas already zoned for office, retail, or parking.
 Lawmakers must avoid pushing new, unproven policies that would undermine local planning, change the rules mid-stream, or conflict with the myriad of new housing laws recently passed that cities are now implementing.

Nancy Hall Bennett (Ms./She/Her)
Public Affairs Manager, North Bay Division
League of California Cities
Twitter │ Facebook │ YouTube │ LinkedIn
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250-6270), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.

Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250-6270), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.

11.D.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Cal Cities Request for Action (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) ***CITY LETTERHEAD***
May 24, 2022
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Chair, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development 1020 N Street, Suite 156
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 Notice of Opposition (As amended 4/18/2022)
Dear Assembly Member Wicks:

The City of Cotati writes to express our opposition to oppose your measure AB 2011, which would require cities to ministerially approve, without condition or discretion, certain affordable housing and mixed-use housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation.

Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Importantly, cities are currently updating housing plans to identify sites for more than two million additional housing units.

AB 2011 disregards this state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city. This seriously questions the rational for the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. If developers can build housing in office, retail, and parking areas, why should cities go through the multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for new housing units, only to have those plans ignored and housing built on sites never considered for new housing?
Eliminating opportunities for public review of housing developments goes against the principles of transparency and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representatives of their support or concerns. “Streamlining” in the context of AB 2011 is a shortcut around public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects should be heard. Public engagement often leads to better projects. Disregarding community input will increase public distrust in government and may result in additional efforts by voters to restrict growth.

The City of Cotati has conducted extensive outreach planning our infill areas, designating key areas of the City as Priority Development Areas. The City continues to have available land to meet or exceed our RHNA requirements as we engage our residents to update our Housing Element Update and create a housing roadmap that promotes a cohesive housing plan for our community.

11.D.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: AB 2011 (Wicks) Oppose Letter (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) The City of Cotati is committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the statemandated local planning process and important public engagement.

For these reasons, the City of Cotati opposes AB 2011.

Sincerely,
Mark Landman
Mayor
City of Cotati
cc. Marc Levine, California Assembly District 10 (via email and mail) Bill Dodd, California Senate District 3 (via email and mail) Nancy Hall Bennett (via email)
League of California Cities (Via email: [email protected])

11.D.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: AB 2011 (Wicks) Oppose Letter (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) 1 Damien O'Bid
From: Nancy Hall Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 5:14 PM
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Cal Cities State Budget Priorities Attachments: Cal Cities 2022-23 Budget Requests SAMPLE Letter_May 2022.docx; Unfunded Mandate Costs_North Bay.pdf
Importance: High
Members of the North Bay Division:

Thank you to those of you that were in Sacramento last week and joined us at our press conference at the Capitol asking the state to partner with cities as they decide how to allocate their unprecedented surplus. If you missed it, here is a link to the KRON story.

Cal Cities is asking for:
 $500 million for the creation of the Housing and Economic Development Program.  $933.5 million for local governments for costs owed for state-mandated programs. (Attached is a list that identifies what this amount would be for your city)  $180 million for organic waste recycling.

Please consider using the attached sample letter to support this request.

Thank you,
Nancy

ACTION ALERT
Cal Cities State Budget Priorities

SUPPORT
ACTION:

Lawmakers will finalize the 2022-23 State Budget within the next month. The Legislature must pass a final, balanced budget before June 15.

Cal Cities calls on lawmakers to use the state’s historic surplus to allocate $1.6 billion for programs that achieve shared city and state goals for housing and climate resiliency, as well as reimburse cities for unfunded, state-mandated programs.

All Assembly Members and Senators need to hear from their cities. Voice your support for Cal Cities’ state budget priorities by calling your Assembly Member and Senator and submitting a letter TODAY. A sample letter is attached.

11.D.c
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Cal Cities Budget Priorities (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) 2 What is Cal Cities requesting in the State Budget?
 $500 million for the creation of the Housing and Economic Development Program.  $933.5 million for local governments for costs owed for state-mandated programs.  $180 million for organic waste recycling.

Background:
$500 million for the creation of the Housing and Economic Development Program: The elimination of redevelopment agencies in 2011 stripped local governments of the most powerful and successful tool to revitalize urban cores, help jumpstart the construction of affordable housing, and support economic development activities. The loss of this tool also hinders local officials’ ability to help advance the state’s bold climate policy objectives, including minimizing vehicle miles traveled and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is why establishing the Housing and Economic Development Program is crucial to achieving our housing supply and climate action goals. $933.5 million for local governments for costs owed for state-mandated programs: According to data obtained from the State Controller’s Office, as of October 2021, the state owes cities, counties, and special districts $933.5 million, including estimated accrued interest, in mandated costs incurred since 2004 through fiscal year 2019-20.
$180 million for organic waste recycling: The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) Organic Waste Reduction Regulations (SB 1383), adopted in November 2020, require local governments to reduce landfill disposal of organic waste 75% by 2025 and to increase edible food waste recovery 20%. Compliance obligations for local governments began in early 2022 and local governments continue to develop a comprehensive suite of local collection, enforcement, and funding programs. The 2021 Budget Act included $60 million to create the SB 1383 local assistance grant program, however, additional funding is greatly needed.

Talking Points:
$500 million for the creation of the Housing and Economic Development Program.  Cities urge the Governor and lawmakers to allocate $500 million to create a state-local partnership to help finance housing projects, incentivize development, and kick start real progress toward housing production goals.
 Existing tax increment financing tools help stimulate housing production and address important infrastructure needs, however they lack sufficient financial capacity — due in part to the absence of state participation — and are underutilized.  This program would encourage partnerships between state and local agencies by providing matching funds to cities that adopt local tax increment financing tools to support affordable housing, upgrade essential infrastructure, and spur economic development. $933.5 million to reimburse cities for costs resulting from state-mandated programs.  The state owes more than $933.5 million to cities, counties, and special districts for costs related to state mandates incurred after 2004. Of that amount, $466.6 million is owed to cities.

11.D.c
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Cal Cities Budget Priorities (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) 3  The pandemic demonstrated the vital role that cities play in California's economy and the important services they provide to the public.
 A strong city budget creates strong, resilient communities and this allocation would help ensure that cities can continue to meet shared local and state priorities. $180 million for organic waste recycling.
 As a key player in the state’s ability to achieve its solid waste management and recycling roles, cities urge the state include $180 million in the 2022-23 State Budget to help cities develop and implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016) organic waste recycling programs.  This funding will help local governments implement collection, education, outreach, edible food recovery, procurement activities, and capacity planning, and minimize the financial burden the cost of implementing these regulations could have on residents.

Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code 6250‐6270), e‐mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.

11.D.c
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Cal Cities Budget Priorities (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) State-Mandated Program Costs Owed to Cities
North Bay Division
City Amount Owed
American Canyon $ 285,142 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Belvedere $ 66,301 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Benicia $ 507,745 Bill Dodd SD 03 Tim Grayson AD 14
Calistoga $ 94,361 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Corte Madera $ 113,802 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Cotati $ 83,055 Bill Dodd SD 03 Marc Levine AD 10
Dixon $ 335,954 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Fairfax $ 115,177 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10
Fairfield $ 1,484,835 Bill Dodd SD 03 Lori Wilson AD 11 Healdsburg $ 118,853 Mike McGuire SD 02 Jim Wood AD 02
Larkspur $ 294,334 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Mill Valley $ 273,294 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Napa $ 121,862 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Novato $ 789,208 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10
Petaluma $ 677,896 Bill Dodd SD 03 Marc Levine AD 10
Rio Vista $ - Bill Dodd SD 03 Lori Wilson AD 11
Rohnert Park $ 164,499 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Ross $ 92,563 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10
San Anselmo $ 223,640 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 San Rafael $ 1,043,317 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Santa Rosa $ 2,264,948 Mike McGuire SD 02 Jim Wood
Marc Levine
AD 02
AD 10
Sausalito $ 346,814 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Sebastopol $ 128,295 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10 Sonoma $ 197,502 Bill Dodd SD 03 Marc Levine AD 10
St Helena $ 176,709 Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Suisun City $ 332,616 Bill Dodd SD 03 Lori Wilson AD 11 Tiburon $ 150,281 Mike McGuire SD 02 Marc Levine AD 10
Vacaville $ 1,505,536 Bill Dodd SD 03 Lori Wilson AD 11 Vallejo $ 1,403,416 Bill Dodd SD 03 Tim Grayson AD 14
Windsor $ 69,534 Mike McGuire SD 02 Jim Wood AD 02
Yountville ~ Bill Dodd SD 03 Cecilia Aguiar-Curry AD 04 Total $ 13,461,489
This chart represents unreimbursed costs incurred by cities in Assembly District 19 for state-mandated programs between 2004 and fiscal year 2019-20. This reflects data from the State Controller's Office as of October 2021. These figures are in whole dollars rounded to the nearest dollar, and represent the principal owed (does not include estimated accrued interest).

Senator Assemblymember
For reasons unknown to Cal Cities staff, data for Yountville was not provided by the State Controller's Office.

11.D.d
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Unfunded Mandate Costs North Bay (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) ***CITY LETTERHEAD***
May 24, 2022
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review
Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Jim Nielsen
Vice Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 7110
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Philip Ting
Chair, Assembly Budget Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8230
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Vince Fong
Vice Chair, Assembly Budget
Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 4630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: 2022-23 State Budget Request to Invest $1.6 billion in the Vitality of Cities Dear Senator Skinner, Senator Nielsen, Assembly Member Ting, and Assembly Member Fong,
In the spirit of a strong state and local government partnership to benefit all Californians, the City of Cotati respectfully requests a one-time allocation of $1.6 billion (General Fund) in fiscal year 2022-23 to establish a Housing and Economic Development Program, implement organic waste recycling regulations, and reimburse local governments for unfunded, state-mandated programs.

Local governments are essential to the strength of California’s economy, and the vitality of local governments is dependent upon fiscal stability. These proposed investments would support the economic vitality of local governments and would also help further the state’s ambitious climate resiliency and affordable housing goals.

We write to urge the Legislature to seize the historic opportunity the state budget surplus presents to invest in the hearts of our communities and advance our shared goals. A strong state-local fiscal partnership would propel significant investments in a bright, sustainable future for all Californians.

Establish a Housing and Economic Development Program – $500 million The City of Cotati supports establishing a Housing and Economic Development Program that would facilitate a partnership between the state and local agencies who adopt local property tax increment financing tools to support affordable housing, upgrade essential infrastructure, and spur economic development.

This program is crucial to achieving our housing supply and climate action goals. While cities appreciate the property tax tools the Legislature created after dissolving redevelopment to help address a range of community issues,

11.D.e
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Cal Cities 2022-23 Budget Requests Letter (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) the lack of funding has resulted in few cities being able to fully utilize them.

Tools such as the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities, and Affordable Housing Authorities may differ in their focus and details, but their common challenge is they lack sufficient financial capacity. The establishment of a state-local partnership to provide matching funds would greatly expand the viability of these tools, and propel significant investments in affordable housing, public infrastructure, and job creation.

Organic Waste Recycling Program Implementation – $180 million Local governments are the backbone for achieving California’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through organic waste recycling programs. Local governments need significant additional funding implement this state-mandated program without diverting existing resources from essential city services and increasing the financial burden on taxpayers.

The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) Organic Waste Reduction Regulations (SB 1383), adopted in November 2020, require local governments to reduce landfill disposal of organic waste 75% by 2025 and to increase edible food waste recovery 20%. Compliance obligations for local governments began in early 2022 and local governments continue to develop a comprehensive suite of local collection, enforcement, and funding programs. Cities and counties greatly appreciate the Legislature’s creation of the SB 1383 local assistance grant program in the 2021 Budget Act. However, additional funding is greatly needed, presenting a renewed opportunity for state and local partnership to further our shared climate goals
Compliance with the SB 1383 regulations has resulted in higher rates to cover the additional costs of administering the program. At a time when inflation is at its highest rate in decades, our residents are already feeling the negative impacts on their personal budgets. This is the right time for the state to continue to fund the implementation of this program to help keep solid waste and recycling rates from increasing dramatically.

Reimburse Local Governments for State-Mandated Programs – $933.5 million According to data obtained from the State Controller’s Office, as of October 2021, the state owes cities, counties, and special districts more than $933 million, including estimated accrued interest, in mandated costs incurred since 2004.

Local governments rely on the state to reimburse them in a timely manner for costs related to state-mandated programs. Failing to pay for these costs threatens the stability of local budgets and the ability of local governments to fund essential services to the community. Given that local governments have diligently carried out crucial, unfunded programs for many years, we urge the Legislature to make local governments whole and support the financial sustainability of local governments.

11.D.e
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Cal Cities 2022-23 Budget Requests Letter (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) It is paramount that all levels of government work in tandem to advance shared state and local goals. Only then will it be possible to realize strong, thriving communities for all Californians. Thank you for considering our request and for the continued partnership.

Sincerely,
Mark Landman
Mayor
City of Cotati
cc: Marc Levine, California Assembly District 10 (via email and mail) Bill Dodd, California Senate District 3 (via email and mail) The Senate Budget Committee (Via email: [email protected]) The Assembly Budget Committee (Via email: [email protected]) Nancy Hall Bennett (via email)
The League of California Cities (Via email: [email protected])

11.D.e
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Cal Cities 2022-23 Budget Requests Letter (Opposition Letter for AB 2011 and Support Cal Cities Budget Priorities) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type:

To: City Council
Subject: Information received after the agenda was posted.

Date: May 24, 2022
Written by: Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.

Pursuant to City Council Policy 2021-01: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.

1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the Deputy City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.

2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.

City Council Policy 2021-01 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.org or by request from the Deputy City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected].

Attachments:

Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (PDF)

15.A
Packet Pg. 195
City of Cotati Police Department Study (PDF)
Status on Police Department Study Memo (PDF)
Public Comment Item 6 (DOCX)
Public Comment Item 8 (DOCX)
Public Comment Item 9C (DOCX)
Public Comment Item 11A (DOCX)
Public Comment Item 11B (DOCX)

15.A
Packet Pg. 196

COTATI POLICE DEPARTMENT
2021 ANNUAL REPORT
203 W. SIERRA AVE, COTATI, CA | NON-EMERGENCY 707-792-4611 | FAX 707-795-0168

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) The women and men of our Police Department are committed to providing quality public safety services to our community. I am very proud of our dedicated employees and volunteers who, through our daily activities, are making a positive difference by improving public safety and continuing the great quality of life in the City of Cotati. Our members of the Cotati Police Department are committed to being responsive to our community in the delivery of quality services. We recognize our responsibility to maintain order, while affording dignity and respect to every individual.

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF
Michael Parish
Chief of Police
Officer Reinke, a young recruit, and Chief
Michael Parish

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) The Pandemic continues to be a challenge for the Police Department’s normal operations.

COVID-19
1 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
PSA
Katie Hulderman
Chief Michael
Parish
Lieutenant
VACANT
Sergeant
Paul Goodin
Sergeant
Tyler Wardle
Sergeant
B Gallo
Corporal
Brian Deaton
Corporal
VACANT

DISPATCH
Kirsten Ott
Cristina
Montoya
Renee Harris
Michael Callen
Adrien McGoon
VACANT
Community
Services
Officer
Carrie Peoples

OFFICERS
Bennet Knight
Ryan Reinke
Anthony Garber
Jerry Cunningham
Ryan Sullivan
VACANT
Volunteers/
Cadets
2 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) CA
L
L
S
F
O
R
S
E
RVIC
E
2020

CRIME ANALYSIS & REVIEW
(average of 37 events per day)
3 2021
(average of 34 events per day)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

COTATI ARREST STATISTICS
2019-2021
4 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

COTATI VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
5 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

COTATI PROPERTY CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
6 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

COTATI OTHER CRIME STATISTICS
2019-2021
7 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) C

ITATIONS
2021
8 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS:

OUTCOME AFTER INVESTIGATION
EXONERATED - Allegation is true but actions were lawful.

NOT SUSTAINED - Facts revealed do not substantiate the allegation.

WITHDRAWN/CLOSED - Case was closed as matter was withdrawn by the complainant or complainant was unresponsive to attempts to contact.

SUSTAINED - A true finding supported by facts, generally results in officer discipline and/or re-training.

UNFOUNDED - Not true. Actions alleged did not occur.

CATEGORY OF ALLEGATION
PROCEDURAL - This category of typically involves complaints of unfair parking enforcement, contesting traffic tickets, failure of the officer to act, etc.

CONDUCT UNBECOMING - This category of allegation is a complaint of rude or discourteous behavior of the officer.

USE OF FORCE - This category of allegation is a complaint regarding officer use of force.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR

EVERYONE (SAFE) TEAM
10 The SAFE Team provides three main services to the community

1. Response to issues relating to mental health, addiction and homelessness

2. Non-emergency response for people in need

When SAFE is not responding to calls-for-service they conduct outreach to the homeless, including evaluating their condition and providing shelter and counseling information.

During this particular month, most calls came
in on Monday and Thursday, typically around
noon and 4 pm, and to a lesser degree 6 pm
and 10 pm.

If you observe someone experiencing mental health issues or homelessness you can contact SAFE by calling 707-792-4611 for non-emergencies or 911 for emergencies.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT
(RIPA)
11 The Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) was formed as part of AB953 (Weber, 2016).

For transparency, the Cotati Police Department decided to collect RIPA data before the scheduled mandate. Our Police Department is a member of a Public Safety consortium.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

The Cotai Police Department also has a bin in our public access lobby where you can dispose of prescription pills throughout the year. Please remove pills and bag them up so there is plenty of room for all to dispose of their unwanted and expired medications. 13 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

Another extra training in 2021 was suicide prevention and response. “Callers in Crisis:

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

USE OF FORCE
17 In 2021, the Cotati Police Department experienced zero (0) URSUS (California Department of Justice Use of Force Incident Reporting database) reportable use of force.

URSUS Criteria

1. An incident that involves the shooting of a civilian by a peace officer.

2. An incident that involves the shooting of a peace officer by a civilian.

3. An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer against a civilian results in serious bodily injury or death.

4. An incident in which the use of force by a civilian against a peace officer results in serious bodily injury or death.

As Chief of Police, I also review each UOF for any policy violations or an opportunity to consider alternate equipment, techniques, or training in the future to reduce or avoid the use of force.

Impact Weapon: Use of a baton on a subject
Pepper Spray: Use or pepper spray on a subject

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) Use of Force Summary
Firearm Displayed Arrest, active warrant.

Firearm Displayed Arrest, battery
Firearm Pointed Medical assist, felony vehicle stop.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

BODY WORN CAMERA (BWC) UPGRADE
19 For 2021 the Cotati Police Department transitioned from Generation 2 to Generation 3 BWC’s.

The upgrade includes livestreaming capabilities when the BWC are activated. This allows for the 911 dispatchers or command staff to view live video from the officers BWC to allow for better outcomes.

Additionally, the new BWC has longer battery life and better video quality in all lighting conditions.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICER MEETINGS
Cotati Police Officers hosted two Neighborhood Officer meetings for each of the neighborhood areas in 2021. Cotati is comprised of six (6) areas (beats), which are coincident with evacuation zones. Maps of both beats and evacuation zones are available for view on the Police page of our City Website. An individual officer is assigned to each of the six areas and their phone numbers and emails are available to citizens and business owners to ask questions and make requests. Officers rotate annually to allow officers to better learn the areas and for residents and businesses to better know our officers. We invite you to attend one of our meetings.
20 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) PATROL
21 Our sworn police staff are here 24/7 to keep our community safe. The list of things that officers do on a daily basis is long, including the following summary of the main things our officers do to enhance the quality of life in Cotati.

Active Community
Oriented Policing
Self-initiate traffic
and/or criminal
investigations
Supplement animal
control
Perform bar and
business checks

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

This is Sergeant Wardle’s second MADD
Award during his service with the City of
Cotati. Please join me in congratulating him
for his efforts to make Cotati a safer place.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

K9 TEAM
We are fortunate to have Corporal
Brian Deaton and his partner REMO
as our K9 Team. REMO is a dualpurpose trained Police K9 for the apprehension of violent offenders and
the detection of Cocaine, Heroin and
Methamphetamine. We also make our
K9 Team available for mutual aid,
when requested by our law
enforcement partner agencies. REMO
was procured through the Sean's K9's
grant program.
24 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

PARTNERSHIPS
The Cotati Police Department has a strong relationship with the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, Sonoma State University Police Department and the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety. Together, through teamwork, mutual aid, and allied training, we make all of our jurisdictions a safer place to live and improve the quality of life for our residents and businesses.
25 15.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Pandemic restrictions in 2021 limited the amount of in-person outreach events that we held.

15.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Cotati PD Annual Report 2021 (Information received after the agenda was posted) City of Cotati Police Department Study
September 23, 2021
Hills
3043 Gold Canal Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 859-
[email protected]

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted)

Lewis Consulting Services’ experience, as it relates to conducting such a study is as follows:

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) Robert Chalfant, Esq., Litigation Manager
Mr. Chalfant has defended public entities on high profile claims in state and federal courts across California for over 20 years. 2001, The majority of his caseload involves constitutional law claims brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and all related state torts. He has tried to verdict civil rights cases in state and federal court and argued appeals on behalf of public entities before both federal and state courts of appeal.

USE OF FORCE (CPD POLICY 300-310):

Use of force is one of the most significant areas of risk for any police agency. The application of force and the determination as to whether that force was appropriate or necessary is

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) scrutinized now more than ever. Oversight starts internally with police supervisory and executive staff, continues through the City Manager and then the elected City Council.

Question: Do Cotati Police Officer receive training on Use of Force, beyond what is required to graduate a basic police academy?

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) Substantial Compliance: CPD officers receive additional training at a minimum every (2) years during “Perishable Skills” training, hosted by the Santa Rosa Junior College. The curriculum includes practical exercises in which officers demonstrate hands-on proficiency in the trained techniques. In addition, CPD Executive Staff has committed to training that focuses on deescalation techniques and alternatives to use of force, which effectively equips officers with tools to avoid the use of force unless necessary.

CPD Policy 300.5.1 requires officers to report, to a supervisor, any use of force that:
(a) The application caused a visible injury.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) (b) The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
(c) The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. (d) The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation. (e) Any application of a TASER device or control device. (f) Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains. (g) The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. (h) An individual was struck or kicked.
(i) An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.

The UOF reporting form, for any of the above instances creates an environment in which officers take additional ownership over their tactics and increase the transparency of their actions.

Continued supervisory review of both completed UOF reports, and incident reports will act as a safeguard to ensure documentation is appropriate and complete.

1. (a) The identification of any trends in the use of force by members.

2. (b) Training needs recommendations.

3. (c) Equipment needs recommendations.

4. (d) Policy revision recommendations.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) administrative investigation. Additional value in an annual analysis is the opportunity to identify the need for improvement in training, equipment, or practice.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) enforcement profession by participating in this program, which harvests invaluable data available for analysis and comparison.

Currently, CPD does not include or document this observation as part of a routine uniform inspection process.

Question: Are supervisory/management personnel trained in their responsibilities during an officer involved shooting?

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) Training Opportunity: Officer Involved Shootings (OIS) are among the most taxing events on a police agency. The impact from the shooting on the officer(s) mental health, the agency and the community require a well-planned initial response. After initial threats are mitigated and life saving measures are taken, supervisors responding to the scene must be prepared to effectively handle a variety of emotional, procedural, and legal issues. A composed comprehensive response is not an accident. Training, beyond what is considered “on the job training” that covers in depth the supervisory responsibilities is necessary to increase the odds of successfully navigating the challenges a supervisor will face.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) from 1996 to 2015, an average of 355 persons were killed annually in pursuit related crashes2.

Question: Does CPD participate in ongoing pursuit driving training? 2 Police Vehicle Pursuits, 2012-2013, Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 9, 2017

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) Substantial Compliance: CPD officers attend bi-annual Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) training as part of a perishable skills training curriculum. This substantially complies with written policy, which was adopted to comply with Penal Code § 13519.8.

PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE (CPD POLICY 804):

Sharp objects are booked in containers that limit the likelihood of injury during handling.

Syringes are similarly handled using containers that are designed to avoid accidental “sticks”.

To safeguard staff handling packages containing possible dangerous drugs, officers make a conspicuous notation (sticker or other highly visible marking) on the outside of the packaging to

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) alert staff. When so noted, the package remains sealed while in CPD possession and may only be opened by qualified staff at an approved lab.

Question: Does CPD have procedure for booking items contaminated with bodily fluids, as outlined in CPD Policy 804.3.4 (Exceptional Handling)?

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) Substantial Compliance: The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services provides guidance on the collection and storage of items containing bodily fluids.3 Recommendations in this bulletin include:
• Allow stains to air dry as much as possible before placing in paper bag or envelope. • Package the “unstained control” separately from the evidence stain. • Package different evidence items in separate paper containers. • Ensure that the paper container is large enough to allow air circulation around evidence item.
• Clean paper can be placed on (or in) a bloodstained garment and the garment folded so that the paper prevents contact between different stains. Ensure that while items are drying that the stain pattern(s) are not altered or the stain(s) cross-contaminated with other wet stain(s).
• Metal or glass evidence item (e.g. knife or broken, glass bottle), should be secured with wire to the bottom of a cardboard box so that it does not pierce the sides of a paper container. If not secured, blood on a knife blade can become easily dislodged and lost.

Do not freeze metal or glass evidence items with blood or other body fluid stains.

Submit these items to the laboratory as soon as possible. • Tape seal, initial and date all paper bags or envelopes.

No contrary indications were noted during a tour of the facility.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) (d) Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual not associated to the property room or function to ensure that records are correct, and all evidence property is accounted for.

CPD administration readily acknowledged the deficiency in this area and are currently developing plans to ensure compliance.

15.A.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: City of Cotati Police Department Study (Information received after the agenda was posted) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Information received after the agenda was posted) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 develop training, equipment or policy recommendations. Additionally, the CPD also began collecting RIPA data in 2021, which is sent to the California Department of Justice daily for review and data validation.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Information received after the agenda was posted) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 Question: Are CPD officers trained and authorized to carry/use other control devices as outlined in CPD policy 308.3?
In addition to conducted energy devices (i.e. Tasers), the CPD officers may be trained and certified to carry other control devices, such as OC pepper spray and a baton. The CPD is currently testing the Bolla Wrap as another device available to restrain suspects from a distance who are non-compliant and a potential risk to themselves, the officers, or others around them. In all cases, the CPD has added an annual documented inspection process during evaluations to ensure that CPD officers are trained and certified to carry any control devices that they use.

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Information received after the agenda was posted) City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931-4217  TELEPHONE 7077924600  FAX 7957067 Question: Does CPD follow established policy relative to the random and routine inspection of the property/evidence room?
The CPD has implemented inspections of evidence storage area, including monthly Sergeant inspections, unannounced annual inspections by the Police Chief, and an annual written audit by a Sergeant appointed by the Police Chief.
p:\forms\letterheadmemo.doc

15.A.c
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Status on Police Department Study Memo (Information received after the agenda was posted) The email from a citizen commending Chief Parish over capturing the Walgreens Rooster, is not a citizens comment on the Mosquito Vector Agency report, and unless it was approved by the citizen to be in the agenda packet, it should not have been included.

Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman

15.A.d
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Public Comment Item 6 (Information received after the agenda was posted) Dear City Council,
Once again, you all have shown your distaste for public comment. I received social media criticisms by Mark Landman a week ago, trying to request more public input, a justified public hearing on the matter, on the addition of speed bumps to West Cotati Avenue. For many years now, this is an issue of Mark Landman doing city business improperly on private social media groups...we've been in court on this issue already.

However, getting to the point of this, is that not holding a public hearing on any of the additions to the West Side Street Pavement project has resulted that one of the key stakeholders not being consulted--the Rancho Adobe Fire District.

This has lead to two problems:

Despite my calls for a public hearing, four speed bumps were installed on West Cotati Avenue. These speed bumps were an addition to the west side project and not in the plans. Staff reports they are "speed cushions", which they are not, they are speed bumps. The problem of them being an addition not on any plans, is that Ghilloti Brothers marked the additions as speed bumps, not speed cushions. They installed four speed bumps. Three of the four speed bumps do not have any overhead lighting nearby. Two are right after blind turns.

The installation of speed bumps will delay response times by approximately 9 seconds per speed bump according to my research. Speed bumps, as installed, are meant to decrease speed on the roadway to 5-10 mph. Speed cushions on the other hand, can decrease emergency vehicles to about 25-30 mph through the speed cushion. The heavier the fire apparatus or other EMS equipment, the more chance of damage to the apparatus to handling the speed bump and more distance the apparatus needs to be able to slow down with.

The proper procedure for even putting in speed cushions is included in this link, which was not followed by the City of Cotati:
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/vertical-speedcontrol-elements/speed-cushion/ Not only does the installation of speed bumps instead of speed cushions impede response times, it also will add discomfort and harm, to people in ambulances going over the speed bumps. My 85 year old mother has had multiple calls to the RAFD because of falling. Last November, after a fall, she had a fractured vertebrae in her back. If taken from our house to the trauma center at Memorial Hospital in the future, she will have to endure the pain of the four speed bumps while on a stretcher in an ambulance.

I also emailed you with another stakeholders public input, the wheelchair users on paratransit that regularly ride my paratransit bus that is going to Petaluma. You ignored their public input too Speed bumps are painful when riding in the back of a paratransit bus for a wheelchair user. After the installation of the four speed bumps on Thursday morning on West Cotati Avenue, my paratransit driver refused to subject the wheelchair users to the speed bumps after the first driver of the day went over them. The paratransit driver diverted the route by approximately

15.A.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Public Comment Item 8 (Information received after the agenda was posted) 10 minutes to take the West School Street hill entrance through downtown Cotati, putting him offschedule to Petaluma. And this was only the first day of speed bumps being installed.

Next concern I have with the additions to the West Side Street Project is that the pathway installed. One danger, is it is a steep hill that has pedestrians/bicyclists going downhill straight into a busy intersection at West School Street and West Sierra Avenue.

The other danger is that this part of West School Street is the only fire access from a road to the freeway. There is a break in the sound walls at West School Street hill (see pic).

15.A.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Public Comment Item 8 (Information received after the agenda was posted) In my family's 50 years of living in the neighborhood, there have been quite a few fires that come up from the freeway on the hillside. I think the last one was about 3 years ago. RAFD has used West School Street to defend against the fire crossing over West School Street quite a lot of times. Now with the new pathway, there are curbs and other obstacles, plus a narrowing of the road on a hill where you can't see the other side of the hill and vehicles coming. I have no idea of how the RAFD would be able to maneuver their fire engines into position to fight the fire with the new pathway obstacles and narrowed street configuration.

This is how the configuration was before....and it helped with storm water being absorbed by the grassy side. West Sierra Avenue and West School Street hill has been known to flood in heavy rainstorms.

15.A.e
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Public Comment Item 8 (Information received after the agenda was posted)

15.A.e
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Public Comment Item 8 (Information received after the agenda was posted) I do not feel safe in my home on Maple Avenue because of these "additions" and "improvements". How much money is this going to cost to fix, because of your refusal to ask for public input or take into consideration the public input of many stakeholders? Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman
Maple Avenue

15.A.e
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Public Comment Item 8 (Information received after the agenda was posted) I have repeatedly over the last six years, stated that this contribution is not proper. The Chamber of Commerce is a 501 c 6 organization, and has to be funded by membership dues. The only way that the $15k can allocated to the Chamber of Commerce is through a contract for providing visitor information services.

Even Council member John Moore agreed with this, 20 years ago as a citizen...

I request once again, that the "donation" of $15k be changed to a contract service as required.

Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman

15.A.f
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Public Comment Item 9C (Information received after the agenda was posted) On page 105 of the agenda packet, it says:

Both the report and a memorandum on the current status of recommendations are attached to this staff report.

Neither are attached to the staff report. The George Hills Company report was available in the cancelled May 10th agenda packet... pages 36-

52. https://cotaticityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1876&Inline=True This information should be published and included in the agenda packet as it is an important issue that includes use of force compliance review and statistics for Cotati.

Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman

15.A.g
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Public Comment Item 11A (Information received after the agenda was posted) Again, an important report that was in the May 10th cancelled meeting's agenda packet, the CPD annual report has been omitted from this meeting's agenda packet. The CPD annual report is located at
https://cotaticityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1876&Inline=True pages 60-88. Citizens should be informed of the crime statistics and use of force statistics in the report in this agenda packet and this CPD report should have been in this meeting's agenda packet, and not omitted from public view.

Additionally, the emphasis of the statistics that are provided in the staff report, are on the SAFE program only. My recollection, is that the SAFE program is only funded about 15% through Cotati, with the City of Rohnert Park paying the majority of the costs. According to Damien O'Bid, in an email to me, these SAFE program statistics are for both the City of Cotati and City of Rohnert Park service calls, and that should be noted more clearly and prominently that the statistics are not Cotati - specific statistics.

Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman
Maple Avenue.

15.A.h
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Public Comment Item 11B (Information received after the agenda was posted)

Cotati City CouncilMay 24, 2022

Cotati City Council
May 24, 2022