Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, September 13, 2022

AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday September 13, 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 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: 848 0309 0846
Passcode: 071112
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 5:45pm. 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 your 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 part of the record of the meeting. ###
The Cotati City Council welcomes you to its meetings that are generally scheduled for the 2nd 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 of to receive the City Council agenda by email, 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.

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 Ave, Cotati, CA during the City’s posted business hours.

Cotati City Council Agenda September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

Disabled Accommodations: 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 [email protected], or (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 non-action 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 is available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA, 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 Deputy 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 - AUG 23, 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.

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.

Cotati City Council Agenda September 13, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

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. PROCLAMATIONS
A. A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 17 THROUGH 24, 2022 AS “NATIONAL POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK” AND "CREEK WEEK"

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.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. ACCEPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 ANNUAL REPORT OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (AB1600)
Adopt a resolution accepting the fiscal year 2021-22 annual reports of development impact fee activity.

B. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE

WEST SIERRA AVENUE SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
It is recommended the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution approving the construction contract and the Construction Management agreement and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any needed change orders or amendments up to the approved budget amount.

Cotati City Council Agenda September 13, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

C. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF
COTATI
It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the CalPERS contract with the City of Cotati to remove the exclusion language for persons compensated on an hourly basis.

D. SONOMA STATE POLICE DISPATCH CONTRACT EXTENSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an extension to the agreement with Sonoma State University for the police dispatch services.

10. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
A. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A

MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in accordance with AB 481.

12. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. CONSIDERATION AND FINAL DIRECTION ON THE COTATI TRAIL

AND DOWNTOWN INTERPRETIVE SIGN PANEL DESIGNS
It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction on the proposed draft interpretive panels for the downtown and trail kiosk wayfinding sign designs to allow final design and installation of the interpretive sign kiosk panels.

B. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE SONOMA COUNTY GRAND

JURY RESPONSE
It is recommended that the City Council review the Grand Jury Reports and draft City responses, provide direction to staff regarding any amendments to the City responses and authorize the Mayor to execute and deliver the City’s response to the Grand Jury.

13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

14. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS

15. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

16. 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 Cotati City Council Agenda September 13, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

after the agenda was posted, is attached below.

17. 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 September 9, 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 August 23, 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 Absent
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

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 - AUG 9, 2022 6:00 PM RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: John C. Moore, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS

4.A
Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Aug 23, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes August 23, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

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.

6. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
Mayor Landman announces Agenda Item #10B will be tabled until September 13, 2022.

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

8. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
Vice Mayor Harvey requested to pull Item #8C for further discussion. Mayor Landman moved the item to the regular calendar.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: John C. Moore, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
A. CITY MANAGER AGREEMENT REVISION
B. FISCAL YEAR 22-23 CITY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT

4.A
Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Aug 23, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes August 23, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

D. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENTS WITH INTERACTIVE RESOURCES, INC AND MOE

ENGINEERING FOR THE CIVIC CENTER WINDOW REPLACEMENT

AND EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT
E. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING

COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS REMOTELY

DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC

9. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Mayor Harvey requested a future agenda item on training for electric vehicle charger installation.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND HOLD THE FIRST

READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF
COTATI
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
Presentation by Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter.

Councilmembers comment.

No public comment
B. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A

MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
Item was tabled until September 13, 2022.

11. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)

8.C. RESOLUTION GRANTING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO

EXTEND OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS

RETAIL AND DISTRIBUTION PERMIT FOR STEVE MONAHAN, (DBA
INDYTHREE) AT 8145 GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY IN THE

COMMERCIAL GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY (CG) ZONING DISTRICT,
PA21/22

4.A
Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Aug 23, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes August 23, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
SECONDER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
Presentation by Director of Community Development Noah Housh.

Councilmembers comment.

No public comment.

A. RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL

MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND APPOINTING THE NOMINATED

CANDIDATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: John C. Moore, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
Presentation by City Manager Damien O'Bid
Councilmembers comment.

Public Comment:

Kathleen Rivers of Cotati
Sylvia Lemus of Cotati
B. COVID-19 TEMPORARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE
PHASE 3
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
Presentation by City Manager Damien O'Bid
Councilmembers comment
No public comment

4.A
Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Aug 23, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL Cotati City Council Minutes August 23, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

Councilmember Ford requested to amend Section 4A of the Resolution, to allow the Cityprovided tents for outdoor dining to remain in place for up to 7 months after September 1, 2022.

C. APPOINTMENT OF A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE(S) TO THE 2022 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (LOCC) ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Councilmember
SECONDER: John C. Moore, Councilmember
AYES: Landman, Harvey, Ford, Moore
ABSENT: Sparks
Councilmember Ford nominated Vice Mayor Harvey to serve as the Voting Delegate at the 2022 League of California Cities Conference, with City Manager Damien O'Bid as the alternate delegate.

D. DIRECTION TO THE VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2022 ANNUAL

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
Presentation by City Manager Damien O'Bid
Councilmembers comment.

No public comment.

Council directs the voting delegate to support the bylaws amendments at the League of California Cities Business Meeting.

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

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

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. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landman adjourned the meeting at 7:51pm.

4.A
Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Aug 23, 2022 6:00 PM (APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED CREEK WEEK CLEANUPS
INDEPENDENT CLEANUPS –

RUSSIAN RIVERKEEPER
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

September 17 from 9AM - 11AM
www.russianriverkeeper.org/rrwcd
Choose your own cleanup location:

Cleanups will take place throughout the Russian River Watershed Cloverdale First Street Bridge
Cloverdale Asti Bridge on Washington
School Road
Geyserville Bridge
Healdsburg walking routes
Town of Windsor downtown walking route
Santa Rosa Creek at Olive Park
Forestville Steelhead Beach
Forestville Sunset Beach
Guerneville Johnsons Beach
Monte Rio Recreation and Park District

UKIAH VALLEY RUSSIAN RIVER CLEANUP
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

September 17 (8:30 AM - 12PM)
TBD
Hosted by Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, County of Mendocino and Redwood Waste Solutions
Register at https://forms.gle/L2MC3eALUeYy79EC9
Contact [email protected] for more
information.

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

FOSS CREEK CLEANUP
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

Check-In Breakfast: 8:30AM - 9AM
Clean-Up: 9AM - 11AM
Awards: 11AM- 11:30AM
Lunch: 11:30AM - 12:30PM
September 24
Healdsburg Community Center
(Breakfast provided by Rotary Club of Healdsburg Sunrise Lunch provided by Healdsburg Kiwanis)
Contact [email protected] OR
@cityofhealdsburg for more information.

CITY OF COTATI
Anytime between September 17-24
Take a stroll along the Laguna de Santa Rosa creek trail in Cotati and pick up whatever trash you can. Please
bring your own bucket (or trash bags) to bring the trash to the provided trash carts at the locations listed above.

Email your results to [email protected].

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

CITY OF SANTA ROSA
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

September 17-24
www.srcity.org/creekweek
You and your family are invited to celebrate
safely and explore your local creeks in new ways!
Celebrate throughout the week with fun and
engaging activities for all ages.

Creek Week Cleanup Challenge
Virtual Santa Rosa Creek Tour
Creek Week Webinars
Kids Creek Week Activities
Creek Critter of the Week
Creek Trails of Santa Rosa Map and Guide
Saturday, September 17
9AM-11:30AM
Prince Memorial Greenway Cleanup Olive Park
Footbridge
(Near 1698 Hazel Street)
Sunday, September 18
10:30AM-12PM
Guided Nature Walk at Flat Rock Park (Flat Rock Park
Circle or Yulupa Circle)
Tuesday, September 20 & Thursday, September 22
Downtown Underground Tour
6PM-7PM
Meet at Prince Gateway Park
(Santa Rosa Ave. and Sonoma Ave.)
Saturday, September 24
10AM-11:30AM & 10:30-12PM
Laguna Treatment Plant Tour
(4300 Llano Road)
Virtual Creek Week Activities
INDEPENDENT CLEANUPS - COASTWALK’S

COASTAL CLEANUP
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

September 17 from 9AM-11AM
Coastwalk and Sonoma County Partners will be at multiple locations. Choose your Coastal Cleanup Day Beach at the link above .Please bring your bucket and gloves – sites will have limited cleanup supplies. Please check https://coastwalk.org/2022-ccd for updates as new site coordinators will be added.

SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS

COLGAN CREEK CLEANUP
DATE:

SIGN-UP:

LOCATION:

September 17 from 9AM-11AM
Join Regional Parks as we celebrate Creek Week 2022 by
picking up litter on the Colgan Creek trail. Registration is required for this free event. For more information contact [email protected].
https://reserve.sonomacountycamping.org/registra
tion/creek-week-clean-up
September 17-24, 2022
Loca l Vo l unteer Oppor tun i t i es
FOR MORE CLEANUP EVENT INFORMATION, VISIT www.rrwatershed.org/project/creek-week

6.A.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: 2022 Creek Week Events flyer (Creek Week 2022) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Accept the fiscal year 2021-2022 Annual Report of Development Impact Fee (AB1600)
Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Angela Courter, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation
Adopt a resolution accepting the fiscal year 2021-22 annual reports of development impact fee activity.

Background
The City imposes fees to mitigate the impact of development pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq. When collected, the fees are deposited into special accounts. One of the mandated accounting guidelines, as stated in Government Code Section 66006(a), provides that the City shall establish separate accounts for each type of improvement funded by development fees. The City maintains and accounts for the following development fees:
• Inclusionary Housing: These fees are used for providing affordable housing. • Park-in-Lieu: These fees are used to fund the design and construction of park and park improvements required to mitigate the impact of new development. • Traffic Impact: These fees are used to fund the design and construction of things such as streets and traffic light improvements as identified in the fee program to mitigate the impact of new development.

Analysis

9.A
Packet Pg. 12
Each local agency is required within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year to make available to the public the following information: a brief description of the type of fee in the accounts, the amount of fees collected and the interest earned, the beginning and ending balance of the accounts, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended, the amount of expenditure for each public facility or improvement made from the account during the year, and other specified information as applicable. Upon requests from any person, the City will provide a copy of this report. No requests have been made and as such the report was provided online. The City also posted a notice on its website of the availability of the development impact fee information pending acceptance from the Council. Upon adoption of the report by council, the report will be revised to include the adopted resolution.

Exhibit A to the resolution include tables showing the change in fund balance/working capital, revenues, and expenses for fiscal year 2021-22 as well as a description of each the development fee types, and a schedule of the development fees. No interfund transfers or loans were made from any of the identified accounts during this fiscal year. There were no refunds of development impact fees collected, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), nor were there any allocations of unexpended revenues collected, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(f).

Financial Considerations
Not applicable.

Environmental Issues
The action of receiving and filing the development fee information does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

9.A
Packet Pg. 13
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COTATI COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEVELOPER DEPOSITS (AB 1600

REPORT)
WHEREAS, the City of Cotati imposes fees to mitigate the impact of development pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, said fees collected are deposited into separate special and capital accounts for each type of improvement funded by development fees; and WHEREAS, the City maintains separate funds for traffic mitigation, park in lieu, and inclusionary housing:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, the City is required within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year to make available to the public information for the fiscal year regarding these fees; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a report ("AB 1600 Report") that contains the information required by Government Code Section 66006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019 an interfund loan for $1,000,000 to be repaid over 20 years at 3% was initiated from inclusionary housing to sewer operations and the outstanding balance as of June 30, 2022 due back to the Inclusionary Housing Fund was $826,613; and WHEREAS, there were no inter-fund transfers or loans made from any of the accounts identified in the AB 1600 Report; and
WHEREAS, there were no refunds of development impact fees collected pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), nor were there any allocations of unexpended revenues collected pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(f); and WHEREAS, no interested persons have requested notice of the AB 1600 Report; consequently, no notices of the availability of the AB 1600 Report were mailed; and WHEREAS, the information contained in the attached Exhibit A was made available to the public a minimum of 15 days prior to this City Council meeting date; and WHEREAS, a notice of the availability of the development fee information will be posted on the City’s website upon Council acceptance.

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

Packet Pg. 14
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Cotati hereby resolves as follows:

A. In accordance with Government Code Section 66006, the City has conducted an annual review of its development impact fees and capital infrastructure programs and the City Council has reviewed the AB 1600 Report attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. The funds have been and shall be used for the purposes stated in the AB 1600 Report, are necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from development in the City and bear a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.

C. The City Council hereby accepts the AB 1600 Report.

D. The AB 1600 report continues to be available for public review on the City’s website and at the City Clerk’s office and upon request.

Section 2. Effective Date. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, phrase, or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

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 September 13th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

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

Exhibit A: 2021-22 - AB 1600 Report (PDF)
Packet Pg. 15
205 206 216
Traffic
Mitigation Park in‐Lieu Inclusionary Housing
Beginning Balance 07/01/21 $         423,482 $               91,037 $          3,259,446 Revenues
Interest Earnings 630 267 31,225
Fees           357,351                  27,475 ‐
Total Revenues           357,980                  27,742                  31,225 Expenditures           180,345                  31,584                264,953 Excess of Revenue Over/(Under)
Expenditures           177,635 (3,842) (233,728)
Ending Balance 06/30/22 $         601,117 $               87,195 $          3,025,718 ‐ ‐ (826,613)
Available Ending Balance 06/30/22 $         601,117 $               87,195 $          2,199,105 Expenditures/
Transfers
Est % Funded by
Impact Fees
205 ‐‐ Traffic Mitigation $              180,345
Westside Project Sidewalk                 120,000 100%
Old Redwood Highway Traffic Flow 60,345 100%
206 ‐‐ Park in‐Lieu $                31,584
Project Design ‐ Park Masterplan 31,584 100%
216 ‐ Inclusionary Housing $              264,953
Planning for Jamie/Ryan Lane Development 8,878 33%
Burbank Housing ‐ Low Income Subsidy Costs                 250,000 100% Other Inclusionary Housing Legal Matters 6,075 53%
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
Annual Report on Developers' Funds Per GC 66000
Analysis of Changes in Fund Balance/Working Capital
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
Annual Report on Developers' Funds Per GC 66000
Expense Report
Outstanding Interfund Loan Receivable

9.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Exhibit A: 2021-22 - AB 1600 Report (Reso - FY 2021-22 Annual Report of Development Impact Fee (AB1600)) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Award Construction Contract and Construction Management Professional Services Agreement for the West Sierra Avenue Sewer Replacement Project Date: September 13, 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 approving the construction contract and the Construction Management agreement and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any needed change orders or amendments up to the approved budget amount.

Background
City Staff is recommending City Council award the construction contract for the West Sierra Sewer Replacement Project (Project). This Project has been identified as a high priority as the sewer is defective and needs repairs and is within a street scheduled for repaving in early 2023.

Over the past several years, the City has identified defects in the City’s sewer collection system.

These defects, if left unaddressed, can result in clogged sewers causing overflows, sink holes, and an excess amount of stormwater and rainwater entering the system. The priority repair areas have been identified and the City has a plan to methodically make the repairs. There is an urgency to repair certain sewers that are within streets scheduled for repaving as the City wants to avoid digging up recently paved streets.

Analysis/Discussion
Last year, the City completed video inspections of areas suspected of having high inflow and infiltration. As part of this inspection process, sewer defects were located and described. This information was provided to Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers to design a project to repair the defects. After evaluating alternative repair methods and costs and reviewing the City’s street paving program, City staff has identified West Sierra Avenue sewer replacement as a high priority project. The sewer pipeline in West Sierra Avenue is undersized for existing and future flows, has sewer defects, and is entirely within the area to be repaved as part of the City’s Downtown Connectivity and Safety Project (aka Quick Strike). Paving is scheduled for early 2023, and, once paved, is off limits for planned excavations for at least 5 years, but preferably closer to ten years.

9.B
Packet Pg. 17
The Project was split into a base bid, Additive A, and Additive B components as a means to obtain the bids pricing but have the option to scale the Project back as the budget dictates. The Base bid scope is the most critical with the replacement of the sewer from Olof Street to just upstream of the maintenance hole near Terrace Drive. Additive A work is the next most important with the replacement of the lateral on the north side of West Sierra Avenue between Terrace Drive and Hillview Drive, and replacement of the maintenance hole at the intersection of West Sierra Avenue and Water Road. Additive B is less critical as it services a much smaller area, is marginally undersized, and the pipeline has less defects. To reduce the impact on the City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund, and track better with the 5-Year Sewer Rate Program, Staff recommends moving forward with the Base Bid and Additive A work only.

Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers completed the Project design and the Project was advertised for bidding with bids opened on August 30. The City received 5 bids with the low bid from Bay Pacific Pipeline for a base bid and Additive A amount of $834,980, which is 12% below the engineer’s cost estimate of $952,825. The low bid has been reviewed and Staff has determined it to be responsive and recommends it for award.

Construction Management services are needed for this Project. City Staff conducted a consultant selection process in 2021, and from that process has determined Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers to be the most qualified to provide the Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Project. Staff requested and the consultant provided a proposal for these services and Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be fair and reasonable.

Financial Considerations
The City’s adopted Fiscal Year 22/23 Budget includes $1.1 million for the Project. City staff recommends awarding the following: (1) Construction contract for the base bid plus bid additive A for a total amount of $834,980, (2) Construction Management agreement with Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers for $135,000, (3) Additionally encumber $130,020 for contingency change orders or overages. With these total requests the project budget is anticipated at a not to exceed amount of $1,100,000 with no additional appropriation of funds required.

Environmental Issues
The Sewer Repairs are Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as it consists of the repair and maintenance of an existing facility.

9.B
Packet Pg. 18
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AWARDING

THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE WEST SIERRA SEWER

REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE ANY NEEDED CHANGE ORDERS OR AMENDMENTS UP TO THE

APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET
WHEREAS, the West Sierra Sewer Replacement Project (Project) has been identified as a high priority as the sewer is defective and needs repairs and is within a street scheduled for repaving in early 2023; and
WHEREAS, over the past several years, the City has identified defects in the City’s sewer collection system, and these defects, if left unaddressed, can result in clogged sewers causing overflows, sink holes, and an excess amount of stormwater and rainwater entering the system; and
WHEREAS, the priority repair areas have been identified and the City has a plan to methodically make the repairs, and there is an urgency to repair certain sewers that are within streets scheduled for repaving as the City wants to avoid digging up recently paved streets; and WHEREAS, last year, the City completed video inspections of areas suspected of having high inflow and infiltration, and, as part of this inspection process, sewer defects were located and described and this information was provided to Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers to design a project to repair the defects; and
WHEREAS, after evaluating alternative repair methods and costs and reviewing the City’s street paving program, City staff has identified West Sierra Avenue sewer replacement as a high priority project; and
WHEREAS, the sewer pipeline in West Sierra Avenue is undersized for existing and future flows, has sewer defects, and is entirely within the area to be repaved as part of the City’s Downtown Connectivity and Safety Project (aka Quick Strike); paving is scheduled for early 2023, and, once paved, is off limits for planned excavations for at least 5 years, but preferably closer to ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Project was split into a base bid, Additive A, and Additive B components as a means to obtain the bids pricing but have the option to scale the Project back as the budget dictates; and
WHEREAS, the Base bid scope is the most critical with the replacement of the sewer from Olof Street to just upstream of the manhole near Terrace Drive, Additive A work is the next most important with the replacement of the lateral on the north side of West Sierra Avenue between Terrace Drive and Hillview Drive, and replacement of the manhole at the intersection of West Sierra Avenue and Water Road, and Additive B is less critical as it services a much smaller area, is marginally undersized, and the pipeline has less defects; and WHEREAS, to reduce the impact on the City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund, and track better with the 5-Year Sewer Rate Program, Staff recommends moving forward with the Base Bid and Additive A work only; and
Packet Pg. 19
WHEREAS, Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers completed the Project design and the Project was advertised for bidding with bids opened on August 30, 2022 and the City received 5 bids with the low bid from Bay Pacific Pipeline for a base bid and Additive A amount of $834,980, which is 12% below the engineer’s cost estimate of $952,825, and the low bid has been reviewed and Staff has determined it to be responsive and recommends it for award ; and WHEREAS, Construction Management services are needed for this Project and City Staff conducted a consultant selection process in 2021, and from that process has determined Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers to be the most qualified to provide the Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Project; and WHEREAS, Staff requested and the consultant provided a proposal for these services and Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be fair and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Fiscal Year 22/23 Budget includes $1.1 million for the Project, and City staff recommends awarding the construction contract for the base bid plus bid additive A for a total amount of $834,980, and
WHEREAS, adding the Construction Management agreement with Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers for $135,000 plus $130,020 contingency, the total project budget is $1,100,000; and
WHEREAS, the Sewer Repairs are Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as it consists of the repair and maintenance of an existing facility.

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

1. The construction contract for the West Sierra Avenue Sewer Replacement Project is awarded to Bay Pacific Pipeline, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $834,980, and

2. The Construction Management Professional Services Agreement with Brelje and Race Consulting Engineers is approved for an amount not to exceed $135,000, and

3. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute the construction contract and the construction management agreement, and approve change orders or amendments up to the authorized Project budget of $1,100,000.

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 September 13th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 20
Attachments:

Bid Tab (PDF)
Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (PDF)
220909-CM Letter Proposal-revised (PDF)
Packet Pg. 21
___________________________
City Attorney
Approved as to form:

BID TABULATION SUMMARY SHEET
City of Cotati 2023 Pavement Preservation Project
Bid Opening Date: 8/30/22
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: Base = $873,825, Additive A = $79,000, Additive B = $267,600. Bidder #1 Bidder #2 Bidder #3 Bidder #4 Bidder #5 Bidder #6 Bay Pacific Pipeline Azul Works Terracon Construction Argonaut Ghilotti Construction Maggiora & Ghilotti Median Average Item # Estimated
Quantity Units Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Base Bid

1. Utility Clearances 1.00 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $31,668.00 $31,668.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,861.33 $40,861.33

2. Construct 12-inch Sanitary Sewer 469.00 LF $380.00 $178,220.00 $368.00 $172,592.00 $386.00 $181,034.00 $280.00 $131,320.00 $575.00 $269,675.00 $370.00 $173,530.00 $375.00 $175,875.00 $393.17 $184,395.17

3. Construct 10-inch Sanitary Sewer 748.00 LF $370.00 $276,760.00 $340.00 $254,320.00 $350.00 $261,800.00 $265.00 $198,220.00 $525.00 $392,700.00 $300.00 $224,400.00 $345.00 $258,060.00 $358.33 $268,033.33

4. Construct 8-inch Sanitary Sewer 480.00 LF $350.00 $168,000.00 $348.00 $167,040.00 $373.00 $179,040.00 $249.00 $119,520.00 $525.00 $252,000.00 $350.00 $168,000.00 $350.00 $168,000.00 $365.83 $175,600.00

5. Construct 60-inch Manhole 3.00 EA $9,000.00 $27,000.00 $22,000.00 $66,000.00 $19,656.00 $58,968.00 $18,000.00 $54,000.00 $18,000.00 $54,000.00 $19,750.00 $59,250.00 $18,828.00 $56,484.00 $17,734.33 $53,203.00

6. Construct 60-inch Manhole with Inside Drop 1.00 EA $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $22,221.00 $22,221.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $21,610.50 $21,610.50 $20,620.17 $20,620.17

7. Construct 48-inch Manhole 2.00 EA $6,500.00 $13,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $13,329.00 $26,658.00 $14,000.00 $28,000.00 $12,000.00 $24,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $13,664.50 $27,329.00 $13,471.50 $26,943.00

8. Construct New Service Lateral 15.00 EA $3,500.00 $52,500.00 $7,600.00 $114,000.00 $9,312.00 $139,680.00 $12,000.00 $180,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $9,656.00 $144,840.00 $8,735.33 $131,030.00

9. Connect to Existing 12-inch Sewer 1.00 EA $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $973.00 $973.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,578.83 $3,578.83

10. Connect to Existing 6-inch Sewer 6.00 EA $4,000.00 $24,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,923.00 $17,538.00 $3,000.00 $18,000.00 $1,500.00 $9,000.00 $1,500.00 $9,000.00 $2,961.50 $17,769.00 $2,987.17 $17,923.00

11. Water Fitting Thrust Restraint 3.00 EA $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $26,000.00 $78,000.00 $20,493.00 $61,479.00 $18,000.00 $54,000.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $17,748.83 $53,246.50

12. Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing 1.00 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $12,042.00 $12,042.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $57,000.00 $57,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $27,673.67 $27,673.67 Total $788,480.00 $1,041,952.00 $993,101.00 $898,060.00 $1,356,375.00 $940,680.00 $996,967.50 $1,003,108.00 Bidder #1 Bidder #2 Bidder #3 Bidder #4 Bidder #5 Bidder #6 Bay Pacific Pipeline Azul Works Terracon Construction Argonaut Ghilotti Construction Maggiora & Ghilotti Median Average Item # Estimated
Quantity Units Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Additive A Bid

1. Utility Clearances 1.00 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $8,467.00 $8,467.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $4,794.50 $4,794.50

2. Replace 60-inch Manhole with Inside Drop 1.00 EA $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $39,243.00 $39,243.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $29,707.17 $29,707.17

3. Replace Service Lateral 3.00 EA $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $7,600.00 $22,800.00 $10,496.00 $31,488.00 $16,000.00 $48,000.00 $18,000.00 $54,000.00 $11,000.00 $33,000.00 $10,748.00 $32,244.00 $11,099.33 $33,298.00

4. Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing 1.00 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $5,200.00 $5,200.00 $1,984.00 $1,984.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 $9,197.33 $9,197.33 Total $46,500.00 $62,800.00 $81,182.00 $88,000.00 $106,000.00 $77,500.00 $76,594.00 $76,997.00 Bidder #1 Bidder #2 Bidder #3 Bidder #4 Bidder #5 Bidder #6 Bay Pacific Pipeline Azul Works Terracon Construction Argonaut Ghilotti Construction Maggiora & Ghilotti Median Average Item # Estimated
Quantity Units Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Additive B Bid

1. Utility Clearances 1.00 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $10,655.00 $10,655.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $13,250.00 $13,250.00 $16,692.50 $16,692.50

2. Construct 8-inch Sanitary Sewer 464.00 LF $350.00 $162,400.00 $348.00 $161,472.00 $401.00 $186,064.00 $260.00 $120,640.00 $575.00 $266,800.00 $350.00 $162,400.00 $350.00 $162,400.00 $380.67 $176,629.33

3. Construct 6-inch Sanitary Sewer 28.00 LF $340.00 $9,520.00 $348.00 $9,744.00 $421.00 $11,788.00 $300.00 $8,400.00 $675.00 $18,900.00 $700.00 $19,600.00 $384.50 $10,766.00 $464.00 $12,992.00

4. Construct 48-inch Manhole 2.00 EA $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $13,328.00 $26,656.00 $18,000.00 $36,000.00 $13,000.00 $26,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $14,164.00 $28,328.00 $14,221.33 $28,442.67

5. Construct 60-inch Manhole with Inside Drop 1.00 EA $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $19,434.00 $19,434.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $21,905.67 $21,905.67

6. Construct New Service Lateral 3.00 EA $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,600.00 $22,800.00 $11,351.00 $34,053.00 $12,000.00 $36,000.00 $16,000.00 $48,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,675.50 $32,026.50 $9,908.50 $29,725.50

7. Connect to Existing 6-Inch Sewer 3.00 EA $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,993.00 $8,979.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $2,746.50 $8,239.50 $2,832.17 $8,496.50

8. Water Fitting Thrust Restraint 1.00 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $24,991.00 $24,991.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $33,500.00 $33,500.00 $25,500.00 $25,500.00 $24,581.83 $24,581.83

9. Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing 1.00 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $5,863.00 $5,863.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $22,727.17 $22,727.17 Total $235,920.00 $393,016.00 $328,483.00 $322,540.00 $454,200.00 $319,000.00 $327,510.00 $342,193.17 Total: $834,980.00 $1,104,752.00 $1,074,283.00 $986,060.00 $1,462,375.00 $1,018,180.00

9.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Bid Tab (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

9.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Bay Pacific Pipeline Proposal (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project) September 9, 2022
Craig Scott
City of Cotati
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, CA. 94931
Subject: Proposal for Construction Management Services
West Sierra Ave Sewer Replacement
Dear Craig:

The West Sierra Avenue Sewer Replacement project replaces the sewer in West Sierra Avenue from Olof Street to Water Road has been designed and the project is out to bid. It is understood that City desires Brelje and Race to provide a proposal for Construction Phase Services.

The project has been broken into three parts, the Base, Additive A, and Additive B. The Base includes replacement of approximately 1,700 lineal feet of sewer main including six intermediate manholes and fifteen laterals, Additive A includes replacement of one manhole and three laterals on existing sewer mains, and Additive B includes an additional 500 feet of sewer main, two additional intermediate sewer manholes, and three laterals. It is understood the City will award the Base plus Additive A.

Brelje and Race proposes to provide all required construction phase services generally described as comprehensive construction management services including construction observation. Brelje and Race will arrange for and conduct the preconstruction conference, review the contractors proposed schedule, review and process shop drawings, respond to RFI’s, provide construction staking, prepare and process any agreed-upon change orders, prepare and submit applications for payment to the City, perform daily construction observation and prepare daily reports, participate in the final inspection with City staff and prepare record drawings and forward them together with a photo log to the City.

Enclosed is an exhibit that shows our work hour and fee estimates for the proposed services. The requested budgets for the services, total $135,000. The work hours listed for construction observation assume a construction duration of not more than 55 working days.

9.c
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: 220909-CM Letter Proposal-revised (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project) Craig Scott
September 9, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

Please don’t hesitate to contact me should there be any questions regarding this proposal.

Very truly yours,

BRELJE & RACE
Brent Beazor
enclosures

9.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: 220909-CM Letter Proposal-revised (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project)

PHASE TASK DESCRIPTION
Associate
Principal
Engineer CAD
Technician
Construction
Engineer
Subconsultant ($)
Compaction
Testing 1.01 Project Management 36

1.02 Pre-Construction Conference 4 41.03 Schedule Review 41.04 Site Visits 4 41.05 Change Orders and RFI's 4 4 41.06 Shop Drawings 8 24 41.07 Applications for Payment 8 61.08 Progress Meeting 24 141.09 Construction Observation 440 $26,0001.10 Substantial Completion Notice 21.11 Record Drawings 2 4 81.12 Final Inspection 3 4 Subtotal 99 38 8 474 $26,000
Total Hours 99 38 8 474 $26,000
Hourly Rate $225 $175 $145 $165 N/A
Subtotal Cost $22,275 $6,650 $1,160 $78,210 $26,000
Construction PhaseTotal $135,000
Construction Phase Services
West Sierra Avenue Sewer Replacement Project
Base Plus Additive A
City of Cotati
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK HOUR ESTIMATE and COST TABULATION September 9, 2022

WORKHOURS

Page 1 of 1 ends

9.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: 220909-CM Letter Proposal-revised (Award W Sierra Sewer Replacement Project) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF
COTATI
Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Angela Courter, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the CalPERS contract with the City of Cotati to remove the exclusion language for persons compensated on an hourly basis.

Background
The City is required to administer the retirement plan in accordance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL). The contract provision excluding “persons compensated on an hourly basis” does not reflect the City’s current practice, predated current laws, and is inconsistent with PERL, and has resulted in confusion over previous years. Therefore, CalPERS has recommended that the City amend its contract to remove this contract provision. The recommendation to remove the exclusion language is intended as clean up and to simplify administration of the retirement plan by removing language that is obsolete.

On August 23, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to amend the City’s agreement with CalPERS to remove the contract exclusion for persons compensated on an hourly basis, approved the certification of compliance with Government Code Section 7507, and held the first reading of the proposed ordinance amending the CalPERS agreement.

Analysis/Discussion
The City of Cotati has contracted with CalPERS since January 1, 1969. The City administers the

9.C
Packet Pg. 51
retirement plan for all employees appointed to regular status positions. The current contract contains a provision excluding from CalPERS membership “persons compensated on an hourly basis.” The provision was originally included in the contract to exclude those extra help employees working in a temporary or seasonal capacity, therefore not eligible for the City’s benefit programs.

The City is required to administer the retirement plan in accordance with the PERL. Government Code section 20305 outlines the administration of the plan as it applies to Part Time employees and identifies conditions requiring immediate enrollment and those excluded. Section 20305(b) states that this section “shall supersede any contract provision excluding persons in any temporary or seasonal employment basis and shall apply only to persons entering employment on and after January 1, 1975. Section 20305b also states that “no contract or contract amendment entered into after January 1, 1981, shall contain any provision excluding person on an irregular employment basis.”
The City’s current practice regarding hourly employees complies with Government Code section 20305 and the City ensures employees hired on a part time basis are enrolled in CalPERS membership when they meet eligibility requirements. CalPERS performed an audit of the application of the provision and has recommended that the City amend the contract to remove the contract provision excluding “persons compensated on an hourly basis” from membership.

Government Code section 20503 permits an agency contracting with CalPERS to amend its contract to remove exclusions prospectively.

Financial Considerations
As outlined in the Exhibit Amendment to Contract, Item 6, removal of the exclusion does not mandate any new classes of employees into membership. Therefore, approval of the recommendation to approve the amendment to the contract and remove the exclusion is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact.

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 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

9.C
Packet Pg. 52
ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

COTATI AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AND THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT

SYSTEM TO REMOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISION EXCLUDING FROM
CALPERS MEMBERSHIP “PERSONS COMPENSATED ON AN HOURLY BASIS” PROSPECTIVELY, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 20305 AND 20503
WHEREAS, the action of revising a pension contract does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

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

SECTION 1. Recitals Made Findings. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct findings of the City Council of the City of Cotati SECTION 2. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Cotati and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.

SECTION 3. The City Manager of the City of Cotati is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days from its final passage.

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________
John Bakker, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 53
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. 54

EXHIBIT
California
Public Employees’ Retirement System

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
Between the
Board of Administration
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
and the
City Council
City of Cotati

The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 1, 1969, and witnessed October 16, 1969, and as amended effective June 1, 1981, July 1, 1983, November 14, 1986, December 25, 1987, August 12, 1995, October 15, 1998, May 16, 1999, July 1, 2002, October 1, 2007, and July 1, 2011, which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows:

A. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective July 1, 2011, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 19 inclusive:

1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. “Normal retirement age” shall mean age 55 for classic local miscellaneous members entering membership in the miscellaneous classification on or prior to July 1, 2011, age 60 for classic local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after July 1, 2011, age 62 for new local miscellaneous members, age 50 for classic local safety members, and age 57 for new local safety members.

9.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Exihbit - Amendment to Contract Btween the Board of Administration, CalPERS and City of Cotati (CalPERS Contract Amendment)

2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 1, 1969, making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency.

3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CalPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees’ Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorney fees that may arise as a result of any of the following:
(a) Public Agency’s election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency’s prior non-CalPERS retirement program.
(b) Any dispute, disagreement, claim, or proceeding (including without limitation arbitration, administrative hearing, or litigation) between Public Agency and its employees (or their representatives) which relates to Public Agency’s election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than such employees’ existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas.
(c) Public Agency’s agreement with a third party other than CalPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law.

4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement:
a. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members).

5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System:
a. FIRE FIGHTERS.

9.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Exihbit - Amendment to Contract Btween the Board of Administration, CalPERS and City of Cotati (CalPERS Contract Amendment)

6. Removal of the exclusion of “Persons Compensated On An Hourly Basis,” pursuant to Section 20503, is declarative of agency’s previous interpretation and does not mandate any new classes of employees into membership.

7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for classic local miscellaneous members in employment before and not on or after October 1, 2007, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to December 31, 1980, termination of Social Security, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified).

8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for classic local miscellaneous members in employment on or after October 1, 2007, and not entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after July 1, 2011, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to December 31, 1980, termination of Social Security, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2.7% at age 55 Full and Modified).

9. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited current service as a classic local miscellaneous member entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after July 1, 2011, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21353 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full).

10. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a new local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 7522.20 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 62 Full).

11. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a classic local safety member entering membership in the safety classification on or prior to July 1, 2011, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 50 Full).

12. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited current service as a classic local safety member entering membership for the first time in the safety classification after July 1, 2011, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full).

13. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a new local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 7522.25(d) of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 57 Full).

9.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Exihbit - Amendment to Contract Btween the Board of Administration, CalPERS and City of Cotati (CalPERS Contract Amendment)

14. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions:
a. Section 21572 (Increased Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only.
b. Section 20938 (Limit Prior Service to Members Employed on Contract Date) applicable to elected officials in office on November 14, 1986. c. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave).
d. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only.
e. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) for classic local miscellaneous members only.
f. Section 20475 (Different Level of Benefits): Section 21353 (2% @ 60 Full formula) is applicable to classic local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time with this agency in the miscellaneous classification after July 1, 2011.

Section 21362 (2% @ 50 Full formula) is applicable to classic local safety members entering membership for the first time with this agency in the safety classification after July 1, 2011.
g. Section 20503 (To Remove the Exclusion of "Persons Compensated On An Hourly Basis,” prospectively from the effective date of this amendment to contract).

15. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834, effective on June 1, 1981.

Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834.

16. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System.

17. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members.

9.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Exihbit - Amendment to Contract Btween the Board of Administration, CalPERS and City of Cotati (CalPERS Contract Amendment) b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.

18. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law.

19. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board.

B. This amendment shall be effective on the _____ day of _______________, ______.

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF COTATI
BY____________________________________ BY______________________________

MELODY BENAVIDES, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER

PENSION CONTRACTS AND PREFUNDING

PROGRAMS DIVISION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
________________________________
Witness Date
Attest:
________________________________
Clerk
AMENDMENT CalPERS ID #1533977406
PERS-CON-702A

9.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Exihbit - Amendment to Contract Btween the Board of Administration, CalPERS and City of Cotati (CalPERS Contract Amendment) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Sonoma State Police Dispatch Contract Extension Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an extension to the agreement with Sonoma State University for the police dispatch services.

Background
In 2017, the City negotiated with Sonoma State University (SSU) to take over their police dispatch services. In addition, SSU joined the Sonoma County Public Safety Consortium JPA (SCPSC), which enabled SSU officers to operate with the same County-wide public safety records and in-car system as the City of Cotati and most other cities in Sonoma County, as well as allow for seamless dispatch services.

In November 2017, the City Council approved an initial 5-year dispatch agreement with SSU.

By all accounts, this relationship has been beneficial to both SSU and Cotati in terms of better service and more seamless mutual aid for both communities. The extension of the agreement has substantially the same terms as the existing agreement, with minor changes for clarification, and an updated cost schedule.

Analysis/Discussion
Under the management of the Police Chief and command staff, the City’s police officers and dispatchers are highly respected by other agencies for their professionalism and regional cooperation. This laid the foundation for working together with SSU more closely on this agreement for the mutual benefit of both the City of Cotati and the SSU community.

The agreement resulted in our police dispatchers taking 911 calls from SSU, as well as police business line calls after hours (nights and weekends). As such, Cotati’s dispatch is SSU’s Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Related record duties are minimal and consist of providing 911 or business line call recordings to SSU, as requested. To facilitate the shared dispatch service, SSU moved their parking services to another division, which constituted the bulk of their call

9.D
Packet Pg. 60
volume. SSU continues to staff their police station during working hours to take calls, handle police records, and other related duties. This agreement did not affect police officer staffing at SSU and allows SSU police officers to spend more time in the field policing the campus.

The agreement will initially extend the agreement for another 5 years, with options for two additional 5-year extensions. This service allows for more officer time in the field for SSU, allow for seamless mutual aid for both communities, and allows for integrated services by our dispatchers and other Sonoma County law enforcement agencies, now that SSU is a member of the SCPSC. For example, their officers now have real-time access to the County-wide police record system and allow our dispatchers to electronically send information to officers in the field as they are supporting them via the radio.

While not typical in Sonoma County, joint or regional police dispatch centers such as this are common both state-wide and within the California State University System.

Financial Considerations
The annual revenue for the dispatch service is indicated below, which is used in part to support an additional officer and part time dispatch position.

FY 22-23 $193,865
FY 23-24 $200,650
FY 24-25 $207,673
FY 25-26 $214,941
FY 26-27 $222,464
Environmental Issues
The action of executing a police dispatch service agreement extension does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

9.D
Packet Pg. 61
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR POLICE

DISPATCH SERVICES TO SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-69, approving a 5-year agreement with Sonoma State University (SSU) to provide police dispatch services for the mutual benefit of the City of Cotati and the SSU community; and WHEREAS, in the FY 17/18 budget, the City Council included the addition of 1 new police officer to improve community safety in the City, contingent on the successful negotiation of the agreement with SSU; and
WHEREAS, in discussions with the Police Officers Association (POA), it was determined that the addition of a part time position to assist dispatchers would improve shift coverage during peak times, taking business line calls, and other ancillary duties such as records and public counter; and
WHEREAS, by all accounts, the dispatch of SSU has been successful and an improvement in service for SSU; and
WHEREAS, both the City and SSU desire to continue the relationship, including the close working relationship with SSU police, for the benefit of public safety in both communities; and
WHEREAS, the action of extending an existing service agreement for police dispatch services 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:

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute an extension to the agreement to provide dispatch services to SSU (Exhibits A-1, A-2), substantially in the form attached, subject to approval of the form by the City Attorney; and

2. As provided for in the agreement, authorizes the City Manager to execute two additional extensions with substantially the same terms and updated annual costs, subject to approval of the form by the City Attorney.

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 September 13th, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Packet Pg. 62
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Attachments:

Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (DOCX)
Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions(DOCX)
Packet Pg. 63

MASTER AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT NUMBER
MA 122381
AM. NO.

SERVICE PROVIDER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1
st day of October, 2022 in the State of California, by and between the Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in a higher education capacity, through its duly appointed and acting officer, hereinafter called University and SERVICE PROVIDER’S NAME
City of Cotati , hereafter called City,
WITNESSETH: That the City for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulation of the University hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the University services and materials as follows:

University and the City, agrees to enter into a 5-year agreement for Police Dispatch Services for University Police department located on the Sonoma State University campus at 1801 E. Cotati Ave, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. Services to be provided by the Cotati Police Department, which is located at 203 West Sierra Avenue in Cotati, CA 94931. Services are provided in accordance with the following documents, all of which by reference are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement.

Rider A – Scope of Service; consisting of six (6) pages; Exhibit A – Service Cost; consisting of one (1) page;
Rider B – CSU General Provisions for Service Acquisitions dated 05/15/2020; consisting of fourteen (14) pages.

The term of this Agreement shall be effective from October 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027, with two (2) five- year options to renew upon mutual consent of both parties.

University contact for this service is Nader Oweis, Chief of Police.

Amendments and extensions to this Agreement may be made by mutual agreement in writing by both parties. No alterations or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

Upon completion of services in a manner satisfactory to the University, and upon receipt of approved invoice(s) by the Accounts Payable Department, the University agrees to pay City in accordance with the payment terms described in Exhibit A. Invoice must reference this Agreement in order for payment to occur without delay.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written.

UNIVERSITY CITY
Sonoma State University City of Cotati

BY (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE) DATE
➢

PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING
Ming-Lan Sun
Manager of Contracts and Procurement

PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING
Damien O’Bid
City Manager

ADDRESS
1801 E. Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928

ADDRESS
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
CRL018 – 02/13/14

9.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Agreement No MA122381
Rider A Scope of Service

Page 2 of 6 ends

1. Duties of the City: The City agrees to provide police dispatch services for Sonoma State University Police from the Cotati Police Department, located at 203 West Sierra Avenue in Cotati, California. These services shall include the following:

1.1 Emergency Telephone: City will receive and process all emergency telephone calls, including those received on 9-1-1 telephone lines, transferred by way of the police business line when police response is needed, and calls received on the Direct Dispatch telephone line (see 1.2).

All requests for police response will be received and processed by the City for incidents within the University jurisdiction.

1.2 Direct Dispatch Line: The University shall maintain an unpublished ten digit dispatch telephone number to be used as an alternate means to reach a police dispatcher. The direct dispatch number will not be published to the public but will be made available to law enforcement, EMS, and fire agencies and to designated critical University personnel.

The University will take all necessary actions to prevent the direct dispatch number from publishing to the public.

1.3 Business Telephone Line: The University will provide staffing for nonemergency and business calls Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., excluding University holidays, campus-wide closures and extraordinary circumstances when University personnel are not available to answer the call, in which cases a phone tree shall be in place to mitigate non-emergency and business calls to the City’s 911 dispatch center. SSU will notify City Police Dispatch at 707.792.4611 in advance when SSU personnel are not available to answer non-emergency and business line calls Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. If the business telephone system is not sufficiently mitigating non-emergency calls to the City, the liaison officers for the City and University agree to meet to resolve the issue.

A list of campus holidays and scheduled closures will be provided to the City by the University prior to July 1 annually for the period between July 1 and June 30. The City may refer calls regarding inquiries regarding records, police administration, case follow-up, or other matters that do not require the response of a police officer, to the non-emergency line.

The City may refer non-emergency calls, record requests, inquiries or other matters that do not require the response of an officer or dispatcher to the business line or voicemail.

1.4 Calls for Police Service: A call for Police service is defined as being any incident reported to the City requiring the City to dispatch a member of Sonoma State Police to provide police/law enforcement service and/or emergency medical or fire response by way of REDCOM; or any incident initiated by a member of Sonoma State Police requiring the City to have radio/phone communication with the reporting member. The City will provide all communications and dispatch services associated with calls for Police service. This is to include but is not limited to receiving and

9.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Agreement No MA122381
Rider A Scope of Service

Page 3 of 6 ends

dispatching calls for service, tracking agency personnel, incidents, obtaining and providing information for responding personnel, and entries into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS).

1.5 Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System: The City shall provide dispatch services utilizing a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) provided by the Sonoma County Public Safety Consortium Joint Powers Authority (hereinafter the “Consortium”). The University will remain a member of the Consortium for the duration of this Agreement, unless both parties mutually agree to an alternate CAD/RMS system. The acquisition of any potential alternate system will be the sole responsibility of the City. The University will be consulted in any such procurement.

1.6 CAD/RMS Data: The City agrees not to release any information from the CAD/RMS system to any third party without prior written authorization from the University, except that the City may release information that describes any City operational activity from the CAD incidents generated for University police response; provided, however, that the parties acknowledge that the City may be obligated to release certain information pursuant to the California Public Records Act, subpoena, or court order. In the event that such request, subpoena or order is received by the City, the City shall promptly notify the University.

1.7 Other Data: The University retains responsibility for the maintenance and release of all data and information not covered in 1.6. The City will maintain audio logs from the radio and telephone systems. Generally, records request for recorded information for University incidents will originate with the University, which will request the information from the City. All recordings remain the property of the City and the City may release recorded data for the University pursuant to their department policy.

1.8 Records: The University is responsible for all public records requests, record keeping and management, Department of Justice statistics reporting and Uniform Crime Reporting, Clery Act reporting, and all other data and reporting.

2. OPERATIONAL ISSUES

2.1 Policies and Procedures: The University is responsible for establishing policies, practices and procedures on dispatching services in conjunction with the City. Notwithstanding University-specific operational needs, dispatching protocols will be those used and exercised by the City. The City and the University will follow said policies, practices and procedures in the administration of dispatch service pursuant to this Agreement.

2.2 Communications Liaison: Each department will designate a Communications Liaison to serve as the primary point of contact for matters related to dispatch procedures and protocols. The Liaisons will meet, at minimum, twice per year, to review dispatch services.

9.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Agreement No MA122381
Rider A Scope of Service

Page 4 of 6 ends

2.3 Materials & Resources: The University will provide the City with materials or access to materials that are reasonably necessary for public safety communications. This may include, but is not limited to, maps, directories, emergency call out lists, and/or officer rosters.

2.4 Conflict Resolution: The supervisory personnel from the University Watch Commander (Officer in Charge) should attempt to resolve problems involving dispatch by contacting the City Watch Commander (Officer in Charge) on duty as soon as possible. Any unresolved or repetitive problems should be referred to the liaison officer for each agency as soon as practical.

2.5 Disaster and Emergency Operations: The City dispatch center will be the primary point for dispatching day to day emergencies. In the event the University Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated, there may be a need to modify how incidents are handled, especially for a largescale event which has truly exhausted local resources. The details of the interaction between the City and the University EOC will be communicated by the University Police Department to the City.

2.6 Special Events: Whenever possible, the University will notify the City of any planned special events that are expected to significantly impact dispatch operations at least thirty (30) days in advance. If extra personnel are reasonably required to handle the unusual workload caused by a special event, the University agrees to reimburse the City for the direct cost. The hourly rate for such services will be quoted for direct expenses from the City upon request and may be updated as direct costs change.

Whether extra personnel are reasonably required and the cost thereof shall be reviewed and agreed to by City and University in advance of the event. The University will maintain a local UHF radio channel to be used for event and other non-routine radio traffic. That channel may be monitored by the City, pursuant to operating protocols.

3. LEVEL OF SERVICE

3.1 Level of Service: The City shall provide twenty-four (24) hour per day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year, Police Communications Services as set forth in this Agreement, on a date and time mutually agreed upon by both parties, not to commence prior to the execution of this Agreement.

9.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Agreement No MA122381
Rider A Scope of Service

Page 5 of 6 ends

3.2 Staffing: The City agrees to provide adequate staffing levels necessary to provide Police Communications Services to the University. Staffing is to be set at a minimum of one dispatcher twenty-four (24) hours a day.

Staffing levels may be reevaluated at the request of the University or by the City based on operational data or observations of activity levels.

Changes in minimum staffing that are deemed to be a result of sizable increases in the activity of the University may result in an increase to the annual fee to exceed the fee schedule as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and must be mutually agreed upon prior to increase.

4. PROVISION OF SUPERVISION, LABOR, ANDEQUIPMENT

4.1 Supervision: The responsibility of supervision of communications services at the City, hiring of personnel, establishing standards of performance, assignment of personnel, determining and effecting discipline, determining training required, maintaining personnel files, and other matters relating to the performance of services and control of personnel, shall remain with the City. The City shall comply with the requirements of the California Commission on Police Officers’ Standards and Training in the selection, hiring, and training of dispatch personnel.

4.2 Labor and Equipment: For the purpose of performing said services, the City shall furnish and supply all labor, supervision, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered hereunder.

4.3 University Responsibility: The City shall not be responsible for loss of service or access to the University’s telephone or radio systems due to circumstances beyond the City’s control, including, but not limited to, disasters or critical incidents, malfunction or nonoperation of the radio repeaters, telephone or data issues, or problems with other radio or telephone connections that the City does not control. The City is expected to notify the University as soon as reasonable upon discovery of any such issue that is unknown to the University.

Any equipment or materials required on the campus of the University, including any new or upgraded equipment needed for this contract service, shall be the sole responsibility of the University for the procurement, care, maintenance, and repair. In the event that City chooses to upgrade equipment that materially affects the University during the contract, the University must be consulted prior to upgrading the equipment.

5. COST FOR SERVICE

5.1 Payment Basis: The University shall pay for such service or services as are required, requested and provided under this agreement at the rates described in Exhibit A “Service Costs”. Services rendered for less than

9.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Agreement No MA122381
Rider A Scope of Service

Page 6 of 6 ends

one year, beginning July 1 and ending June 30, shall be calculated as indicated in Exhibit A, using the then-current prorated annual cost.

5.2 Establishment of Costs: Costs for the term of this Agreement, unless otherwise mutually agreed by the City and the University, are established in Exhibit A. The initial fee was based on proportion of activity for the University as compared to the City. If University activity during the course of this Agreement is significantly changed, the City may request reevaluation of calls for service and telephone call data. Changes to the fee must be based upon mutual agreement.

6. RIGHT TO AUDIT

6.1 Upon reasonable notice, either party shall have the right to inspect and audit any records maintained by the other party relevant to this Agreement, to the extent allowed by law.

7. INTERNAL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS

7.1 If requested by the City or the University, an internal memorandum may be entered into by and between said parties, with respect to questions relating to the provision of service under this Agreement. The memorandum will set forth the question raised and agreements reached in resolution of the question. The intent and purpose of each such memorandum shall be to administratively implement, interpret, or clarify one or more provisions of this Agreement. No such memorandum shall have the effect of amending this Agreement unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such memorandum and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.

8. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORD ACT

8.1 City acknowledges that University is a State of California agency acting in its higher education capacity and is subject to California Public Records Act, as is the City.

9.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2)

Page 1 of 1 ends

AGREEMENT MA 122381

EXHIBIT A
Service Costs
The cost for service fee schedule as defined in the Agreement is as follows:

FY 22-23 $193,865
FY 23-24 $200,650
FY 24-25 $207,673
FY 25-26 $214,941
FY 26-27 $222,464
Partial charges (Hourly/weekly/monthly) with respect to Section 13 of Rider B – CSU General Provisions (Cancellation), if applicable. Calculations based on total annual fee divided by 8,760 annual hours, 52 weeks, and 12 months, respectively. Hourly calculations not applicable for recovery of direct costs pursuant to Section 2.6 (Special Events) by the City. Charges for Special Events will be based on direct cost for personnel.

The City will provide the University invoices monthly. Any additional payments due, including those for hourly services, will be invoiced at least quarterly with Net 30 payment terms.

Invoices shall be sent to:

Sonoma State University
Attn: Chief of Police
1801 E. Cotati Ave
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Upon completion of services in a manner satisfactory to the University, and upon receipt of approved invoice(s) by the Accounts Payable Department, the University agrees to pay City in accordance with the payment terms described above. Invoice must reference this Agreement in order for payment to occur without delay.

9.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2)

CSU GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SERVICE ACQUISITIONS
Revised 10/15/14
8 9.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit A-1: SSU-Cotati Disptach Agreement (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Rider B – MA 122381

1. Commencement of Work
Contractor shall not commence work under the Contract until Contractor has received a fully executed Contract and been given written approval to proceed. Any work performed by Contractor prior to the date of approval shall be considered as having been performed at Contractor’s own risk and as a volunteer.

2. Contract Alterations & Integration
No alteration or variation of the Contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in writing in the Contract shall be binding on any of the Parties hereto.

3. Severability
Contractor and CSU agree that if any provision of this Contract is found to be illegal or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be deemed stricken and the remainder of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. Either Party having knowledge of such term or provision shall promptly inform the other of its presumed non-applicability of such provision. Should the illegal or unenforceable provision be a material or essential term of the Contract, the Contract shall be terminated in a manner commensurate with the interests of both Parties, to the maximum extent reasonable.

4. Independent Status
Contractor and its employees and agents, and subcontractors, in the performance of this Contract, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of CSU or the State of California. While Contractor may be required by this Contract to carry Worker’s Compensation Insurance, in no event shall Contractor and its employees and agents be entitled to unemployment or workers’ compensation benefits from CSU.

5. Governing Law
To the extent not inconsistent with applicable federal law, this Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California.

6. Contractor's Power and Authority
The parties warrant it each has full power and authority to enter into this Contract and will hold the other party harmless from and against any loss, cost, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorney fees) arising out of any breach of this warranty. Further, neither party shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract with any third party that might abridge any rights of the other party under this Contract.

7. Assignments
Contractor shall not assign this Contract, either in whole or in part, without CSU’s written consent, which will not be unreasonably withheld.

8. Personnel
Contractor shall give its personal attention to the performance of the Contract and shall make every effort consistent with sound business practices to honor CSU’s requests regarding Contractor’s assignment of its employees. However, Contractor maintains the sole right to determine the assignment of its employees in order to keep all phases of work under its control. If an employee of Contractor is unable to perform due to illness, resignation or other factors beyond Contractor’s control, Contractor shall use its best effort to provide suitable substitute personnel.

9. Waiver of Rights
Any action or inaction by either party or the failure of either party on any occasion to enforce any right or provision of this Contract shall not be a waiver by said party of its rights hereunder and shall not prevent said party from enforcing such provision or right on any future occasion. The parties’ rights and remedies provided in this Contract shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

10. Time
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract.

9.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 2 of 14

11. Entire Contract
This Contract sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall govern the respective duties and obligations of each Party.

12. Appropriation of Funds
(a) If the term of this Contract extends into fiscal years subsequent to that in which it is approved, such continuation of the Contract is subject to the appropriation of funds for such purpose by the Legislature. If funds to effect such continued payment are not appropriated, Contractor agrees to take back any commodities furnished under the Contract and not yet paid for by CSU, terminate any future services and commodities to be supplied to the CSU under the Contract, and relieve the CSU of any further obligation therefore. (b) CSU agrees that if provision (a) above is involved, commodities shall be returned to Contractor in substantially the same condition in which they were delivered, subject to normal wear and tear. CSU further agrees to pay for packing, crating, transportation to Contractor's nearest facility and for reimbursement to Contractor for expenses incurred for its assistance in such packing and crating.

13. Cancellation
Except as otherwise specifically noted herein, either party may cancel this agreement upon 365-day notice in writing to the other party. However, the parties agree that in such cancellation they will work together to avoid a detrimental impact on public safety during the transition.

14. Termination for Default
CSU may terminate the Contract and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor should Contractor fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination, the CSU may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the CSU. The cost to the CSU shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under the Contract, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Contractor upon demand.

15. Rights and Remedies of CSU for Default
(a) In the event any Deliverables furnished or services provided by Contractor in the performance of this Contract should fail to conform to the requirements herein, or to the sample submitted by Contractor, CSU may reject the same, and it shall thereupon become Contractor’s duty to forthwith reclaim and remove all nonconforming deliverables and correct the performance of services, without expense to the CSU, and to immediately replace all such rejected items with others conforming to the specifications or samples. Should Contractor fail, neglect, or refuse to do so, CSU shall thereupon have the right, but not the obligation, to purchase in the open market, in lieu thereof, a corresponding quantity of any such items and to deduct the cost of such cover from any moneys due or that may thereafter become due to Contractor.
(b) In the event Contractor fails to make prompt delivery of any item as specified in the Contract, the same conditions as to CSU’s right, but not obligation, to purchase in the open market and receive reimbursement from Contractor, as set forth in (a), above shall apply.
(c) In the CSU terminates this Contract, either in whole or in part, for Contractor’s default or breach, Contractor shall compensate CSU, in addition to any other remedy CSU may have available to it, for any loss or damage sustained and cost incurred by the CSU in procuring any items that Contractor agreed to supply. (d) CSU’s rights and remedies provided above shall not be exclusive and shall be in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law, equity or this Contract.

16. Warranty
Contractor warrants that
(i) deliverables and services furnished hereunder will conform to the requirements of this Contract (including, without limitation, all descriptions, specifications, and drawings identified in the Statement of Work, if any), and
(ii) the deliverables will be free from defects in materials and workmanship. Where the Parties have agreed to design specifications in the Statement of Work directly or by reference, Contractor warrants the deliverables shall provide all functionality required thereby.

17. Safety and Accident Prevention
In performing work under this Contract on CSU premises, Contractor shall conform to all specific safety requirements contained in this Contract or as required by law or regulation. Contractor shall take all additional precautions as the

9.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 3 of 14
CSU may reasonably require for safety and accident prevention purposes. Contractor’s violation of such rules and requirements, unless promptly corrected, shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

18. Insurance Requirements
The Contractor shall not commence Work until it has obtained all the insurance required in this Contract, and such insurance has been approved by the CSU.
(a) Policies and Coverage.
(1) The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the following policies and coverage:
(i) Comprehensive or Commercial Form General Liability Insurance, on an occurrence basis, covering Work done or to be done by or on behalf of the Contractor and providing insurance for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, and contractual liability. The aggregate limit shall apply separately to the Work.
(ii) Business Automobile Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis, covering owned, hired, and nonowned automobiles used by or on behalf of the Contractor and providing insurance for bodily injury, property damage, and contractual liability. Such insurance shall include coverage for uninsured and underinsured motorists
(iii) Worker's Compensation including Employers Liability Insurance as required by law. (2) The Contractor also may be required to obtain and maintain the following policies and coverage:
(i) Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance should the Work involve hazardous materials, such as asbestos,
lead, fuel storage tanks, and PCBs.
(ii) Other Insurance by agreement between the Trustees and the Contractor. (b) Verification of Coverage.

The Contractor shall submit original certificates of insurance and endorsements to the policies of insurance required by the Contract to the Trustees as evidence of the insurance coverage. Renewal certifications and endorsements shall be timely filed by the Contractor for all coverage until the Work is accepted as complete. The Trustees reserve the right to require the Contractor to furnish the Trustees complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies. (c) Insurance Provisions.

Nothing in these insurance provisions shall be deemed to alter the indemnification provisions in this Agreement. The insurance policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions. (1) For the general and automobile liability policies, the State of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the University, their officers, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents are to be covered as additional insureds.
(2) For any claims related to the Work, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the State of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the University, their officers, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the State of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the University, their officers, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents shall be in excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Each insurance policy required by this section shall state that coverage shall not be canceled by either the Contractor or the insurance carrier, except after thirty (30) Days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Trustees.
(4) The State of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the University, their officers, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents shall not by reason of their inclusion as additional insureds incur liability to the insurance carriers for payment of premiums for such insurance. (d) Amount of Insurance.
(1) For all projects, the insurance furnished by Contractor under this Agreement shall provide coverage in amounts not less than the following, unless a different amount is stated in the Supplementary General Conditions:
(i) Comprehensive or Commercial Form General Liability Insurance--Limits of Liability $2,000,000 General Aggregate
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence--combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. (ii) Business Automobile Liability Insurance-Limits of Liability $1,000,000 Each Accident-- combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage to include uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
(iii) Workers’ Compensation limits as required by law with Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000.

9.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 4 of 14
(2) For projects involving hazardous materials, the Contractor shall provide additional coverage in amounts not less than the following, unless a different amount is stated in the Supplementary General Conditions:
(i) Environmental Impairment (pollution) Liability Insurance-Limits of Liability $10,000,000 General Aggregate
$ 5,000,000 Each Occurrence-- combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including cleanup costs.
(ii) In addition to the coverage for Business Automobile Liability Insurance, the Contractor shall obtain for hazardous material transporter services:
(a) MCS-90 endorsement
(b) Sudden & Accidental Pollution endorsement--Limits of Liability* $2,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
*A higher limit on the MCS-90 endorsement required by law must be matched by the Sudden & Accidental Pollution Insurance.

With the Trustees’ approval, the Contractor may delegate the responsibility to provide this additional coverage to its hazardous materials subcontractor. When the Contractor returns its signed project construction phase agreement to the Trustees, the Contractor shall also provide the Trustees with a letter stating that it is requiring its hazardous materials subcontractor to provide this additional coverage, if applicable. The Contractor shall affirm in this letter that the hazardous materials subcontractor’s certificate of insurance shall also adhere to all CSU requirements. Further, this letter will provide that the subcontractor’s certificate of insurance will be provided to the Trustees as soon as the Contractor fully executes its subcontract with the hazardous materials subcontractor, or within 30 Days of the Notice to Proceed, whichever is less.
(e) Acceptability of Insurers.

Insurers shall be licensed by the State of California to transact insurance and shall hold a current A.M. Best’s rating of A:VII, or shall be a carrier otherwise acceptable to the University. (f) Subcontractor’s Insurance.

Contractor shall ensure that its subcontractors are covered by insurance of the types required by this Contract, and that the amount of insurance for each subcontractor is appropriate for that subcontractor’s Work. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence Work on its subcontract until the insurance has been obtained, and approved by the CSU. Only the Contractor and its hazardous materials subcontractor(s) shall have the coverage for projects involving hazardous materials.
(g) Miscellaneous.
(1) Any deductible under any policy of insurance required in this Contract shall be Contractor’s liability. (2) Acceptance of certificates of insurance by the Trustees shall not limit the Contractor’s liability under the Contract.
(3) In the event the Contractor does not comply with these insurance requirements, the Trustees may, at its option, provide insurance coverage to protect the Trustees. The cost of the insurance shall be paid by the Contractor and, if prompt payment is not received, may be deducted from Contract sums otherwise due the Contractor.
(4) If the Trustees are damaged by the failure of Contractor to provide or maintain the required insurance, the Contractor shall pay the Trustees for all such damages. (5) The Contractor’s obligations to obtain and maintain all required insurance are non-delegable duties under this Contract.
(6) The Contractor’s liability for damages proximately caused by acts of God (as defined in Public Contract Code section 7105) and not involving Contractor negligence shall be limited to five percent of the Contract.

19. General Indemnity

Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California, Board of Trustees of the California State University, CSU, and their respective officers, agents and employees (“CSU Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, suits, actions, proceedings, civil penalties and fines, expenses and costs (including, without limitation, claims expenses, attorney's fees, and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, “Liabilities”) of every nature, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to the extent arising out of or in connection with the negligence,

9.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 5 of 14
recklessness, or willful misconduct of City, or its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers, in the performance of this Agreement.

CSU shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all Liabilities of every nature, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to the extent arising out of or in connection with the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CSU Indemnitees in the performance of this Agreement.

20. Invoices
Invoices shall be submitted, in arrears, to the address stipulated in the Contract. The Contract number must be included on the invoice. Final invoice shall be marked as such. (a) In the event that additional services are required, the Contractor shall submit invoices in accordance with provisions herein.
(b) For work of a continuing nature, the Contractor shall submit invoices in arrears, upon completion of each phase. Contractor shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence and business expenses necessary for the performance of services pursuant to the Contract in accordance with CSU policy. (c) Unless otherwise specified, the CSU shall pay properly submitted invoices not more than 45 days after (i) the performance completion date of services; or
(ii) receipt of an undisputed invoice, whichever is later. Late payment penalties shall not apply to this Contract.
(d) The consideration to be paid Contractor, as described within the Contract, shall be in full compensation for all of Contractor’s expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

21. Document Referencing
All correspondence, invoices, bills of lading, shipping memos, packages, etc., must show the Contract number. If factory shipment, the factory must be advised to comply. Invoices not properly identified with the Contract number and Contractor identification number may be returned to Contractor and may cause delay in payment.

22. Use of Data
Contractor shall not utilize any non-public CSU information it may receive by reason of this Contract, for pecuniary gain not contemplated by this Contract, regardless whether Contractor is or is not under contract at the time such gain is realized. CSU specific information contained in the report, survey, or other product developed by Contractor pursuant to this Contract is the property of CSU, and shall not be used in any manner by Contractor unless authorized in writing by CSU.

23. Confidentiality of Data
(a) Contractor acknowledges the privacy rights of individuals to their personal information that are expressed in the Information Practices Act (California Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.) and in California Constitution Article 1, Section

1. Contractor shall maintain the privacy of personal information and protected data as confidential information.

Contractor shall not use, disclose, or release confidential information contained in CSU records without full compliance with applicable state and federal privacy laws, and this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges and agrees to comply with Federal privacy laws, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 6801(b) and 6805(b)(2)) applicable to financial transactions, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Title 20, United States Code, Section 1232g) applicable to student education records and information from student education records. Contractor shall maintain the privacy of confidential information and shall be financially responsible for any notifications to affected persons (after prompt consultation with CSU) whose personal information is disclosed by any security breach relating to confidential information resulting from Contractor’s or its personnel’s acts or omissions. Further, If so requested by CSU, Contractor shall be administratively responsible for providing such notification in the most expedient time possible consistent with the methods prescribed in California Civil Code 1798.29g and 1798.82g.
(b) Contractor further agrees that all financial, statistical, personal, technical and other data and information relating to CSU's operation designated “confidential” by CSU, and not otherwise subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and made available to Contractor to perform this Contract or which become available to Contractor while performing this Contract, shall be protected by Contractor using the same level of care it takes to protect its own

9.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 6 of 14
information of a similar nature, but in no event less than reasonable care. If required by a court of competent jurisdiction or an appropriate administrative body with legal authority to order the disclosure of confidential information or protected data, Contractor will notify CSU in writing prior to any such disclosure to give CSU an opportunity to oppose any such disclosure. Prior to any disclosure of confidential information as required by legal process, Contractor shall: (1) Notify CSU of any actual or threatened legal compulsion of disclosure, and any actual legal obligation of disclosure, immediately upon becoming so obligated; and (c) Contractor shall cooperate with any litigation or investigation proceedings concerning protected data loss or other breach of Contractor’s obligations under this Contract. Any access, transmission, or storage of protected data outside the United States must be approved in writing by CSU in advance. Contractor’s failure to comply with any provision of this Section shall constitute a material breach of the Contract.

24. Information Security Requirements
(a) Contractor is required to comply with CSU Information Security Requirements as described in Rider A, Supplemental Provisions for General Provisions for Service Acquisitions, attached hereto and by reference made a part of this agreement.
(b) Information Security Plan
Contractor is required to maintain an Information Security Plan sufficient to protect the sensitive and/or confidential CSU data to which they have access. Requirements for the Information Security Plan are described in Rider A. (c) Personal Security Requirements
Contractor shall require all its affiliates and subcontractors, as a condition to their engagement, to agree to be bound by provisions substantially the same as those included in this Agreement related to information security matters only.

Contractor shall not knowingly permit a representative or subcontractor to have access to CSU records, confidential data, or premises of the CSU when such representative or subcontractor has been convicted of a felony.

25. Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secret Indemnity
(a) Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California, Board of Trustees of the California State University, CSU, and their respective officers, agents, and employees (collectively referred to as CSU), from any and all third-party claims, costs (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees), and losses for infringement or violation of any Intellectual Property Right, domestic or foreign, by any product or service provided hereunder. With respect to claims arising from computer Hardware or Software manufactured by a third party and sold by Contractor as a reseller, Contractor will pass through to CSU, in addition to the foregoing provision, such indemnity rights as it receives from such third party (“Third-Party Obligation”) and will cooperate in enforcing them; provided that if the third-party manufacturer fails to honor the Third-Party Obligation, Contractor will provide CSU with indemnity protection.
(i) CSU will notify Contractor of such claim in writing and tender its defense within a reasonable time; and (ii)Contractor will control the defense of any action on such claim and all negotiations for its settlement or compromise, except when substantial principles of government or public law are involved, when litigation might create precedent affecting future CSU operations or liability, or when involvement of the CSU is otherwise mandated by law. In such case no settlement shall be entered into on behalf of CSU without CSU’s written approval.
(b) Contractor may be required to furnish CSU a bond against any and all loss, damage, costs, expenses, claims and liability for patent, copyright and trade secret infringement. (c) Should the Deliverables or Software, or the operation thereof, become, or in the Contactor’s opinion are likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement or violation of a Intellectual Property Right, whether domestic or foreign, CSU shall permit Contractor at its option and expense either to procure for CSU the right to continue using the Deliverables or Software or to replace or modify the same so they become non-infringing, provided they comply with Contract and performance requirements and/or expectations. If neither option can reasonably practicable or if the use of such Deliverables or Software by CSU shall be prevented by injunction, Contractor agrees to take back such Deliverables or Software and use its best effort to assist CSU in procuring substitute Deliverables or Software at Contractors cost and expense. If, in the sole opinion of CSU, the return of such infringing Deliverables or Software makes the retention of other Deliverables or Software acquired from Contractor under this Contract impracticable, CSU shall then have the option of terminating this Contract, or applicable portions thereof, without penalty or termination charge. Contractor agrees to take back such Deliverables or Software and refund any sums CSU paid Contractor less any reasonable amount for use or damage.

9.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 7 of 14
(d) Contractor certifies it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure State funds will not be used in the performance of this Contract for the acquisition, operation or maintenance of computer Software in violation of copyright laws.

26. Rights in Work Product
All inventions, discoveries, intellectual property, technical communications and records originated or prepared by Contractor pursuant to this Contract, including papers, reports, charts, computer programs, and other Documentation or improvements thereto, and including Contractor's administrative communications and records relating to this Contract (collectively, the "Work Product"), shall be Contractor's exclusive property. The provisions of this section may be revised in a Statement of Work. The provisions of this sub-section a) may be revised in a Statement of Work. However, all finished product or deliverables required under this contract shall be the exclusive property of the CSU and may be used at CSU’s discretion.

27. Examination and Audit
For contracts in excess of $10,000, Contractor shall be subject to the examination and audit by:
(a) the Office of the University Auditor, and
(b) the California State Auditor, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Contract. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of the contract, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering the Contract. Note: Authority Cited: Government Code Section 8546.7; Education Code Section 89045 (c&d), respectively.

28. Dispute
Any dispute arising under or resulting from this Contract that is not resolved within 60 days of time by authorized representatives of Contractor and CSU shall be brought to the attention of Contractor’s Chief Executive Officer (or designee) and CSU’s Chief Business Officer (or designee) for resolution. Either Contractor or CSU may request that the CSU Vice Chancellor, Business and Finance (or designee) participate in the dispute resolution process to provide advice regarding CSU contracting policies and procedures. If this informal dispute resolution process is unsuccessful, the Parties may pursue all remedies not inconsistent with this Contract. Despite an unresolved dispute, Contractor shall continue without delay in performing its responsibilities under this Contract. Contractor shall accurately and adequately document all service it has performed under this Contract.

29. Conflict of Interest
CSU requires a Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) to be filed by any Consultant (or Contractor) who is involved in the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any CSU financial interest.

30. Follow-On Contracts
No person, firm, or subsidiary thereof who has been awarded a contract for Consulting Services or providing Direction (as
provided below) may submit be awarded a contract for the provision of services, or any other related action that is required,
suggested, or otherwise deemed appropriate in the end product of the consulting services contract. (a) If Contractor or its affiliates provides Consulting and Direction, Contractor and its affiliates:
(i) shall not be awarded a subsequent Contract to supply the service or system, or any significant component thereof, that is used for, or in connection with, any subject of such Consulting and Direction; and (ii) shall not act as consultant to any person or entity that does receive a Contract described in sub-section (i).

This prohibition will continue for one (1) year after termination of this Contract or completion of the Consulting and Direction, whichever is later.
(b) “Consulting and Direction” means services for which Contractor received compensation from CSU and includes:
(i) development of, or assistance in the development, of work statements, specifications, solicitations, or feasibility studies;
(ii) development or design of test requirements;
(iii) evaluation of test data;
(iv) direction of or evaluation of another Contractor;
(v) provision of formal recommendations regarding the acquisition of products or services; or

9.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 8 of 14
(vi) provisions of formal recommendations regarding any of the above. For purposes of this Section, “affiliates” are employees, directors, partners, joint venture participants, parent corporations, subsidiaries, or any other entity controlled by, controlling, or under common control with Contractor. Control exists when an entity owns or directs more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or securities representing the right to vote for the election of directors or other managing authority. (c) Except as prohibited by law, the restrictions of this Section will not apply:
(i) to follow-on advice given by vendors of commercial off-the-shelf products, including Software and Hardware, on the operation, integration, repair, or maintenance of such products after sale; or (ii) where CSU has entered into a Contract for Software or services and the scope of work at the time of Contract execution expressly calls for future recommendations among the Contractor’s own products. (d) The restrictions set forth in this Section are in addition to conflict of interest restrictions imposed on public Contractors by California law (“Conflict Laws”). In the event of any inconsistency, such Conflict Laws override the provisions of this Section, even if enacted after execution of this Contract.

31. Endorsement
Nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed as conferring on any Party, any right to use the other Party’s name as an endorsement of product/service or to advertise, promote or otherwise market any product or service without the prior written consent of the other Party. Furthermore, nothing in this Contract shall be construed as endorsement of any commercial product or service by the CSU, its officers or employees.

32. Covenant Against Gratuities
Contractor shall warrant that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by Contractor, or any agent or representative of Contractor, to any officer or employee of CSU with a view toward securing the Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, CSU shall have the right to terminate the Contract, either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by CSU in procuring on the open market any items that Contractor agreed to supply shall be borne and paid for solely by Contractor. CSU’s rights and remedies provided in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law, equity or under the Contract.

33. Nondiscrimination
(a) During the performance of this Contract, Contractor and its subcontractors shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass or allow harassment, against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, sexual orientation, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, disability (including HIV and AIDS), medical condition, age, marital status, and denial of family care leave. Contractor and subcontractors shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. (b) Contractor and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12990 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 (a f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are incorporated into this Contract by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Contractor and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (c) Contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Contract.

34. Compliance with NLRB Orders
Contractor declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that no more than one final, unappeasable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against Contractor within the immediately preceding two-year period because of Contractor's failure to comply with an order of a federal court to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Note: Cite Authority: PCC 10296

35. Drug-Free Workplace Certification
Contractor certifies that Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 and shall provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:

9.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 9 of 14
(a) Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations (b) Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about all of the following:
(i) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(ii) the person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (iii) any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and, (iv) penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. (c) Provide that every employee who works on the proposed or resulting Contract:
(i) will receive a copy of the company's drug-free policy statement; and, (ii) will agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the Contract.

Note: Authority Cited: Government Code Section 8350-8357

36. Forced, Convict, Indentured and Child Labor
By accepting a contract with CSU, Contractor:
(a) certifies that no equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to CSU pursuant to this Contract have been produced in whole or in part by sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor, or with the benefit of sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor. Contractor further certifies it will adhere to the Sweat-free Code of Conduct as set forth on the California Department of Industrial Relations website located at http://www.dir.ca.gov/, and Public Contract Code Section 6108.
(b) agrees to cooperate fully in providing reasonable access to its records, documents, agents or employees, or premises if reasonably required by authorized officials of the State, the Department of Industrial Relations, or the Department of Justice to determine Contractor's compliance with the requirements under paragraph (A).

37. Recycled Content Certification
To the extent that services involve the supply of post-consumer materials (see below) Contractor shall certify in writing the minimum, if not exact, percentage of post-consumer material, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 12200, in products, materials, goods, or supplies offered or sold to CSU regardless whether the product meets the requirements of Section 12209. With respect to printer or duplication cartridges that comply with the requirements of Section 12156(e), the certification required by this subdivision shall specify that the cartridges so comply (PCC 12205).

38. Child Support Compliance Act
For any contract in excess of $100,000, Contractor acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 7110, that:
(a) Contractor recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
(b) Contractor, to the best of its knowledge, is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

39. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Contractor warrants that it complies with California and federal disabilities laws and regulations. (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq). Contractor hereby warrants the products or services it will provide under this Contract comply with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and its implementing regulations set forth at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1194. Contractor agrees to promptly respond to and resolve any complaint regarding accessibility of its products or services. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CSU from any claims arising out of Contractor’s failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements. Failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

40. Debarment and Suspension

9.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 10 of 14
By accepting a contract with the CSU, Contractor certifies neither it nor its principals or its subcontractors are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency (2 Code Federal Regulations[CFR] 180.220, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR Part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR Part 1989 Comp., p. 235)).

41. Expatriate Corporations
Contractor declares and certifies that it is not and expatriate corporation, and is not precluded from contracting with CSU by The California Taxpayer and Shareholder Protection Act of 2003, Public Contract Code Section 10286, et seq.

42. Citizenship and Public Benefits
If Contractor is a natural person, Contractor certifies he or she is a citizen or national of the United States or otherwise qualified to receive public benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193; 110 STAT.2105, 2268-69).

43. Loss Leader
Contractor certifies and declares it is not engaged in business within this State of California to sell or use any article or product as a "loss leader" as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code. Note: Authority Cite:
(PCC 12104.5(b).)

44. DVBE and Small Business Participation
(a) If Contractor has committed to achieve small business (SB) participation it shall, within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract), report to CSU: (1) the name and address of the SB(s) who participated in the performance of the Contract; (2) the total amount the prime Contractor received under the Contract; and (3) the amount each SB received from the prime Contractor.(Govt. Code § 14841.)
(b) If Contractor has committed to achieve disabled veteran business enterprise (DVBE) participation, it shall, within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract), report to CSU:
(1) the name and address of the DVBE(s) who participated in the performance of the Contract; (2) the total amount the prime Contractor received under the Contract; and (3) the amount each DVBE received from the prime Contractor. The Contractor shall also certify that all payments under the Contract have been made to the DVBE. A person or entity that knowingly provides false information shall be subject to a civil penalty for each violation. (Mil. & Vets. Code § 999.5(d); Govt.

Code § 14841.)

45. Contractor’s Staff
Contractor warrants that its staff assigned to performing work under this Contract are legally able to perform such duties in the country where the work is being performed.

46. Force Majeure
(a) Neither Party shall be liable for any failure to perform its obligations under this Contract for the period of time that it is prevented, hindered, or delayed in performing those obligations by circumstances beyond its control, including, but not limited to, fire, strike, war, riots, acts of terrorism, disaster, acts of God, acts of any governmental authority, communicable disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic, unavailability or shortages of labor, materials, or equipment, disruption of transportation, or any other comparable event beyond the control of the Party whose performance is affected (each, a “Force Majeure Event.”).
(b) The Party claiming Force Majeure shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event, provide written notice to the other Party of the nature, extent, and expected duration of the Force Majeure Event and use its diligent efforts to mitigate the effects of the Force Majeure Event upon such Party’s performance under this Contract, it being understood that upon completion of the Force Majeure Event, the Party whose performance was affected must, as soon as reasonably practicable, recommence the performance of its obligations under this Contract.

9.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Revised 5/15/20 Page 11 of 14
(c) Notwithstanding any other term in this Contract, including, but not limited to, the foregoing subsections of this section, during the period of a Force Majeure Event affecting performance by Contractor, CSU may elect to do all or any of the following:
(i) suspend the Contract for the duration of the Force Majeure Event and be relieved of any payment obligation for goods or services not delivered or accepted due to the Force Majeure Event; (ii) obtain elsewhere the goods or services not delivered or accepted due to the Force Majeure Event; (iii) extend the time for Contractor’s performance by a period equal to the duration of the Force Majeure Event; and/or
(iv) terminate the Contract as to any goods or services not already received with no further financial obligation if the Force Majeure Event continues to exist for more than thirty (30) days.

47. Material Change of Circumstances
The terms of this Contract are based on conditions in existence on the date that Contractor commences performance. In the event of a material change in the conditions that adversely affects the ability of Contractor to perform its obligations, Contractor shall reasonably cooperate with CSU to minimize the impact from such change in conditions on Contractor’s performance and shall, if requested by CSU, negotiate in good faith to adjust the terms of this Contract on a mutually agreeable basis to address the impact of such material change in conditions. This provision shall not limit CSU’s ability to avail itself of any rights or remedies provided to CSU by law, equity or any other term of this Contract. 5190807.1

9.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Exhibit A-2: SSU General Provisions (Cotati-SSU Dispatch Agreement Reso Amend 2) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Public Hearing Regarding an Ordinance to Approve a Military Equipment Use Policy
Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Michael Parish, Chief of Police
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in accordance with AB 481.

Background
Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), codified in Government Code Sections 7070 through 7075 requires each law enforcement agency (LEA) to obtain approval from their governing body, via adoption of a military equipment use policy by ordinance, prior to that LEA funding, acquiring, or using military equipment. AB 481 requires each law enforcement agency to begin the process of obtaining such approval, otherwise, the LEA can no longer use the existing equipment. Once a policy is adopted, a LEA cannot procure military equipment that is not in the authorized policy, without first revising the policy, which is done by ordinance following a public hearing. A draft Military Equipment Use Policy was available publicly on the City of Cotati website, police department policy page, on June 20, 2022.

The term “military equipment”, as used in AB 481, in fact does not necessarily indicate equipment that has been used by the military. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be “military equipment” include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, pepper balls, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, long range acoustic devices and flashbangs. The Cotati Police Department (CPD) uses the following equipment that is classified as “miliary equipment” under AB 481:
• Shotguns with bean bag rounds
• Sonoma County Operational Area Command Vehicle (Dodge Cargo Van)

11.A
Packet Pg. 83
On July 26, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing on this item and continued it to August 23, 2022. This item was again continued without discussion at the August 23, 2022 meeting. Primary topics of discussion at the July 26, 2022 City Council meeting included coordination with mutual aid agencies and the use of the shotgun with the bean bag rounds.

Following the meeting, Councilmember Sparks provided the attached information to staff on bean bag rounds for distribution to the City Council as additional information.

Shotguns with bean bag rounds
CPD is committed to using the most up to date tools and equipment to safeguard the citizens of Cotati. The above item deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 is utilized by CPD, and other LEAs across the country, specifically to reduce risk to community members. This less-lethal force option is the only means currently available to our officers to attempt to resolve encounters with a potentially violent person or person with a weapon from the distance of up to 75 (seventy-five) feet. This item provides police officers with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations which otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter. The shotguns used to deploy bean bag rounds by CPD have bright orange forestocks and buttstocks indicating to allied agencies that it is a less-lethal shotgun. CPD does not deploy regular shotguns (we have rifles) so there cannot be confusion between lethal vs less-lethal rounds.

To that end, the items at issue in this report, and accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy, also provide CPD officers with vital tools that facilitate compliance with its stringent use of force policy.

Sonoma County Operational Area Command Vehicle
As defined by AB 481, command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units are considered Military Equipment. On behalf of the Sonoma County Operational Area (all cities and the county, within Sonoma County), CPD hosts and operates a 2007 Dodge Command Cargo Van, which was procured through the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) in 2006. This van is designated as a Sonoma County Operational Area Command Vehicle. This vehicle is made available for law enforcement purposes to support response (command and control) to active law enforcement deployment including but not limited to planned events, criminal investigations, natural disasters and active threats.

The Command Vehicle currently has one thousand six hundred (1,624) operational miles on the odometer. There are no current plans to replace the Command Vehicle. Images of the vehicle are provided below:

11.A
Packet Pg. 84
Analysis/Discussion
CPD seeks approval of a military equipment use policy so that it can continue to make use of the following equipment:
• Shotguns with bean bag rounds
• Sonoma County Operational Area Command Vehicle (Dodge Cargo Van) There is significant interest in ensuring that law enforcement continues to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties. The use of the tools identified above are vital to the CPD mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.

The proposed ordinance would approve the CPD Policy 709, “Military Equipment.” Policy 709 outlines each piece of the above military equipment that is currently owned by the City.

The policy also includes the current authorized uses and cost of each item. These particular items, and their stated authorized uses, have been in place prior to the enactment of AB 481.

Any future acquisitions of any item deemed to be “military equipment” will require a further public meeting, policy update, and Council approval.

Policy 709 ensures that there are safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place. CPD will create an annual military equipment report, which is expected to be provided in conjunction with the Police Chief’s Annual Report to the Community.

11.A
Packet Pg. 85
Violations of Policy 709 will be corrected when discovered, in accordance with existing Department policy. All items which are involved in a use of force event will be reviewed, as is already required by existing CPD policy. CPD has not discovered alternative items that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

Draft Policy Updates
Following the public hearing on July 26, 2022, there have been two changes to the proposed AB 481 policy. The first was to ensure clarity on mutual aid responses, with changes indicated in redline/strikeout. The second change was to align the AB 481 policy on authorized uses of bean bag shotguns with existing policy (CPD Policy Manual, Section 308.8) to ensure consistency across these policies, as indicated.

Financial Considerations
Compliance with Policy 709 will require additional staff time, including the duties defined by the Military Equipment Coordinator, and additional administrative time creating the annual Military Equipment Report. The staff time required is unknown at this time, but is expected to be up to 80 person hours per year.

Environmental Issues
The City Council finds the approval of this ordinance is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Attachments:

Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (PDF)
Additional Information for City Council - Council Member Sparks (PDF)

11.A
Packet Pg. 86
7/21/22, 5:40 PM Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481 1/5 SHARE THIS: Date Published: 10/01/2021 09:00 PM
AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. (2021-20 Assembly Bill No. 481
CHAPTER 406
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment.
[ Approved by Governor September 30, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2021. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use.

Existing law designates the Department of General Services as the agency for the State of California responsible for distribution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requires the department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties as the state agency for the distribution of federal personal surplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agency, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which prevents the local agency from bidding on federal surplus property. Existing federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency, defined to include specified entities, to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by adoption of a military equipment use policy, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill would require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcement agency, as provided, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval. The bill would specify these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agency’s internet website, and provide a copy of the policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee, as specified. The bill would also require a state agency that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.

This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (AB 481 Military 7/21/22, 5:40 PM Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481 2/5 public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.
(b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment. (c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input. (d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used. (e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.

SEC. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:

CHAPTER 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment 7070. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(c) “Military equipment” means the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
(6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (AB 481 Military 7/21/22, 5:40 PM Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481 3/5 (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). (14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight. (16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency. (d) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy. (6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner. (e) “State agency” means the law enforcement division of every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution.
(f) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number. 7071. (a) (1) A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to engaging in any of the following:
(A) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code. (B) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (AB 481 Military 7/21/22, 5:40 PM Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481 4/5 (D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(E) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(F) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this paragraph. (2) No later than May 1, 2022, a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the governing body does not approve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section. (b) In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable. (d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. (C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
(2) In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall be made publicly available on the internet website of the relevant law enforcement agency for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e) (1) The governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to this section approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d). If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance. (f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for law enforcement services, the city shall have the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs. 7072. (a) A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (AB 481 Military 7/21/22, 5:40 PM Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481 5/5 (3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
(4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report. (5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. 7073. (a) A state agency shall create a military equipment use policy prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code. (2) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing. (4) Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or another state agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body. (5) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(6) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this subdivision. (b) No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy. (c) A state agency that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the following within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1) Publish the military equipment use policy on the agency’s internet website. (2) Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee. 7074. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and county. 7075. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to the acquisition of military equipment further exposes that activity to public scrutiny and enhances public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Bill Text - AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies_ military equipment_ funding, acquisition, and use (AB 481 Military From: Laura Sparks
To: Damien O"Bid; Michael Parish
Subject: Bean Bag Rounds inappropriate for crowd control Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 8:23:17 PM
Hello,
Thank you for the enlightening report and discussion on the military equipment policy. I know it takes a lot of ongoing new time and effort to keep up with all the new state laws that come through, and I appreciate the thorough job you're doing.

When the policy/ordinance comes back for discussion, I'd like to see both the pros and cons of using bean bag rounds for protest/riot/crowd control situations. To be fully informed, the council needs to know about the medical outcomes and the litigation outcomes that have come about when bean bags were heavily used during civil unrest. I request that you include this information in the packet:

Letter from physicians to the New England Journal Of Medicine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025923
Relevant quote from the last paragraph: "Although our report reflects the experience at only one center during a short period and we cannot determine the frequency of injuries when these munitions are used, these findings highlight the fact that beanbag munitions can cause serious harm and are not appropriate for use in crowd control. Beanbag rounds have since been abandoned by our local law enforcement in this context. In light of the ongoing nationwide protests, these observations are relevant to the broader medical community as well as to policymakers seeking to reduce rates of police-induced injuries and fatalities." Medical case study on bean bag injury (Caution - disturbing imagery) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8140765/
Relevant quote: "Although bean bag munitions are less likely to cause severe injury when compared with regular gunshot rounds, it is crucial to understand that bean bag munitions may be life-threatening."
$10M settlement - City of Austin for injuries sustained from beanbag rounds https://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article258515403.html Relevant quote: “As tensions escalated, APD instructed our officers to use tools that we thought would help manage the crowd - for everyone’s safety, however, we did not anticipate the injuries that occurred from the use of the less lethal rounds. We now prohibit the use of less lethal ammunition for crowd control.”
Thank you again,

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Additional Information for City Council - Council Member Sparks (AB 481 Military Equipment Staff Report v2) Laura
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.A.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Additional Information for City Council - Council Member Sparks (AB 481 Military Equipment Staff Report v2) ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING

A POLICY FOR ACQUISITION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 481
WHEREAS, On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, solicitation, or use of military equipment; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, requires that the approval by the governing body be by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations with respect to a military equipment use policy; and WHEREAS, a draft of the Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” (Exhibit A) was published on the Cotati Police Department internet website at least 30 days prior to opening the public hearing on July 26, 2022 in accordance with requirements of Government Code section 7071; and
WHEREAS, a draft of the Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” (Exhibit A) was initially presented to the City Council at a public hearing on July 26, 2022, with introduction of the ordinance continued to August 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision (d); and WHEREAS, the military equipment identified in the Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” is necessary, because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety; and WHEREAS, The Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and WHEREAS, the military equipment identified in Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and Packet Pg. 94
WHEREAS, no prior military use policy has existed in the City of Cotati that was applicable to the use of military equipment, and the adoption of such policy shall serve to secure future compliance;

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

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council in enacting this ordinance.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Policy. The Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” (Exhibit A) is hereby approved and adopted.

SECTION 3. Reporting and Publication of Policy. In accordance with Government Code section 7071, the Chief of Police shall cause the Cotati Police Department Policy 709 “Military Equipment” to be made publicly available on the Department’s internet website for as long as military equipment is available for use. The Police Department is directed to make available the reports and conduct the required community engagement meeting required by Government Code section 7072 on an annual basis.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 5. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 6. Environmental Review. The City Council finds the approval of this ordinance is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________
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
Packet Pg. 95
_______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Packet Pg. 96
Policy
709
Cotati Police Department
Cotati PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/08/18, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cotati Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1 Military Equipment
709.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
709.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

11.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Exhibit A: Military Equipment Policy (AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance v2) Cotati Police Department
Cotati PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/08/18, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cotati Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2 709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Cotati Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 709.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Cotati Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
709.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
[Insert attachment here]
(a) Less Lethal Shotgun: Less Lethal Shotguns are used to deploy the less lethal 12- gauge Defense Technology Drag Stabilized Bean Bag Round. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost (a) REMINGTON MODEL 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN, cost: $750, quantity: 4. The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-guage Defense Technology Bean Bag Round up to a maximum effective distance of 75 feet. The rang of the weapon system helps maintain the distance between the officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat, which is a principle of de-escalation.

11.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Exhibit A: Military Equipment Policy (AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance v2) Cotati Police Department
Cotati PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/08/18, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cotati Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3 (b) 12-GAUGE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY DRAG STABILIZED BEAN BAG ROUND, cost $7, quantity 150. The 12-gauge Defense Technology Drag Stabilized Bean Bag Round is a translucent 12-Guage shell loaded with a 40-Gram tear shaped bag made from cotton and ballistic material blend and filled with #9 shot. This design utilized four stabilizing tails and utilizes smokeless powder as a propellant. This round has a velocity of 270 feet per second (FPS) and a maximum effective range of 75 feet. This round proves most effective within the range of 20 to 50 feet. Accuracy is relative to the shotgun, barrel length, environmental conditions, and the operator.

This round is very accurate, however effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point of impact. (b) Authorized Use – Situations for use of less lethal weapons systems may include, but are not limited to:
(a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
(b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers
(d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful order (e) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents
(f) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained (g) Potentially vicious animals
(h) Training exercises
(c) Lifespan
(a) Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun: 35 years
(b) 12-gauge Defense Technology Drag Stabilized Bean Bag Round: 5 year warranty, but no listed expiration date
(d) Fiscal Impact – Annual Maintenance is approximately $50 per shotgun. (e) Training – Sworn Members of the Cotati Police Department utilizing the 12- Gauge Less Lethal Shotgun and munitions shall be trained in the use of such items by POST Certified Instructors.
(f) Legal and Procedural Rules – Use of the Less Lethal Shotguns and munitions is subject to the Policy 312 (Firearms), Policy 308.8 (Kinetic Energy Projectile Guidelines) and Policy 300 (De-escalation and Use of Force). It is the policy of the Cotati Police Department to utilize the less lethal shotgun only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal Law, including those regarding the use of force.
(b) Command and Control Vehicles:

11.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Exhibit A: Military Equipment Policy (AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance v2) Cotati Police Department
Cotati PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/08/18, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cotati Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4 (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost (a) 2007 DODGE COMMAND CARGO VAN, cost: $76,208.04 obtained through a State Homeland Security Grant Program, quantity: 1. This van is an upfitted emergency response vehicle equipped with emergency lights and a siren. This van is available for other cities in Sonoma County as a designated Sonoma County Operational Area Command Vehicle. (b) Purpose – This vehicle is to be made available for law enforcement purposes in order to support law enforcement response (Command and Control Center) at an incident.
(c) Authorized Use – Situations for use of this vehicle may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Planned Events
(b) Criminal Investigations
(c) Natural Disasters
(d) Active Threats
(d) Training – The Cotati Police Department has a trained member responsible for ensuring the van and all of the equipment inside are operational. There are no additional certifications or driver's license endorsements needed to drive the van.
(e) Lifespan – The van currently has 1,624 operational miles on the odometer and there are no current plans to replace the van.
(f) Fiscal Impact- – Annual Cost of less than $1,000.00 annually to include fuel and maintenance costs.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules- – Use of the van is subject to the requirements of Policy 704 (Vehicle Maintenance) and Policy 706 (Vehicle Use) 709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.

11.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Exhibit A: Military Equipment Policy (AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance v2) Cotati Police Department
Cotati PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/08/18, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cotati Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 5 (c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 709.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid. Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 709.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 709.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

11.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Exhibit A: Military Equipment Policy (AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance v2) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Consideration and final direction on the Cotati Trail and Downtown Interpretive Sign Panel Designs
Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction on the proposed draft interpretive panels for the downtown and trail kiosk wayfinding sign designs to allow final design and installation of the interpretive sign kiosk panels.

Background
On July 20, 2017, the MTC notified the City that the MTC approved an allocation of TDA funds to the City in the amount of $90,000 for the development and initial installation of a bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding system.

On February 13, 2018, (after an RFP), the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with sign consultant MERJE, who was deemed to be the most qualified design firm that best met the City’s needs.

On February 13, 2018, the City Council also formed the Wayfinding Steering Committee comprised of members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and Chamber of Commerce to guide the design and development of the bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signage program.

Over the following year, the plan and sign designs were developed with the Wayfinding Steering Committee through a series of public surveys and workshops. Specifically, two community-wide surveys were held in March and May of 2018, and three duly noticed public workshops were held on March 6, May 2, and September 12, of 2018, to gather public input on the draft plan and sign designs.

These surveys and workshops were primarily focused on the design and aesthetic appearance of the various sign types. Broad ideas, concepts, and themes seen by the community members and Wayfinding Steering Committee as contributing to Cotati’s unique identity were utilized to develop three design concepts which were presented to the committee for feedback. A fourth

12.A
Packet Pg. 102
iteration of these designs was then developed based on the results of the community-wide survey and community feedback. Ultimately, this engagement process combined to create the Wayfinding Master Plan, which was intended to serve as the official guide to all future City bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding sign locations and designs.

On January 22, 2019, the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council adopted a resolution approving the City of Cotati Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Master Plan.

Installation of the Wayfinding signs began in FY19/20, and additional funding to complete the installation was included in the adopted FY20/21 budget. Finalization of these interpretive panel designs is the final step to getting the approved sign designs fabricated and installed.

On July 27, 2021, the City Council approved the construction contract with Aloha Signs to fabricate and install the trail kiosks and interpretive sign panels. However, final design and installation of the interpretive sign panel designs was intentionally delayed to allow additional public and Tribal input on the final sign content and design.

However, as part of the action to approve the construction contract, the City Council directed staff to provide additional opportunities for the public and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) Coast Miwok and Sothern Pomo Tribe to review and comment. After receiving comments on the proposed draft interpretive sign panel designs, they were to be brought back to the City Council for formal approval.

Analysis/Discussion
In response to the City Council direction to gather more public input, Community Development staff created an online survey, notified the general public of its availability via the City website, social media accounts and through direct email to interested individuals, and sent copies of the proposed draft language to Tribal representatives. Staff received comments from individual citizens and representatives of the Cotati Historical Society. These comments were then incorporated into the finalized draft designs and survey results, which are attached to this report.

Unfortunately, no comments from Tribal Representatives have been received.

The design and installation of these signs come out of policy direction in both the Cotati Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan which identify an effective and unified wayfinding signage system as a high priority to encourage non-motorized exploration of the City; to allow visitors and residents to more easily navigate the City’s streets, pathways and trails; and to improve the streetscape appearance and enhance the economic prosperity of local businesses.

One component of this wayfinding sign program was the installation of kiosks in the downtown and along the Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail, and the construction and installation of these signs has been completed. These kiosks include a map of the downtown or Laguna trail network, and several interpretive sign panels to provide contextual and historical information regarding the City and the Laguna. The Interpretive sign panel content and design are the final component of this process, with the completed draft designs being presented to the City Council and

12.A
Packet Pg. 103
community to allow any final input to ensure all text and design elements are accurate and represent the community. Previous comments have been incorporated into the interpretive sign designs, however additional input has been received (primarily grammatic suggestions).

Separate from the interpretive sign panels, one comment has been received specific to the kiosk maps identifying that their installation does not seem to consider the contextual orientation of the maps, and in some cases could benefit from being located on the opposite side of the kiosk. Staff is in agreement with this comment and will include this relocation into the final installation of the interpretive panels.

Financial Considerations
Development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Master Plan was funded through the $90,000 grant of Transportation Development Act (Article 3 (TDA3) funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Full buildout of the wayfinding sign program was anticipated to exceed the grant funding and construction was envisioned to occur over several years. The City’s FY 18-19 adopted budget included another $50,000 to further program implementation and construction and portions of this have been funded through budget allocations in subsequent years. The sign consultant contract with MERGE totaled $83,240 and this amount has been fully expended.

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:

Downtown Interpretive Sign V4 (PDF)
Trail Interpretive Sign Horizontal V4(PDF)
Trail Interpretive Sign Vertical V4 (PDF)
Jenny Interpretive Sign Comments 4.2022 (DOCX)
Jenny_Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels 8.2022 (PDF)
Marie_ Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels, 2nd Response 8.2022 (PDF)

12.A
Packet Pg. 104
The Coast Miwok people/
culture? have thrived or
lived? in the Cotati area
since at least 2000 BCE.

Documented villages in
the area included Lumentakala, Payinecha, and
Kotati.

Dr. Thomas Stokes Page
purchased the Rancho Cotate
property in 1849 and began
farming in the 1860s. His
family raised cattle, sheep,
wheat, hay, hops, berries, and,
later, race horses. A century
later it was still not unusual
to ride to school or visit La
Plaza on horseback as Phyllis
Donahue, above, illustrates.

In October 1870, the first
railroad from Petaluma to
Santa Rosa was completed.

However, it wasn’t until
1892, when the Page
family subdivided their
ranch, that a town started
to form about one mile
west of the wood and water
stop called Page’s Station.

The year 1968 saw the
birth of the counterculture’s
influence on Cotati. The
Inn of the Beginning came
alive and brought nationally
and internationally
recognized musicians to
Sonoma County.

In the 1990s, La Plaza
Park was refurbished with
a new bandstand and a new
playground. Currently, the
city is home to the annual
Kids Day Parade and the
internationally renowned
Cotati Accordion Festival.

Early History Agrarian History City of Cotati Modern History Current Day

A BRIEF HISTORY
In 1920, a builder named Jack Price created
excitement when he convinced racing enthusiasts all
over the North Bay that he could build a world-class
auto speedway. He succeeded, on 135 acres on East
Cotati Avenue near the railroad track, and dubbed
it the Cotati Speedway. The all-wood, bowl-shaped
track was 1.25 miles around and required more than 3
million feet of lumber and gave drivers a place to run
record-breaking races. Wildly popular, its first race
was Aug. 14, 1921, with all 10,000 seats filled. Sadly, cold, rainy weather and traffic congestion getting to
the track caused its failure after only two years. The
speedway was dismantled and wood from it went to
build homes and businesses in the area.

Speedway
Above: Eddie Miller, driving a Duesenberg, was one of the stars of the first Cotati Speedway race, August 14, 1921. Even with a flat tire, he came in fourth place with a time of 1 hour, 29 minutes, 58 1/5 seconds.

The winner of the race was Eddie Hearne, who set a new world record, driving 150 miles in 1 hour, 21 minutes and 16 1/5 seconds. He won $5,000.

Sponsored by::

COTATI CREEK

CRITTERS
Volunteers working along the Laguna, March 2008.

In 1998 a small group of local residents, supported by
Cotati’s Community & Environment Commission, began
to remove invasive species and plant native trees and shrubs alongside the Cotati section of the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

From 2006 to 2012, thanks to grant funding, thousands
of volunteers were involved in an expanded project to
enhance wildlife habitat, improve water quality, raise local environmental awareness and encourage public participation and enjoyment of the Cotati reach of the Laguna.

The Laguna de Santa Rosa is the largest tributary to the Russian River and Sonoma County’s richest area of wildlife habitat. The main channel runs 22 miles from Cotati to Forestville, where it enters the Russian River. The Laguna is a unique ecological system which includes a mosaic of creeks, open water, perennial marshes, seasonal wetlands, riparian forests, oak woodlands and grasslands. Native Americans including the Coast Miwok, Pomo, and Wappo people have lived in the Laguna for over 10,000 years. The Laguna wetland complex was recognized as a Wetland of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention in 2011. The Laguna drains a 254-squaremile watershed that includes all or part of Cotati, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Windsor and Forestville.

Special thanks to Cotati Historical Society, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and Jenny Blaker for sign content and images.

Visit cotaticity.org for more information

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Trail Interpretive Sign Vertical V4 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) The Laguna de Santa Rosa is the largest tributary to the Russian River and Sonoma County’s richest area of wildlife habitat. The main channel runs 22 miles from Cotati to Forestville, where it enters the Russian River. The Laguna is a unique ecological system which includes a mosaic of creeks, open water, perennial marshes, seasonal wetlands, riparian forests, oak woodlands and grasslands. Native Americans including the Coast Miwok, Pomo, and Wappo people have lived in the Laguna for over 10,000 years. The Laguna wetland complex was recognized as a Wetland of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention in 2011. The Laguna drains a 254-squaremile watershed that includes all or part of Cotati, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Windsor and Forestville.

LAGUNA
de Santa Rosa
Sponsored by::

The Coast Miwok people/ culture?
have thrived or lived? in the Cotati
area since at least 2000 BCE.

Documented villages in the area
included Lumen-takala, Payinecha,
and Kotati.

Dr. Thomas Stokes Page purchased
the Rancho Cotate property in
1849 and began farming in the
1860s. His family raised cattle,
sheep, wheat, hay, hops, berries,
and, later, race horses. A century
later it was still not unusual to
ride to school or visit La Plaza
on horseback as Phyllis Donahue,
above, illustrates.

The year 1968 saw the birth of the
counterculture’s influence on Cotati.

The Inn of the Beginning came
alive and brought nationally and
internationally recognized musicians
to Sonoma County.

In the 1990s, La Plaza Park
was refurbished with a new
bandstand and a new playground.

Currently, the city is home to the
annual Kids Day Parade and the
internationally renowned Cotati
Accordion Festival.

Early History Agrarian History City of Cotati Modern History Current Day

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COTATI
Photo: April 1973 Inn of the Beginning
Calendar, courtesy of Mark Braunstein.

Aerial view of the Laguna. Photo courtesy of the
City of Santa Rosa.

Special thanks to Cotati Historical Society, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Jenny Blaker for sign content and images.

Visit cotaticity.org for more information

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Trail Interpretive Sign Vertical V4 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) 4/26/22 Comments on updated version of Cotati interpretive signs – Jenny Blaker Trail_Interp_FINAL_v3.pdf and Trail_Interp_Horiz_FINAL_V3.pdf Laguna de Santa Rosa
10,000 years in red font, presumably waiting for comment from Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). Good! I suspect they may want to change this and not give a specific date or length of time; since time immemorial?
Cotati Creek Critters
I realize that rather than “Cotati citizens” the sign should probably say “local residents” as not all the volunteers were necessarily Cotati citizens! And they were associated with the Cotati Community and Environment Commission so the sign should probably say so. I’m sorry, I did not think of this earlier until seeing it in print now.
“…areas of…” seems obsolete.

Suggest: In 1998 a small group of local residents, supported by Cotati’s Community & Environment Commission, began to remove invasive species and plant native trees and shrubs alongside the Cotati section of the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

Photo caption: Volunteers working… [w not W]. It might be interesting to include the date, which was March, 2008, as the area has changed so much since then.

Suggest: Volunteers working along the Laguna, March 2008.

As mentioned previously, I don’t think small white font on a light-colored background works, and I think it will be hard to keep the signs clean and free of algae enough to be easily legible.

A Brief History of Cotati
Pre-History – is this appropriate or should it be “early history”? As well as the questions already posed in red font, I would question the word “thrived” as this completely glosses over the period of genocide, oppression and suppression of culture to which the tribes were subjected post-colonization. “Lived” is neutral; “thrived” is not.

Illustration: as mentioned previously, I think a tule shelter would be more appropriate than a redwood bark one for this area, with its seasonal wetlands and valley oak savannah, rather than redwood forests, but of course defer to FIGR and their local knowledge.

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Jenny Interpretive Sign Comments 4.2022 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) From: jennyb
To: Damien O"Bid
Subject: Re: Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 5:48:11 PM
Dear Damien
Thanks so much for sending these along. I'm glad to know that things are moving and that the graphics are now with the Tribe.

Trail_Interp_FINAL_V4.pdf
Cotati Creek Critters: I'm grateful to see the revised wording and the photo which gives a sense of before-and-after with volunteers at work. Thanks! If it's still possible to change anything, I'd suggest that the photo caption should be "Volunteers planting trees alongside the Laguna" as that is more specific and accurate, rather than just saying "working..." Sorry I had not spotted this earlier.

I still have the same comments about the following as I had earlier:

Downtown_Interp_FINAL_V4.pdf
Early history: I think the tule shelter would be more appropriate than the redwood shelter - will be interested to know what FIGR says!
Agrarian history: It's good to see the new wording about Cotati's agrarian/agricultural history. I think it would be good to find a graphic that refers to farming too, something to do with fruit or chickens for instance, especially as this could highlight the continuity with the modern day Falletti-Veronda ranch.

Laguna de Santa Rosa:

I'd still advocate for a different color scheme, not white on light green which I think will quickly become hard to see and hard to keep clean.

Otherwise, thank you and hoping all goes well with completing the signs.

Jenny
On 8/12/2022 5:00 PM, Damien O'Bid wrote:

Hi Jenny,
The attached interpretive sign panel graphics were sent to the Graton Tribe for their review, but I thought you’d want to see them also before we take them to Council in early September. They should be final or pretty close to it (depending on what the tribe says!).

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Jenny_Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels 8.2022 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) I hope you have a great weekend,
Damien O'Bid
City Manager
City of Cotati
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.

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Jenny_Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels 8.2022 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) From: Marie Thomas McNaughton, M.A.

To: Damien O"Bid
Cc: Judy Gustafson
Subject: Re: Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels, 2nd Response Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 5:23:42 PM
Attachments: MTM.Trail_Interp__Horiz_FINAL_V4 copy.pdf
MTM.Trail_Interp_FINAL_V4 copy.pdf
MTM.Downtown_Interp_FINAL_V4 copy.pdf
Hi, Damien--
I reviewed the panels again and did find a few problems. I am attaching pdfs with comments, but I will reiterate the gist of them here.
(I conferred with fellow historian Judy Gustafson on each of these concerns this afternoon and we are in agreement that these changes are important. This should not, however, be considered the official response from the historical society. That should come from John Allred or his designee.) Speedway Text
The promoter of the Speedway was Jack Prince, not "Price." I believe it's important to describe him as a track promoter as well as a builder. To think of him as a builder of anything other than racetracks would be to miss his historic significance on the American race scene.

Also, a review of the Draper materials and original newspaper clippings shows that some 20,000 people attended the first race, 10,000 of them in the middle of the track without seats, that is, twice what the panel indicates.

I'm very sorry I didn't catch these earlier. I have only recently become familiar with the history of the track.

Cotati through the years Date
The "City of Cotati" was not even platted until 1892. Emphasizing the date of 1870 is highly misleading. It has no importance to the history of the city, though it may have been important to the Page ranch operations.

I have pointed this out in previous responses.

Bottom Credit Edit
There should be a period at the end of the suggestion to visit cotaticity.org on all panels. It is a complete sentence.

Thank you for continuing to include me in this process. I wish you luck in receiving appropriate and timely text and images from the Graton Rancheria elders and staff.

Yours in history,
Marie
On 2022-08-12 17:55, Marie McNaughton wrote:

Thanks, Damien--
Do send these to John Allred, as he is president of the Cotati Historical Society. I have been acting in this project as an independent scholar consultant.

I will review these carefully. But I have to say right up front, the promoter of the Speedway was Jack PRINCE, not Price. I'm not sure how that mistake has gotten this far, but it inspires me to be especially careful. I'll be back

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Marie_ Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels, 2nd Response 8.2022 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) to you ASAP.

Marie
On 2022-08-12 16:59, Damien O'Bid wrote:

Hi Marie,
The attached interpretive sign panel graphics were sent to the Graton Tribe for their review, but I thought you'd want to see them also before we take them to Council in early September. They should be final or pretty close to it (depending on what the tribe says!).

I hope you have a great weekend,
Damien O'Bid
City Manager
City of Cotati
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.

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Marie_ Cotati Interpretive Sign Panels, 2nd Response 8.2022 (Interpretive Sign Panel Designs) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: City Council Consideration of the Sonoma County Grand Jury Response Date: September 13, 2022
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review the Grand Jury Reports and draft City responses, provide direction to staff regarding any amendments to the City responses and authorize the Mayor to execute and deliver the City’s response to the Grand Jury.

Background
On June 14, 2022, the Sonoma County Grand Jury delivered its reports “Affordable Housing:

Monitoring and Compliance” and “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future”. The reports include both findings and recommendations. The Grand Jury has required responses from each jurisdiction in Sonoma County, asking the jurisdictions to “agree” or “disagree” with each finding and to respond to each recommendation.

If a jurisdiction disagrees, either in whole or in part with a finding, the Grand Jury requires an explanation of the jurisdiction’s position. Responses to recommendations must fall into one of four categories:

1. Already implemented;

2. To be implemented in the future, in which case a timeframe is required

3. Requires further analysis, which needs to be completed and provided to the Grand Jury within six months; or

4. Will not be implemented because the recommendation is not reasonable or warranted.

The City is required to respond by September 14, 2022.

Analysis/Discussion
Summary of the City’s Response to the Grand Jury Report on Affordable Housing:

Monitoring and Compliance: This Grand Jury Report is an assessment of affordable housing monitoring programs in the County. It contains 11 findings and seven recommendations. The report generally focuses on the premise that on-site monitoring is rare, largely because of

12.B
Packet Pg. 115
insufficient staffing, and that this should be improved primarily through better coordination between the County and the nine cities. City staff has reviewed the findings and recommends that the City Council issue a response that agrees (or partially agrees) with four of the 11 findings, disagrees in part with five of the 11 findings and finds it can neither agree or disagree, with one of the findings. More details on the areas of agreement and disagreement regarding “Affordable Housing Monitoring and Compliance” can be found in the attached draft response.

Summary of the City’s Response to the Grand Jury Report on Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future: This Grand Jury Report is an assessment of the obstacles to the construction of affordable housing in Sonoma County. The report contains 17 findings (24 total) and eight recommendations. The findings focus on many of the known constraints related to the provision of affordable housing, including public acceptance of affordable projects; complex review and approval processes; the cost of construction and other constraints. Notably the report does not identify lack of a significant locally controlled funding source as an impediment to the construction of affordable housing.

Staff has reviewed the finding and recommends that the City Council issue a response that highlights some of the other issues affecting the construction of affordable housing (such as the loss of redevelopment agency funding), agrees with five of the findings and disagrees (in part) with nine of the findings. More details on the areas of agreement and disagreement regarding “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” can be found in the attached draft response.

It is worth noting that several of the recommendations in these two reports have been implemented by the City of Cotati or included as a “Program” in the draft Housing Element by the City Council.

Financial Considerations
There are no direct financial considerations resulting from the Council providing a formal response to the Grand Jury, other than the staff time required to support and present the draft response. However, there are potentially significant financial considerations associated with implementation of several of the recommendations. It is worth noting that the City Council has already supported (and budgeted for) the most expensive general fund costs-additional staff in the Community Development Department. Additional costs will be considered on and as-needed basis, as draft Housing Element programs begin to be implemented and future budget needs are presented.

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:

Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (PDF)

12.B
Packet Pg. 116
City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (DOCX) Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (DOCX) City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (DOCX)

12.B
Packet Pg. 117
Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 1
Affordable Housing: Monitoring and
Compliance
Who is Watching the Henhouse?

SUMMARY
In response to citizens’ complaints and reports published in The Press Democrat, the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the monitoring of Affordable Housing within Sonoma County. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is housing priced on the basis of family income, not the market rate. Monitoring involves verification of tenant incomes and continued eligibility for an Affordable unit, the owner’s or manager’s collection of required information, and the ongoing maintenance of the property and its amenities. Housing departments for the County and its nine Cities are required to monitor compliance with the regulations for occupancy of Affordable Housing.

All housing is in short supply; this includes Affordable Housing, which should be available only to those who qualify. This report examines the monitoring of existing Affordable Housing. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the potential for increasing its availability.

The Grand Jury investigated procedures used in the County and its nine cities and found that monitoring was inconsistent among the housing jurisdictions. All of the agencies were overly reliant on self-reported information from owners and managers. Direct observation and verification through on-site monitoring were rare and essentially ceased during the COVID-19 shutdowns. A low priority was often given to monitoring, and the staffing to do it was usually insufficient. The Grand Jury concluded that there was little probability that illegal behaviors, if they existed, would be detected using current procedures.

Recommendations from the Grand Jury include increased on-site personal monitoring at housing locations, more standardization of procedures, consistent and on-going training with developers and property managers, and better coordination and cooperation amongst agencies to increase efficiency.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 2

BACKGROUND
Housing in Sonoma County is widely acknowledged to be in short supply and very expensive. A chart1
in The Press Democrat for March 13, 2022 showed the median price of a home in January 2022 to be $789,000, up from $715,000 just a year earlier. As reported by the North Bay Business Journal, Sonoma County median rent for a one or two-bedroom unit is $2,167, and residents are increasingly unable to afford a suitable place to live.

Common complaints include:
• My adult kids can’t afford to live here and will have to move somewhere else. • My rent is so high I can’t afford to pay my other bills. • I couldn’t afford my house if I had to buy it today.
• Sonoma County needs to have more affordable places to live.” The term “affordable housing” can have different meanings:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to an executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

The Federal Government, State, County, Cities and private organizations have created programs that make home buying or apartment rental more attainable. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), means that families pay rent or purchase homes at prices determined by their incomes rather than by the housing market. These programs have strict and specific conditions that define eligibility. Income and family size are central, but other factors such as individuals with disabilities, senior status, or veterans may sometimes be a consideration. Since many more residents are qualified to receive Affordable Housing than housing is available, it is reasonable to ensure that the limited supply is occupied by those for whom it is intended. It is also logical to ensure that the housing is managed and maintained appropriately. Local County and city housing departments are charged with monitoring compliance with the conditions of the programs. A draft of the Sonoma County CDC Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures, presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2021, outlines their recommendations. Each of the nine cities would benefit from also having clearly defined procedures if they do not already exist.

In 2021, The Press Democrat published award-winning reports on a situation in Sonoma County where individuals rented apartments for which they were not eligible. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this specific situation. This case has been well documented by the press and investigated by County authorities and is still a subject for potential lawsuits.

For these reasons, the Grand Jury did not center its attention on this individual problem, but rather, asked more general questions. What are the requirements for access to Affordable Housing? What are the requirements for verifying and monitoring compliance with the

1 Prices are from the sales of single-family homes recorded in Sonoma County.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 3
regulations? How is the monitoring done? Is the monitoring sufficient to assure compliance? How common is fraud? How can monitoring be improved? This report attempts to answer these questions.

METHODOLOGY
This investigation was initiated in response to citizen complaints received by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury conducted interviews with key individuals in Sonoma County who are involved in the Affordable Housing arena. They included:
• County and City officials
• Non-profit agencies
• Affordable Housing agencies and advocates
The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated documents from a wide range of sources addressing Affordable Housing, including many websites, from Sonoma County, the nine cities, State and Federal agencies. The most important of these are listed in the Bibliography.

DISCUSSION
What is Affordable Housing?
Affordable Housing is defined in multiple ways and categories. Still, all are based on the ability of a tenant or buyer to pay no more than a specific percentage of their income for housing. The rules and requirements are complex; Article 89 of the Sonoma County zoning code, Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives, is 215 pages long. Eligibility resides in four or more categories, with income levels compared to the area median income (AMI) in Sonoma County. The AMI is determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using sampled census data for a four-person household. This number, which is currently $103,300, is used to calculate similar numbers for smaller and larger households using formulas developed by HUD. Rent levels are then defined in relation to family size and income level.

As an example, the tables below show income and rent limits used by the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) for rental housing in several (but not all) programs under its control. Other programs may use different limits, but the basic principles are the same; housing cost for the tenant is based on income, not on the market price of a comparable apartment or house.

Persons in
Household
Acutely Low
Income (15%
Area Median
Income)
Extremely
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
50% AMI
60%
AMI*
Low
Income
80%
AMI**
Median
Income
100%
AMI
Moderate
Income
120%
AMI
1 $10,850 $24,450 $40,750 $48,900 $65,150 $72,300 $86,750 2 12,400 27,950 46,550 55,860 74,450 82,650 99,150
3 13,950 31,450 52,350 62,820 83,750 92,950 111,550

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 4
4 15,500 34,900 58,150 69,780 93,050 103,300 123,950
5 16,750 37,700 62,850 75,420 100,500 111,550 133,850
6 18,000 40,500 67,500 81,000 107,950 119,850 143,800
7 19,200 43,300 72,150 86,580 115,400 128,100 153,700
8 20,450 46,100 76,800 92,160 122,850 136,350 163,600
Table 1: Maximum Income to Qualify for Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
As of January 1, 2022, the CDC uses the table above to determine eligibility for multiple categories of Affordable rental housing.
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Unit Size (assumed #
occupants)
Extremely Low Income Rent
Limit (30% AMI)
Very Low Income Rent
Limit (50% AMI)
Low Income Rent
Limit (60% AMI)*
Studio (1) $611 $1,019 $1,223
1 Bedroom (2) 699 1,164 1,397
2 Bedroom (3) 786 1,309 1,571
3 Bedroom (4) 873 1,454 1,745
4 Bedroom (5) 943 1,571 1,886
Table 2: Maximum rent limits for Inclusionary Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
*Housing Affordability Index vs. HUD definitions/thresholds The above table shows the maximum rent for an Affordable Housing unit as of January 1, 2022.

These rent limits are calculated using the formula in California Health & Safety Code 50052.5 & 50053. The rents are based on the income limits for an assumed household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. For example, the rent for a three-bedroom unit is based on the income limits for a four-person household. Unless otherwise specified, utility costs are included in the maximum rent as set by federal housing laws.

Affordable Housing can also be further directed to specific groups such as seniors, farm workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and in some cases, specific professions such as educators or health care workers.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 5
Subsidies for Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing is most common in mid-size to larger developments and can be considered in two categories.

1. One hundred percent Affordable Housing developments: These projects are often constructed and managed by mission-driven non-profit organizations such as MidPen or Burbank Housing, but for-profit developers are also represented here. Building and amenity standards for developments are also expected to ensure comparability to marketrate housing.

2. Inclusionary Affordable Housing: To encourage construction of Affordable Housing, local ordinances may specify a percentage of Affordable units, usually 10-20%, which must be included in a project. Inclusionary housing is almost always built by ‘for-profit’ developers who will rent or sell these units at lower Affordable rates while the other units will be rented or sold at the market rate. Both apartment complexes and single-family home developments are subject to inclusionary housing ordinances. These ordinances take effect only when a development reaches a specific size set by the County or city, for example 10 units.

The limitations on income and allowable prices often bear little relationship to the real-world costs of building, managing, and maintaining a housing development. Materials and labor costs for a project are the same whether the end product is Affordable or the market determines prices.

Affordable Housing projects typically have multiple funding sources, including Federal and State loans that have long-term fixed low interest rates and may allow deferment of repayment and eventual forgiveness. Funding can also come from Federal or State grants, and construction costs may be reduced by accelerating approvals and modifying some requirements such as the number of off-street parking spaces required.

Subsidies are available to supplement rent payments and thus allow some qualified residents to occupy either Affordable or market-rate housing. The best known of these are Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) which are funded by HUD and issued through local housing authorities. In Sonoma County, Section 8 vouchers are issued through the CDC and by the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority. A voucher holder can occupy any acceptable rental property where the landlord accepts the voucher and agrees to the program's requirements. The voucher is valid anywhere in the County or beyond, and the holder pays only an income-based portion of the rent; HUD pays the remainder directly to the landlord.

Unfortunately, the need for Affordable Housing greatly exceeds the available supply. Each Affordable Housing development has a waiting list that may include several years wait before a unit becomes available. Section 8 vouchers within Sonoma County also have a long waiting list.

New applicants can only join the Section 8 waiting list through a lottery process. The last lottery was held in October 2021 and the next is not expected until about October 2023. Again, the wait is measured in years.

How Much Affordable Housing is There in Sonoma County?
The website of Affordable Housing Online suggests that there are 8,700 Affordable rental apartments in Sonoma County. The site delineates 2,510 income-based units for which direct subsidies (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) are available and 6,023 apartments which are subsidized indirectly (e.g. as inclusionary units).

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 6
The CDC website identifies individual Affordable Housing developments, community by community. It shows a smaller number of apartments (8,129), but it is not clear when it was last updated. Santa Rosa lists individual complexes within the City, showing 3,817 Affordable units, while the CDC website shows 4,076 units in Santa Rosa. Again, it is unclear how current these numbers are. New construction is ongoing, and all of the specific numbers for Affordable units will probably be out of date by the time this report is published.

The number of Affordable apartments may appear to be large, but very few, if any, are actually available and unoccupied at any given time, resulting in long wait lists. Moreover, given the approximately half-million population of Sonoma County, there is not a sufficient supply to meet the need for an Affordable place to live.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing requirements of the greater area. It then prepares a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each county and its cities. The allocation for Sonoma County for 2023-2031 calls for 14,562 new housing units to be added over the next several years. Of this total, 3,999 are designated as very-low-income housing and 2,302 as low-income housing units. In each category, roughly one-third is allocated to Santa Rosa, one-third to the eight other cities of the County, and onethird to unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. If fulfilled, RHNA allocations would increase the number of Affordable units by more than two-thirds. The demand for oversight of these new residences would increase accordingly.

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Monitoring Requirements Access to Affordable Housing is a precious commodity and it should only be available to those who qualify. It is the responsibility of the local housing authorities to ensure that this is the case.

Monitoring of compliance with conditions and regulations is required on a regular basis for virtually all Affordable Housing programs. The diagram below illustrates the various obligations inherent in CDC oversight of Section 8 rental properties.

Figure 1. Participant Responsibilities in Section 8 Affordable Housing.

Source: Adapted from the CDC website.

Property owners must sign a rental agreement or lease with the Section 8 participant. The property owner agrees to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing as confirmed by regular Housing Authority inspections. The primary benefit to the property owner for participating in the program is that the federal government guarantees a portion of the rent.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 7
Property Owner Responsibilities Include:
• Perform all management and rental functions, including screening and selection of tenants.
• Maintain the units and property in accordance with Housing Quality Standards. • Prepare information required under the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract and furnish the information to the Housing Authority.

Sonoma County Housing Authority Responsibilities Include:
• Make rental assistance payments to the landlord in a timely manner. • Regularly evaluate family eligibility including income and family size. • Inspect units at least once every two years.
• Investigate potential fraud or program abuse by tenants or landlords.

Tenant Responsibilities Include:
• Supply information determined necessary by the Housing Authority or HUD to administer the program, including the completion of scheduled income reviews. • Act responsibly as a tenant, paying rent and utilities on time and minimizing damage to the property.
• Notify the Housing Authority and the owner 30 (no more than 60) days before moving or terminating the lease.

Inclusionary Rental Housing Monitoring Requirements: How is it Done in the Real World? Monitoring of inclusionary housing is clearly defined by County ordinance:

Rental Unit Monitoring: “The CDC shall monitor the rental of affordable units for compliance with the Affordable Housing Agreement and the provisions of this Article. On an annual basis, the owner shall pay to the CDC a fee for monitoring each unit subject to the Affordable Housing Agreement, which fee shall be established by resolution of the Board of Directors of CDC from time to time. (Ord. No. 6085, § IV (Exh. C), 10-7-2014)” Other housing jurisdictions may have similar or less specific monitoring expectations, while some do not define their procedures at all (see Table 3 below). Thus, housing personnel must deal with different sets of expectations for multiple properties within their jurisdiction. There are two approaches to monitoring compliance with Affordable Housing requirements:
• Self-Reporting: The owner/manager/landlord of a rental property is required to reconfirm eligibility for at least a percentage or specific number of Affordable Housing tenants, often on a set schedule. This involves verification of income and other factors, such as occupancy numbers, depending on the program under which the unit is rented. This information is reported to the CDC or to the local housing jurisdiction for units not under CDC purview. The housing departments are then required to verify that the information supplied by the landlord is accurate and complete. There is currently no CDC requirement for on-going compliance training for owners, managers, or staff. Within the cities, training is also limited.
• On-site monitoring: It would be wasteful of staff and resources to replicate the activities of the landlord, but spot-checking of some number or percentage of units is feasible. A housing department monitor visits a site, interviews the manager or owner, examines

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 8
selected records, verifies their accuracy with the tenants, and inspects the property, including one or more units.

In practice, on-site monitoring is done by first making an appointment with an owner or manager and describing what needs to be seen or done on a visit. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring is rarely or never done because the required documentation may be incomplete or unavailable. It could also be intrusive to tenants, and the owner, manager, or tenant may simply be unavailable when the monitor arrives. Interviewees stated that on-site monitoring was rare even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was eliminated during the COVID-19 restrictions, when non-essential contact was minimized to avoid spread of the virus. In most cases, on-site monitoring has not been reinstated. In practice, the County and Cities rely almost totally on selfreporting from developers and managers.

The costs of on-site monitoring and verification of self-reported data are the responsibility of the housing agency, and monitoring is often seen as an unfunded mandate. It is therefore not surprising that housing agencies in Sonoma County are motivated to accept the data supplied by owners and managers as accurate. Monitoring is also limited by staff availability, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. This has resulted in an inability to actually visit sites and interact with residents and managers. The lack of personnel was a significant concern to almost all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed. Again, this results in reliance on self-reporting by development owners and managers.

There are good reasons for owners and managers to monitor compliance accurately. Non-profit developers of Affordable Housing are mission-oriented. They are committed to providing Affordable Housing to those who qualify for it. Non-compliance is not only wrong, but also a threat to their continued access to low-cost financing and other concessions. For-profit complexes with inclusionary units also have good reasons to assure compliance. They too could lose access to low-cost financing, be subject to fines or lawsuits, and generate bad publicity and public distrust if they fail to comply with Affordable Housing agreements.

Incentives for owners and managers to minimize monitoring also exist for various reasons. • Compliance verification takes time and effort and therefore involves costs. • It can be intrusive to a tenant when the monitor needs to enter or inspect their apartment or house.
• Not everyone follows the prescribed guidelines; an unqualified friend, relative, or associate could be favored.
• Through mismanagement, Affordable units could be rented for more than the allowable amount.

Compliance monitoring is a significant burden to the housing departments which conduct it. The burden will increase significantly as RHNA requirements are met and the supply of Affordable Housing units is greatly increased. Unfortunately, the person-power, time, and resources allocated to monitoring already appear to be insufficient. The table below illustrates the size of the monitoring task and the resources currently available to do the work. Future RHNA Allocations represent the number of units which are expected or required to be added in each community between 2023 and 2031.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 9
Housing
Authority
Current
Number Of
Apartments
Future
RHNA
Allocation
Monitoring
Personnel
On-Site
Monitoring *
Cloverdale 221 117 None dedicated No
Cotati 88 94 None dedicated No
Healdsburg 352 299 None dedicated Rare
Petaluma 1,206 787 One + one open
position Annual
Rohnert Park 564 629 None dedicated No
Santa Rosa 4,076 1,919 One (80%) Not since Covid
Sebastopol 327 86 One, occasional No
Sonoma 389 131 One, part time Some
Unincorporated
So Co 109 1,632 One Rare
Windsor 398 607 One, part time No
Total 7,730 6,301
Table 3. Monitoring Tasks and Resources
Source: Interviews with multiple housing personnel
*On-site monitoring should include file reviews, grounds inspections, and apartment/house inspections. This monitoring was suspended during the COVID restrictions.

Inclusionary Housing Ownership Monitoring Requirements
Single-family homes are a smaller segment of Affordable Housing and are governed by somewhat different rules and expectations. Potential homebuyers are evaluated and their incomes are verified. The price of the house is then set, based on the income of the family.

Mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, etc. are factored into the amount paid. Continued income verification is not required, and incomes can increase beyond the Affordable level at which the house was purchased. However, if the house is resold, it must be sold as Affordable. The Grand Jury recommends that this information be attached to the title of the house and apparent to any title company involved in a resale. The requirement is central to the original contract; it allows the buildup of equity through mortgage payments, but ensures that the house remains Affordable for the next buyer. Housing departments should maintain an inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that their titles are flagged for restricted sale, and not at market rate.

Is There Significant Fraud in the Management of Affordable Housing? The Grand Jury investigation cannot provide a definitive answer to this question, nor can the housing departments that are charged with monitoring. No one the Grand Jury interviewed expressed fears of widespread misbehavior. Nevertheless, owners and managers have provided almost all of the information concerning compliance, with little or no opportunity for direct documentation by housing department monitors. Staff who were responsible for monitoring see this as a potential problem, and most expressed the desire to re-initiate on-site monitoring visits.

How Can Monitoring be Improved?
Housing personnel from the nine cities and the CDC meet regularly to discuss planning issues and the administration of their housing programs. Monitoring can be included in these

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 10
discussions, but the Grand Jury found there is, as yet, little coordination or cooperation in the actual monitoring process. Each city has its own personnel, procedures, and expectations, and none claim to give monitoring their highest priority. The quality of monitoring throughout the County could be improved if the various agencies agreed on a common set of goals, expectations, and procedures that set higher and more uniform standards. The CDC once provided leadership in this process and appears ready to do so again.

Petaluma and Rohnert Park make use of a customizable program from City Data Services that, among other things, helps streamline the monitoring process by moving it online. This, or a similar system, could help in tracking activities, managing documentation, and generally improving the quality of monitoring while simplifying it.

Essentially all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor. It is easy to suggest hiring more people, but that is especially unlikely to happen in the smaller cities due to budget restrictions. The Grand Jury believes it could be advantageous for the County and cities to cooperate by jointly using (and paying proportionately) staff to monitor countywide.

Alternatively, the agencies could jointly contract with a consulting firm to do the monitoring.

This would benefit the smaller cities in particular, since they have small staff sizes and fewer monitoring obligations that are more likely to be overlooked.

If self-reporting is to remain the main source of compliance information, it is important that those who collect and report it are adequately trained to compile the data. The people who do the reporting need to know how and why monitoring is important and necessary. The CDC, in conjunction with the Cities, could create an informational document or policy and procedures manual to provide upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring process.

CONCLUSION
Monitoring of compliance with the rules and regulations of Affordable Housing programs is complex. Responsibility lies with individual housing departments in the County and its nine cities. Staffing in these agencies is often insufficient, and there is little coordination amongst these organizations. Monitoring in general and on-site monitoring in particular have long been low priority. Requirements have been largely met by accepting self-reported data from owners and managers of apartment and housing units. The COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed in response to it placed almost total reliance on self-reported information. Systems that are already overburdened do not appear to be prepared for the large increases in Affordable Housing that are planned for the near future.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

F2. The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

F4. COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 11
F5. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

F6. Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done.

F7. The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

F8. There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

F9. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

F10. The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

F11. The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)
R2. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4)
R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)
R4. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission use informational documents and policies to provide ongoing training in the monitoring process for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects by January 1, 2023. (F7) R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8) R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)
R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11) R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10)

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 12

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Community Development Commission (R1, R2, R3, R4, R8) • City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8).
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Affordable Housing Online Affordable Housing Online
• Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022 Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/ • Sonoma County Board Of Supervisor Agenda 12/7/2021, Consent Calendar Item 2021- 1179, Sonoma County Community Development Commission - Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures Attachment 1-Existing Procedures Manual (not amended at this time), with Exhibits Summary Report
• Association of Bay Area Governments Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and Paloma Perez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 https://housingactioncoalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/HK-Housing-Handbook-2020.pdf • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Gallaher companies to pay $500,000 to settle claim from whistleblower who alleged affordable housing fraud, The Press Democrat, August 21, 2021 Gallaher Companies To Pay 500000 To Settle Claim From Whistleblower

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 13
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Former Gallaher employees at Santa Rosa apartment complex say they were pushed to take part in housing fraud schemes, The Press Democrat, September 3, 2021 Former Gallaher Employees At Santa Rosa Apartment Complex
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, In wake of newspaper investigation, Sonoma County launches review of affordable housing oversight, The Press Democrat, October 9, 2021 In Wake Of Newspaper Investigation Sonoma County Launches Review Of Affordable Housing
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Sonoma County to bolster oversight of affordable housing compliance after Press Democrat investigation, The Press Democrat, December 8, 2021 Sonoma County To Bolster Oversight Of Affordable Housing Compliance • Press Democrat Staff, Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award, The Press Democrat, March 16, 2022 Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance Report Date: June 14, 2022
Response by: Mark Landman Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: City of Cotati
FINDINGS: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
I (we) agree with the findings numbered: F4, F5, F7, F11 (partially agree) I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findingsnumbered: F1, F2, F3, F6, F8, F10 is unknown by City staff
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8
• Recommendations numbered: R8 have
been implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
• Recommendations numbered: R2, R5, R7 have not yet
been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
• Recommendations numbered: R1, R5, R6, require(s)
further analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.)
• Recommendations numbered: R3 (see attached explanation) will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:

Number of pages attached: 6
(See attached Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements)

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Revised August 2022 Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Response to Grant Jury Report on Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance – City of Cotati
Response to Findings
F1. Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

Cotati Response: Partially disagree. Cotati can only speak to activities within its jurisdiction.

As the smallest City in Sonoma County, the City historically contracted with the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) to play the role of Housing Authority and Housing Administrator for the City. This agreement was formalized through a Joint-Powers Agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement was allowed to expire and efforts to re-instate it were not successful due to management and staffing changes affecting the CDC since approximately 2019. While re-instating this agreement is a top priority for City staff, the Cotati City Council allocated additional funding within the Community Development Department to create an affordable housing monitoring and compliance program, absent adequate support from the CDC. Further, State dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2011 further reduced the City of Cotati capacity to incentivize the development of deed-restricted affordable housing and conduct robust monitoring. The combination of these two factors resulted in recent City-led monitoring efforts that were often inconsistent. However, no evidence has been found that monitoring has been inadequate.

At the time of this response, there are 19 projects in Cotati with deed-restricted affordable units, consisting of a total of 326 affordable units. Of these, six projects (consisting of 177 rental units) also have regulatory agreements with at least one other State or Federal housing agency who conduct robust monitoring, including regular onsite inspections. (These State and Federal housing agencies and/or programs include the California Housing Finance Agency or “CHFA”, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Housing and Urban Development or “HUD.”) This leaves 13 projects (consisting of 149 units) for which Cotati is the primary housing body responsible for compliance monitoring. However, a majority of these are ownership units (119), with affordable housing deed restrictions being recorded against their property titles.

Further, the most recently approved 13 of these owned homes are under Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (HLT) management, and the HLT is involved in the ownership structure of these units, ensuring they remain affordable and owners qualify for the affordability restrictions. While city-led monitoring of these projects has been inconsistent since the CDC JPA agreement was allowed to lapse, the combination of State, Federal, and non-profit agencies responsible for monitoring 58% of the affordable units in Cotati and another 33% of these units including deed restrictions reviewed by title officers during any proposed transaction, allow a significant majority of our affordable housing stock (91%) to continue to receive robust monitoring, per their regulations. The Grand Jury Report does not reference or acknowledge the compliance monitoring that these agencies and restrictions ensure.

Table 3 of the Grand Jury report indicates that Cotati has no dedicated monitoring

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) personnel, which as of August 22, 2022, is incorrect. Even prior to adopting the FY 2022/23 budget, the City Council authorized the creation of a Planning Technician position in the Community Development Department to add staff capacity that will support the City’s Housing Administration efforts. The CD department was able to successfully fill this position with the new Technician starting on August 22, 2022. Like most small cities, Cotati does not have the volume of transactions nor the budget to support a full-time individual for Housing Administration. For smaller cities, this function is best performed regionally or in a collective effort, which was previously performed by the CDC. Currently, the Community Development Department (supplemented by consultant/non-profit resources and/or CDC staff), is responsible for ensuring adequate monitoring of the City’s Affordable Housing stock take place.

F2. The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Cotati can only speak to activities within its jurisdiction.

While self-reporting may have been acceptable for the properties with limited numbers of inclusionary units where the affordability covenants rest with the City and no other agencies are involved in monitoring (30 units total or approximately 9%), this is not true of owned units with deed restrictions or units with required monitoring performed by CHFA, CDBG, LIHTC and HUD, all of which conduct regular on-site monitoring in addition to desktop monitoring. As noted in response to Finding 1 above, 91% of the deed-restricted affordable units in Cotati are also monitored by a State or Federal agency which conducts onsite monitoring, a not-for-profit housing organization and/or title officers reviewing any sale transactions.

As noted in the response to Finding 1, Cotati’s recent staff increases and on-going conversations with the County CDC and consultant/non-profit resources will ensure robust and local compliance monitoring of projects within the City resume in Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Cotati can only speak to activities within its jurisdiction.

Please see responses to Findings F1 and F2.

F4. COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

Cotati Response: Agree.

F5. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

Cotati Response: Agree.

F6. Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done.

Cotati Response: Partially Disagree. Cotati City staff do regularly monitor the grounds and amenities of the larger affordable housing unit developments through unscheduled visits to these sites.

F7. The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) 4 Cotati Response: Cotati agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. City staff is not familiar with the specific informational documents and policies referenced by the Grand Jury, however City staff can confirm that the County does maintain webpages with current area median income limits, rent limits and utility allowance schedule – which the City refers affordable housing property managers and owners to as needed. As the City continues to strengthen local monitoring, the City will document the monitoring processes.

F8. There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Cotati can only speak to activities within its jurisdiction.

Cotati included, has detailed affordability covenants with developers and/or managers of inclusionary housing which specify the requirements and compliance expectations of projects with affordable housing units. Cotati Community Development Department staff and contract consultants/non-profits to provide substantial technical assistance to developers and managers of inclusionary housing projects during the development review process and throughout the initial marketing of newly constructed affordable housing units to ensure clear understanding of compliance parameters. However, it is correct that there is no on-going compliance training provided by City staff for managers of affordable housing units after they are initially constructed and occupied. Typically, guidance is provided as needed after occupancy. Any on-going regular training, if needed, would best occur at a regional basis.

F9. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

Cotati Response:

F10. The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

Cotati Response: Unknown. Cotati staff work with developers of for-sale affordable housing units to ensure proper deed restrictions, legal sale limitations and other title documentation is properly recorded against the ownership deeds for all affordable ownership units within the City. Cotati Community Development Department and Administrative Services Department staff are regularly contacted by title companies asking for clarification and/or confirmation of title documentations affecting the affordability levels of units proposed for sale and/or purchase. All recent affordable ownership units in Cotati have been put under the administration and stewardship of the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (HLT), to further ensure that all units are flagged as deed restricted. Because HLT owns the land each home sits on, they are legally required to be involved in every sale/purchase transaction and are required to provide express permission for the sale, income levels of the buyers and the sales price of the home. This model was adopted by the City of Cotati to both ensure that units remain affordable and that this affordability continues in perpetuity. The City of Cotati is also expressly identified as the land ownership beneficiary in these recorded documents, should the HLT no longer be able to provide these services.

Cotati staff have heard anecdotal stories of affordable housing units being “lost” due to unit owners and/or title officers not identifying or enforcing deed restrictions, however no

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) 5 specific addresses or properties have been identified. Staff is aware that any deed restricted units subject to foreclosure and sale by the bank would have had their deed restrictions removed as part of that process due to the subordination process of mortgage lending.

Given the high number of homes foreclosed upon during the “Great Recession”, there is a possibility that some of the City’s deed restricted units were “lost” this way; however again City staff is not able to confirm any specific deed restricted properties having been re-sold at market rates.

F11. The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

Cotati Response: City of Cotati staff agree with Finding 11 with the following clarification.

While Cotati staff agrees that there is insufficient staffing resources to make anyone a “fulltime compliance monitor,” a dedicated full time staff member is not necessary to provide robust monitoring and maintain a monitoring program for the City of Cotati. In most small cities, there is insufficient volume of transactions nor the budget to support a full-time individual for Housing Administration. Strategic use of staff time, consultant/nonprofit resources and leveraging staff efforts by the CDC, CHFA, CDBG, LIHTC and HUD regarding monitoring and compliance work can ensure robust compliance monitoring and assistance without dedicating a single “full-time compliance monitor”. Further, the Cotati City Council has prioritized providing staff to support this effort by creating a new Planning Technician in the Community Development Department.

Response to Recommendations
R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)
Cotati Response: This recommendation requires additional analysis. Each jurisdiction has its own set of policies, programs, codes and affordability covenants governing affordable housing. For that reason, it may not be reasonable or warranted to develop one set of agreed-upon standards and procedures to monitor all affordable housing units in the County. With that said, over the past year, the City of Cotati has participated in Countyinitiated meetings to discuss how the County and Cities can collaborate on monitoring affordable housing units. The County has committed to facilitating additional meetings, and the City is committed to participating in these to discuss developing a collaborative compliance monitoring program with the County and other participating Cities.

R2. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume onsite monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4) Cotati Response: For the City of Cotati, this recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the near future. The City has filled the newly created position and begun training this individual in housing compliance and monitoring. Further, the City has engaged with the County CDC to request this agency resume its past effort to support the smaller non-entitlement jurisdictions with a compliance monitoring program in Fiscal Year 2022-2023, and plans to resume on-site monitoring of projects for whom the City is the oversight agency in Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023. Actual monitoring activities and efforts are

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) 6 scheduled to begin in October or November, 2022, but may not be completed until mid2023 depending on the timing of the CDC agreement, staff training and compliance inspection scheduling.

R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)
Cotati Response: This recommendation will be implemented for Cotati as it becomes needed. The City of Cotati cannot commit any other City in the County to any mandate or effort. Secondarily, the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) are planning a tool intended to plan and zone for projected local housing needs. However, RHNA does not guarantee that a specified number of units will be built, nor the timeframe for their construction. For this reason, it would not be reasonable or warranted to require sufficient personnel today to conduct on-site monitoring of units that are not yet in development and may never be built. Rather, Cotati staff find it is more appropriate to develop a staffing plan to support monitoring affordable housing units as these units are built and occupied.

Further, it is worth noting that the January 1, 2023 date is before local housing jurisdictions are required to adopt the Housing Element that will guide RHNA compliance, and compliance with RHNA is intended to occur over an eight-year time period. These facts further support building a monitoring and compliance program based on the actual needs of each community, rather than projections provided by the Council of Governments.

However, as has been identified above, Cotati has committed resources to ensure compliance monitoring of all existing and future affordable housing units within the City can be conducted, regardless of the outcome of the CDC negotiations and the timing of affordable housing units under the projected RHNA.

R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8) Cotati Response: This recommendation requires additional analysis and as identified above, has already been partially complied with by the City of Cotati (regarding upfront training). As described in Recommendation R1 above, the City is committed to participating in the County-led meetings to discuss developing a collaborative compliance monitoring program with the County and other participating cities. The result of this work is expected to include informational documents and policies to provide upfront and ongoing training materials to support the monitoring and compliance efforts for developers and managers of affordable housing projects. Regardless of the outcome of this regional effort, the City will continue to provide personalized technical assistance (see Finding F8) to the affordable housing projects for whom the City is an oversight agency. I
R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)
Cotati Response: The City of Cotati cannot commit any other jurisdiction in the County to

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) 7 any mandate or effort. This recommendation may not be implemented directly by the City.

As noted in Findings F1, the City of Cotati has begun to engage with the County CDC regarding their resumption of monitoring and compliance efforts on behalf of the City. If this negotiation is successful, the CDC would utilize their current monitoring programs and processes to support the City effort. As discussed in the City’s response to Recommendation R1 above, the City of Cotati has joined County-initiated meetings over the past year to discuss how the County and Cities can collaborate on monitoring affordable housing units.

This has included a discussion of affordable housing monitoring software. City staff cannot commit that the creation of a City led monitoring program will result in the purchase of software to facilitate this management. However, City staff will explore all options and best practices related to affordable housing monitoring.

R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11) Cotati Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but it is anticipated that this meeting will occur prior to November 1, 2022. As discussed in the City’s response to Recommendation R1 above, the City of Cotati has joined County-initiated meetings over the past year to discuss how the County and Cities can collaborate on monitoring affordable housing units. This has included a discussion of pooling resources, making resources consistent and combining efforts.

R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10) Cotati Response: The recommendation has been implemented by the City of Cotati.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 1
Affordable Housing: Past, Present and
Future
“Do It, or the State Will Do It For You”

SUMMARY
Housing in Sonoma County is widely considered to be in short supply and very expensive. The State of California, working through the Association of Bay Area Governments, has mandated that in the next few years 14,562 new houses and apartments should be built in the County.

Specific allocations give approximately one-third of the units to Santa Rosa, one third to the other eight Cities, and one-third to the unincorporated areas of the County. This housing expansion is expected to occur between 2023 and 2031 as part of the State’s larger strategic plan; it is referred to as the 6th cycle housing element, following a much less ambitious 5th cycle covering 2015 to 2023. The 5th cycle plan was essentially aspirational and advisory. The 6th cycle plan is mandatory; jurisdictions that do not meet expectations can be fined or even lose local control of housing to the State.

Of the almost 15,000 new homes and apartments in the allocation, more than half are designated as Affordable Housing for very low, low, and moderate-income families. These income categories are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI), which is determined annually by HUD. For Sonoma County, the 2022 AMI for a family of four is $103,300. HUD then defines very low income as 30-50% of AMI, low income as 50-80% of AMI, and moderate income as 80-120% of AMI. (Some programs define low-income as below 60% of AMI.) The 6th cycle allocations for Sonoma County include 3,999 very-low-income units, 2,302 low-income units, and 2,302 moderate income housing units.

Affordable Housing costs cannot exceed 30% of a family’s gross income. This means that rent and utilities for a family of four earning $50,000 cannot exceed $15,000 per year or $1,250 per month, regardless of the much higher market price of equivalent housing. To be economically viable, Affordable Housing development employs a variety of subsidies, inducements, and demands. This report examines factors that affect the development of Affordable Housing, both positive and inhibitory. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance,” looks at governmental oversight of existing Affordable Housing.

Some housing developments are 100% Affordable; every apartment in the complex is rented at a rate determined by family gross income. Affordable Houses are sold on the same basis. These developments are usually created by non-profit, mission-oriented organizations, and they rely heavily on grants, subsidies, and concessions. A second type of development, referred to as inclusionary housing, requires Affordable Housing units to be included within a market rate development. Different inclusionary housing ordinances govern Sonoma County and each of its Cities. They specify that 5% to 20% of apartments or houses, in projects of five to ten or more units, must be dedicated in one or more of the Affordable Housing categories.

Many programs exist to support construction of Affordable Housing. Financing is usually a central concern. Federal tax credits, which can be sold to investors to provide cash for planning and construction, are the most common. Low interest long term loans and HUD loan guarantees

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 2
also provide financing. Grants are sometimes available, often to support Affordable Housing directed to specific groups such as farm workers, veterans, or seniors. Builders of Affordable Housing may be eligible for specific concessions such as reduced or waived costs for fees, expedited review, modification of housing density limitations, or reduction of requirements for amenities such as off-street parking or landscaping.

Recent changes in the State law also encourage the production of Affordable Housing.

California Senate Bill 9 allows, with specific limitations, construction of a second rentable house on an existing lot. Senate Bill 10 encourages zoning changes that allow the development of smaller projects as infill, within existing neighborhoods and especially near public transit centers such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more easily through the approval process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects. Other laws simplify construction of rentable Accessory Dwelling Units (sometimes called in-law units) on a lot with an existing house.

There are also many impediments to the creation of Affordable Housing. Land costs in Sonoma County are high and typically constitute about 20% of the cost of a project. The availability of financing is highly competitive and very complex. Proposals are subjected to careful scrutiny and analysis before consideration, and the process is very slow. For example, federal loan guarantees may take seven months to a year for approval. Projects normally need several different forms of financing, each of which has its own application procedures, regulations, and timetable.

Inclusionary housing ordinances differ for each jurisdiction in the County. The same is true of various mitigation fees, designed to offset the costs to the jurisdiction of additional demand for parkland, fire and police services, sewage, traffic, and separately to school districts. There are also different fees and procedures for building permits in the Cities and County. The complexity generated by different fees and rules, each subject to interpretation, increases the cost and difficulty of building Affordable Housing. The cost of permits and mitigation fees is significant; a range of 11-20% of building costs is cited by several interviewees.

A major problem in the development of Affordable Housing is public opposition, often summarized by the phrase “Not In My Backyard” or the acronym NIMBY. Opposition takes many forms: anti-development or environmental concerns, traffic worries, potential property value losses, and more, including both open and unspoken racial and ethnic prejudices. It is vital that local opinions are heard and that accommodations be made whenever reasonable. Several interviewees indicated that no Affordable Housing will be built if a small number of opponents cannot compromise.

This is a self-initiated report by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury).

The Grand Jury makes several recommendations that could simplify and accelerate the development of Affordable Housing and help the County and its Cities reach their Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 3
• CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HLT Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
• LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits
• NIMBY Not In My Backyard
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• YIMBY Yes In My Back Yard

BACKGROUND
In 2021, The Press Democrat published a series of articles detailing the rental of Affordable Housing units to unqualified individuals at an apartment development near Santa Rosa. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this particular situation. A companion report, Affordable Housing: Compliance and Monitoring, details the Grand Jury’s investigation of the general problem of oversight of existing Affordable Housing in Sonoma County. Further questions arose during the investigation, leading the Grand Jury to an expanded look into Affordable Housing in the County and its cities.

The term ‘affordable housing’ can have different meanings depending on context:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to a company executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

Affordable Housing in the context of this report refers to housing that is priced on the basis of ability to pay, and not on the market rate of a rental apartment or of a house to buy or rent.

Affordability is defined relative to the Area Median Income (AMI), the income at which an equal number of families earn more and an equal number of families earn less. The AMI value is determined annually by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is specific to an area.

The AMI for a family of four is derived from selected census data. As of January 1, 2022, this value for Sonoma County is $103,300. This number is updated annually. AMI values for other sized families are determined mathematically using this number as a basis. Four-person family income limits that define eligibility for Affordable Housing are then defined in several categories as shown below.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 4
Category Percent of AMI Maximum Annual Income
Acutely Low Income 15% $15,500
Extremely Low Income 30% $34,900
Very Low Income 50% $58,150
AMI* 60% $69,780
Low Income ** 80% $93,050
Median Income 100% $103,300
Moderate Income 120% $123,950
Table 1. Income Limits to Qualify for Affordable Housing Source: CDC
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Annual costs for Affordable Housing are then determined as a maximum of 30% of gross income. As an example, a family of four with a gross income of $45,000 would be classified as Very Low-Income. Their maximum housing costs would be 30% of $45,000 or $13,500 per year / $1,125 per month. Utilities are included within the 30% limit, as are property taxes and insurance for owner-occupied housing. The calculations above are only relevant if an Affordable Housing unit is available. Housing officials, builders, and advocates have all told this Grand Jury that Affordable Housing units are in very short supply with long wait lists.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing situation in the region, including Sonoma County, and makes recommendations for specific housing goals.

The County is currently involved in planning its 6
th Cycle Housing Element, a part of the
County’s general plan. The housing element includes:
• A housing needs assessment.
• Evaluation of past performance—in this case 5th cycle success or failure. • An inventory of potential housing sites.
• Community outreach.
• Analysis of constraints and barriers to housing development. • Establishment of policies and programs to meet the goals.

The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the period of 2023 to 2031. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from ABAG demands a large increase in all areas of the County, including significant numbers of new Affordable Housing units. For example, unincorporated Sonoma County is mandated to create 3,881 new housing units—apartments or single-family homes— during this period, and 1,632 of these should be Affordable in the low and very-low income categories. This is a sharp increase over the total of 515 units allocated to unincorporated Sonoma County in the 5th cycle. The nine cities of the County also have specific 6th cycle allocations as shown in Table 2.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 5
Table 2: The Final RHNA Allocation
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031 RHNA allocations in the past have been strong recommendations and housing goals for Sonoma County and its nine cities. These recommendations and goals have not always been met. Recent legislative changes make the 6th cycle allocations more of a mandate, with the threat that if counties or cities do not fulfill their obligations, they can be fined and even lose authority to the State over their housing programs. The chart in Appendix A outlines this process.

In this report the Grand Jury examines the larger questions surrounding the need for additional housing in Sonoma County, and in particular its shortage of Affordable Housing. What is planned? What progress is being made? What are the incentives? What are the obstacles to meeting housing goals? This is a self-initiated investigation of a topic of wide concern and activity.

METHODOLOGY
For this investigation, the Grand Jury conducted 21 interviews including:
• Housing representatives from Sonoma County and its nine cities • Individuals involved in planning, construction, and management of Affordable Housing • Housing advocates and advisors
The Grand Jury also examined multiple websites and documents dealing with aspects of Affordable Housing policy, programs, and regulations. In addition, Grand Jury members attended public meetings on this topic.

DISCUSSION
California is infamous for its housing costs and shortages, and Sonoma County is no exception.

Based on house sales data, The Press Democrat reported median resale house prices in January 2022 exceeded three quarters of a million dollars in the County; median prices in Healdsburg or along the coastline were twice as high. Houses that were too expensive a year ago are more expensive now. The State of California recognizes that we have a housing crisis, and in

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 6
particular a significant shortage of Affordable Housing. Sonoma County has become a place where people with ordinary incomes cannot afford to live.

Factors that Favor the Development of Affordable Housing Governmental Policies and Commitment
The State of California has mandated the creation of new housing, including significant amounts of Affordable Housing. This mandate is quantified through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determination of needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG allocates housing units through its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Sonoma County and each of the nine Cities officially favor increasing the supply of housing, although not always with full acceptance of RHNA allocations. Results from the 5th Cycle Housing Element are also informative. Although the 5th cycle continues through the end of 2022, and all housing jurisdictions reported progress, though not all their goals, such as those for low-income and very low-income units, will be attained. Fifth cycle allocations were recommendations, and they were small compared to the 6th cycle requirements. The jurisdictions will need to increase their efforts to avoid the possibility of State sanctions or State assumption of local control over housing: “Do It, or the State Will Do It For You” Changes in Law
The State of California has passed several new laws to encourage housing development in general, and Affordable Housing in particular.
• SB 9 Housing Development: Approvals, which took effect January 1, 2022, allows construction of a second full unit on a lot that already has a single-family home or duplex. Because cities and counties maintain local control under SB9, and can impose limitations on lot size, etc., it is unclear how often it will be used. It allows larger structures than the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or ‘in-law” unit, and canbe available for rent. This law also allows for the modification to an existing dwelling unit to include rentable space as a Junior Additional Dwelling Unit (JADU). However, in most jurisdictions, there is no guarantee that the ADU or JADU will be affordable housing.

SB 10 Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density, which took effect January 1, 2022, eases the development of small housing complexes (10 or fewer units) as infill within cities or near transit hubs such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Infill can be described as building on unused and underutilized lands within existing development

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 7
patterns. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research states that infill is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally and socially sustainable. While maintaining local control, SB 10 allows pro-housing governments to re-zone appropriate land parcels with fewer potential roadblocks. It does not change the approval process for the building(s).

SB 35 Planning and Zoning: Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process, has been in effect since 2018. It allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more quickly through the approval process. It also restrictsthe ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects, and in some cases removes requirements for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of theproject.

SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019, modifies planning and zoning law. It prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws or raising administrative barriers that would reduce or delay housing construction. This law was set to expire in 2025, but SB-8 (2021) extends parts of the legislation to 2030 and 2034. • AB 491 Housing: Affordable and Market Rate Units, enacted in 2021, requires that Affordable Housing apartments in multifamily developments be integrated within the complex and have the same access to common areas and amenities. AB 1043 (2021) adds “Acutely Low Income”, defined as below 15% of AMI, as a category of lower income households that can be targeted for Affordable Housing.

Local housing ordinances have also been passed or modified to increase the percentage of Affordable units in a project and to lengthen the time period that the units must be rented as Affordable Housing. Many earlier projects had 30-year timespans for required affordability while current restrictions usually range from 50 to 99 years.

Paths to Affordable Housing
The two major paths to the creation of Affordable Housing are:
100% Affordable Housing complexes: In this type of project, every apartment or house is intended to be available under the umbrella of Affordable within one or more of the categories of Table 1. These developments are most often apartment complexes, built and managed by not-for-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and Mid Pen Housing. These organizations are mission-oriented; they exist to provide Affordable Housing.

Projects are often opportunistic in that they depend heavily on the availability of land, often publicly owned. In addition, funding may be directed toward a specific need such as senior housing. Commercial builders may also construct 100% affordable projects.

Inclusionary Housing: Sonoma County and its cities have adopted ordinances that mandate that a percentage of apartments or houses in a development must beAffordable.

The mandate usually applies only when a development includes at least some specific number of units, typically 5 to 10. The percentage of Affordable units varies with the jurisdiction, usually 10-20%, often divided between low-income and very low-income.

The inclusionary units must remain Affordable for a defined time period, typically 50 years or more. Inclusionary housing ordinances guarantee that the supply of Affordable Housing will grow in conjunction with market-rate housing. They also fosterintegration

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 8
of Affordable units within market-rate developments, leading to greater economic diversity.

Less common routes include:

Rehabilitation and Repurposing: A variation on the theme of new building is rehabilitation and re-direction of an existing complex. For example, an apartment building could be purchased, then updated or rehabilitated, and re-occupied asAffordable Housing. Likewise, a motel can be remodeled and repurposed as transitional housing.

Housing Land Trusts: A less common avenue to Affordable Home ownership is exemplified by a Housing Land Trust. The Housing Land Trust maintains ownership of the land on which a house is built; the house is sold in accordance with Affordable Housing income limits.

Accessory Dwelling Units: ADUs are additional housing units that are legally added to a residential property. Sometimes referred to as in-law units, they can be attached to or separated from the existing residence. ADUs may
be new construction or converted from existing
space. A Junior ADU (JADU) is a smaller version
of an ADU. It is an independent, legally rentable
unit that must exist within the existing dwelling
unit or an attached accessory structure such as a
garage. They can contain a very simple kitchen
with small appliances and share a bathroom with
the original dwelling. Consequently, development
costs for JADUs are lower. Both ADUs and
JADUs can be rented.

Who Builds Affordable Housing?
Non-Profit/Mission-Oriented Builders
Mission-oriented non-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and MidPen Housing construct and manage developments in which every unit is Affordable. These organizations exist for the sole purpose of providing high-quality housing for those who cannot afford to rent or buy market-rate accommodations. They are widely respected and supported within Sonoma County.

Builders of Inclusionary Housing
Most housing developments within Sonoma County are required to include some percentage of Affordable units. They fall under inclusionary housing ordinances, which are in effect in Sonoma County and all of its nine Cities. Requirements vary, but most include provisions for both low-income and very low-income units. The ordinances typically specify that inclusionary units must be comparable to the market-rate units with respect to appearance, appliances, access to amenities, etc. Units cannot be concentrated in one building or area, but should be integrated throughout the development. The intent is to make the inclusionary houses or apartments difficult to identify as Affordable Housing and thus to avoid stigmatization.

A developer may decide that the mandated number of inclusionary units is inappropriate for the project. Most ordinances have provisions that allow payment of an in-lieu fee to either reduce or eliminate the inclusionary requirement. If ‘feeing out’ is approved by the jurisdiction, the fees

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 9
go into a housing fund to support construction of Affordable Housing. Unfortunately, these fees rarely provide enough funding to actually build an affordable unit.

While a few jurisdictions support feeing out as a way of providing more flexibility to support future Affordable projects, other governing bodies oppose or have eliminated the payment of inlieu fees as counter to the desire for more Affordable Housing.

Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
The Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (HLT) is a non-profit organization supporting lowor moderate income housing. In the housing land trust model, the land on which a house (or possibly a condominium) is built, is owned by the HLT while the house itself belongs to the purchaser. The family income of the buyer, usually with zero down payment, determines the purchase price of the house. The owner is then responsible for the mortgage and taxes plus a small monthly lease payment on the land. The house deed is restricted; any resale must be in the category (low or moderate income) of the original purchase. Thus the house remains Affordable through the period of the land lease, usually 99 years. HLT houses can be inclusionary units in a development or one-off opportunities. The land title can be deeded to the HLT by the developer, donated by an owner or government agency, or purchased by the HLT.

Manufactured and Factory Built Housing
Both manufactured and factory-built housing have cost advantages over conventional construction methods and thus can increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

Manufactured housing generally refers to homes that are built totally in a construction facility and transported intact to a site such as a mobile home park. The cost of manufactured homes is typically less than that of custom-built homes. They are also more limited in size and design. Often the land on which a home sits is not owned by the homeowner, and rent must be paid. Although construction standards have improved, manufactured homes may still carry the stigma of being flimsy and unlikely to increase in value.

Factory built housing refers to housing that is often modular, constructed in a facility and transported and assembled on a building site. It can be considerably less expensive than traditional on-site building. Modules can be more easily adapted to meet local building codes, and its design can be much more flexible than manufactured housing. However, many of the cost advantages of factory-built housing can be negated by long transportation distances and associated costs.

Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Older apartment buildings may have included Affordable units that had shorter term restrictions (e.g. 30 years) before reverting to market rate. Other apartment buildings, motels, or homes may simply become available for purchase. If funds are available, developers or jurisdictions can purchase such properties, modernize or rehabilitate them, and repurpose the units as Affordable Housing.

Project Homekey, a successor to Project Roomkey, is a statewide effort to combat homelessness.

Administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, it makes grants to local housing entities to enable them to develop interim or permanent housing for unhoused people. Rehabilitation through Project Homekey has been used to purchase and re12.B.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 10
purpose the Azura Hotel in Santa Rosa and the Sebastopol Inn in Sebastopol. They were then repurposed and converted into accommodations and support services for homeless individuals who were highly susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Both properties will eventually be converted to permanent Affordable Housing for households earning no more than 30% of AMI.

Targeted Housing
Affordable Housing is sometimes targeted to specific groups. Often the availability of directed funding provides an opportunity to generate Affordable Housing for defined populations. Senior Citizen housing complexes are the most common. Based on available funding from the U. S.

Department of Agriculture, a recently approved project in Cloverdale specifies housing for agricultural workers. Veterans, individuals with disabilities or special needs or other groups may qualify for specific projects.

Incentives to Build Affordable Housing; Loans, Grants, Tax Credits The cost of building an Affordable house or apartment is not inherently different from the cost of building a market-rate property, but the potential income from the Affordable unit is significantly less. Incentives are used to help projects be economically viable. A summary of these programs is provided below. A more detailed listing of programs is presented in Appendix A.

Federal Programs
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): This program is the most important Affordable Housing support mechanism, worth $8 billion per year. The credits are issued to the states by the Federal Government. State housing agencies award the credits to developers of Affordable Housing. Developers can then sell the credits to investors to obtain funding for a project.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): This HUD program allocates funds on a formula basis to states, counties and cities for projects that improve the quality of living for residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the AMI. Examples include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and provision of homeless shelters.

HOME Investments Partnership Program: This program provides block grants to states and localities that are often used in partnership with local nonprofit groups to build, buy, or rehabilitate Affordable Housing.

Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined with the (LIHTC) program.

State Programs
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities: This program invests cap-and-trade money in Affordable Housing infill projects close to transportation services and infrastructure. In 2022, this program provides $130 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2): This Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 recording fee, charged every time real estate documents are recorded.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 11
Multifamily Housing Program (SB 3): The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 provides $1.5 billion in bonds for this program which provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental Affordable Housing.

No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for housing the unhoused and people living with mental illness. The actual funding started in 2019.

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Loans: CalHFA offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for developers and low to moderate income first-time home buyers.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. These grants provide gap funding for infrastructure improvements on qualifying infill housing projects.

Sonoma County and Local Funding programs
Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): CHF was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of low, very low, and extremely low income Affordable Housing. CFH provides loans and grants from various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees.

Cities: Some cities utilize the fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees assessed on new residential developments, in-lieu fees, and linkage fees assessed on new commercial developments provide the funds.

Concessions
A variety of modifications to requirements for new construction are intended to increase the supply of Affordable Housing. Some of the most common are:

Density bonuses: Zoning ordinances usually define the maximum allowable residential density on a site. Inclusion of greater than
required numbers of Affordable units can allow up
to 50% higher density in a project, resulting in
increased potential revenue.

Fee reduction or waiver: Some jurisdictions may
waive or reduce mitigation fees for Affordable
Housing. This is common for ADU and JADU
construction; for example, Petaluma waives fees
on ADUs of less than 750 square feet. Fee waivers are also sometimes possible for other Affordable Housing construction projects. Santa Rosa has a fee reduction program for high density multi-unit Affordable Housing in the downtown area. Fresno allows deferral of all mitigation fees until an Affordable Housing unit is occupied, and recently expanded a fee waiver program for infill and transit-oriented units.

Development incentives: A variety of concessions or incentives support construction of Affordable Housing. For example, in return for increased inclusionary units, the Shiloh Terrace project in Windsor proposed a reduction in the number of parking spaces, changes in height restrictions and a reduction in open space requirements.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 12
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) waivers: CEQA serves to inform the public on environmental effects of proposed discretionary projects through environmental impact reports. Under some circumstances, CEQA requirements can be waived to speed up the process.

There can be flexibility in other site-specific factors such as public transportation access, numbers of trees, covered parking spaces, walkability of the area, playground space, etc.

Public Education
Public opposition to housing growth is common, and informational programs and processes can help modify public opinion. Sonoma County and its cities all provide information on their websites that is intended to increase public awareness of local policies. Planning documents such as Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 outline housing policies and goals, including Affordable Housing. Generation Housing, a Sonoma County advocacy group, provides educational materials such as State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022, and a housing project tracking tool that provides identification and status information on Affordable Housing projects in the County. There is even a public support movement, Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY), that argues for increased housing density in cities.

Factors that Inhibit Development of Affordable Housing
Although there is Federal, State and local support for the concept of Affordable Housing and there are many programs to support it, there are also barriers that keep its supply well below its demand. Some of these barriers are common to all housing construction, and some are more specific to Affordable Housing.

Public Acceptance of Affordable Housing - NIMBY: Not in My Backyard The need for more housing, including Affordable Housing, is officially recognized by the State of California, Sonoma County, and its nine cities. These housing needs are widely understood but not universally endorsed by the public and some cities, especially with respect to Affordable Housing. Often an opinion, stated as “Affordable Housing in some other city or county” is more popular than “Affordable Housing in my town”, which is perhaps better than “Affordable Housing in my neighborhood” and much more acceptable than “Affordable Housing next door to me.” The strongest opposition to a project most often comes from those it most immediately

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 13
affects. Factors that contribute to Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)ism with respect to Affordable Housing include:
• Fear of any new development that will change the character of the County, city, or neighborhood. Many residents of Sonoma County are simply happy with the way things are. Many came here to escape more crowded environments. They see no need for population growth, more houses, new apartment complexes, high-rise buildings, busier roads, or losing their view, etc.
• Fear and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing residents: Affordable Housing is often seen as solely aimed at groups who will, in accord with negative stereotypes, alter or degrade the neighborhood. It should be noted that ordinances demand that Affordable Housing developments and houses be compatible with their neighborhoods and not stand out as different or of inferior construction. Inclusionary apartments should also be interspersed with the market-rate apartments in a multi-unit building. • Environmental concerns: In 2006 Sonoma County voters strongly supported the reauthorization of a 1990 sales tax increment to fund the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. The rural and agricultural nature of the County is seen by some as incompatible with growth. Support for CEQA is generally high. Water shortages due to continuing drought, air quality degradation from more traffic, and loss of wildlife habitat are cited as concerns. Many environmentalists favor new housing, especially infill, because denser, city-centered developments, and modern construction methods can be more effective in reducing water and energy usage. • Infrastructure and resource concerns: New housing means more traffic and congestion, more streets and roads, more schools, stores and offices, more sewage and trash, yet all within the limitations of water, land, transportation, and the costs to the community of expansion. Residents fear that they will be paying the costs of newcomers, even though general housing expansion and Affordable Housing development are aimed at current Sonoma County residents who cannot find or afford a decent place to live. • Property value concerns: There is a common fear that the presence of Affordable Housing will lower the value of existing properties nearby. Don’t Put it Here!, a study from the New York University Furman Center, found that Affordable Housing had neither a positive nor a negative effect on nearby property values. A review of several studies by the Urban Studies Program at San Francisco State University found no effect on nearby property values in 13 of 14 investigations.
• Natural disaster preparedness: Sonoma County has experienced major disasters in the last few years and needs to be prepared for the next challenge: fire, flood, or earthquake.

Many areas in the County have only one or two potential escape or access routes. In an emergency, roads could quickly become impassable, overcrowded, or clogged with traffic. More housing raises fears of reduced safety. This concern needs attention from emergency management entities regardless of additional housing; it is not solely a concern for new housing.
• Racial and ethnic concerns: Few people openly admit to racial or ethnic prejudice.

Nevertheless, racial and ethnic stereotypes, although often unspoken, remain. There is concern that those people will not ‘fit into the neighborhood”. A potentialcultural

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 14
enrichment is seen as a threat. This is a problem that extends far beyond Sonoma County and needs to be understood and countered nationally and beyond.

Inconsistent and Complex Governmental Regulations and Commitment to Affordable Housing Although all jurisdictions in Sonoma County support the addition of Affordable Housing, the levels of support, commitment, and accomplishment are not uniform. • Inclusionary housing ordinances vary widely from city to city. The minimum number of units in an inclusionary development can be 5, 7, or 10 depending on city policy. In-lieu fees can be welcomed, tolerated or prohibited. The minimal number of inclusionary units ranges from 5% to 25%, with most jurisdictions requiring 15%. The mix of low, very low, and (sometimes) extremely low priced units is inconsistent between cities.

Santa Rosa and Petaluma have different requirements that favor city center developments over those outside the inner core.
• Zoning ordinances in some cities favor single family home construction over multifamily housing. Affordable single family homes for purchase are often directed at moderate (up to 120% AMI) or median income levels, whereas Affordable rental apartments are more commonly directed at low income (less than 80% or less than 60% AMI) or very low income (less than 50% AMI)families.
• Lack of political will from County officials or city councils: Elected officials are expected to consider the opinions of their constituents, and sometimes there is strong opposition to a project. For example, a project in Cloverdale was approved by a split vote in early 2022, but only after two council votes and considerable discussion. The City of Sonoma created or expanded three historic districts early in 2022, greatly limiting the possibility of expanding housing in those areas. The North Bay Bohemian cites a recent ordinance in the City of Sonoma that requires that any property on which a second housing unit is proposed must have at least three mature trees and ten shrubs.

These requirements would limit SB 9 implementation. In addition, a proposed multiunit development in Sebastopol has been on-hold since 2019 due to public concerns, but may be able to move forward based on SB 35 implementation. • Commercial development may be considered more favorably than housing, including Affordable Housing. Interviews with housing officials indicated that new housing had a negative impact on their budgets. Despite mitigation fees and taxes, services for new residents usually cost more than the income they bring to the jurisdiction. In contrast, a large commercial development such as a car dealership or a big box store brings in added sales taxes while not requiring social services, new schools, parks, etc. Similarly, a hotel generates occupancy taxes for a city.
• City Boundaries and Their Spheres of Influence: Each City has a well-defined boundary within which it has jurisdiction. The Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission, which regulates city and special district boundaries, delineates Spheres of Influence:
areas adjacent to the cities and potentially appropriate for annexation and siting of Affordable Housing. Cloverdale has utilized this, resulting in City Council approval of the design and development plan for the Bumgardner Ranch Project in September 2020.

Other jurisdictions have hesitated to annex adjacent property. Most cited the costs of bringing infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, parks and other amenities) to the added territory in order to develop it into housing.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 15
• In November 2018, Santa Rosa voters defeated an Affordable Housing bond measure (Measure N), and Sonoma County refused to put a similar measure on the ballot.

Additionally, some housing advocates we interviewed don’t think Affordable Housing measures would pass today because of low levels of public acceptance.

Land and Construction Costs
Any factor that increases building costs has a disproportionate effect on Affordable Housing, since higher costs cannot be offset with higher rents or house prices. Land values in Sonoma County are high and rising. In their 2022 report State of Housing in Sonoma County, Generation Housing (Gen H, a non-profit advocacy group), indicates that the average cost of a quarter acre home lot rose 117% between 2012 and 2018, from $128,100 to $278,600. The land accounted for 34.7% of the cost of building a house. Apartment
developments require less land per unit than individual houses. Nevertheless builders report that land costs usually represent about 20% of the cost of such projects.

Skilled and unskilled building workers are in high demand and able to command good wages. It can be hard to find
construction workers. Interviewees indicated that project labor agreements (or prevailing wage agreements) can add to labor costs by as much as 20-30%. Construction
materials are also currently expensive and hard to get because of pandemic-induced supply problems. Lumber prices surged in 2021, and components that had been plentiful remain scarce.

A New York Times article in February 2022 indicated it took 20 weeks to acquire a garage door, without which a house normally cannot get an occupancy permit. Other shortages of materials can delay projects for weeks.

Availability and Complexity of Financing
There are many government programs that help finance Affordable Housing, yet there is never enough money to fund everything. Funding programs are almost all highly competitive, and application processes are complex and slow. For example, HUD advises applicants for Section 221(d)(4) loan guarantees that the time to complete the process is 7 to 12 months; documentation requirements are extensive and carefully checked, and application fees are significant. • 100% Affordable Housing projects can have larger hurdles to overcome. Extensive evaluation of the site, project details, local need, and especially the economic viability of the project need to be documented in detail. Financing is particularly complex. One person interviewed by the Grand Jury described a 100% Affordable Housing project that needed ten different sources of funding, and that a typical project uses seven. Multiple funding sources often have different affordability, documentation, monitoring, and timing requirements.

Complex Multistep Approval Processes
Even when a jurisdiction is strongly pro-housing, the pathway from concept to finished construction is complicated. For a typical inclusionary or 100% Affordable Housing project, steps include:
• Site identification and acquisition: A private builder may already own appropriately zoned land or be able arrange a loan and purchase through normal channels. Anon12.B.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 16
profit organization might first need to arrange low cost loans or grant funding for the purchase, or it could also depend on a donated site with restrictions on how it could be developed. This step may take a few months to over a year. • Preliminary design reviews: County or local design review boards concern themselves with multiple aspects of the project, including geology of the site, appropriateness of the project, housing density, size and appearance of the buildings, space use, landscaping and amenities, site access and parking, neighborhood impact, environmental considerations, access to utilities, and access to public transportation and services.

Financing for the project may be arranged, or at least in process. Public opinion is sought, and hopefully an economically viable project is given preliminary approval.

This step usually takes several months to more than a year, and occasionally a project can lie dormant for longer periods.
• Final design and approval involve public review, payment of a variety of mitigation fees, procurement of permits, and approval by city or county authorities. At this stage there may be modifications to plans to accommodate public or environmental concerns.

Sometimes a builder might want to alter the number of Affordable units by the payment of in-lieu fees. Funding must be finalized. This step may also take several months or more to complete.
• Construction can now begin. Recent shortages of materials and labor have slowed this step. It is in the interest of the builder to complete the project quickly since money is being spent but no rents are being collected.

Builders interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the process from concept to occupied housing usually takes four years or more. 100% Affordable Housing projects can be slower because of the greater complexity of obtaining funding.

The planning stages, which include negotiations between builders and planning staff, can be lengthy and involved. Several individuals the Grand Jury spoke with were critical of the complexity and bureaucracy involved in the planning process. Builders felt that their concerns were sometimes not understood.

CEQA Exploitation and Misuse
The California Environmental Quality Act was passed in 1970 with the aim of identifying and mitigating the environmental effects of public projects. As detailed in a recent article in The Atlantic, the scope of CEQA has expanded to cover almost any private project that requires a level of governmental approval. CEQA lawsuits are relatively easy and inexpensive to bring, but they can demand lengthy and expensive environmental studies and significantly delay a project, add to its costs, and even cause its abandonment. Studies cited in the article indicate that multifamily housing is the most common target of CEQA lawsuits, and that up to 80% concern infill housing, projects that are often likely to be more environmentally friendly than e.g. industrial construction. California SB 35 attempts to limit arbitrary use of CEQA.

Mitigation Fees: What Keeps Them from Building Quickly or At All Additional housing, including Affordable Housing, adds to the need for infrastructure and government services, such as fire and police. Mitigation fees, levied on both new construction and remodeling of housing, are designed to offset some or all of these costs. Fees vary widely in

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 17
Sonoma County, but all are a significant cost of development. As an example, the fee schedule for Sebastopol is shown below.

Purpose Single Family House Multiunit Apartment
(per unit)
Park Land $7,276 $4,958
Park Facilities 5,922 4,036
Traffic Impact 8,174 4624
General Government 3,017 2,056
Fire Facilities 1,000 681
Stormwater Facilities 5,502 2,830
Total $30,891 $19,185
Every other jurisdiction has its own set of fees, and both the amounts and the nature of the charges are different in each jurisdiction. For example, in Cloverdale, the list of fees is different, but the average total shown on their website is about $41,000 for a house and $30,500 per apartment unit. In January 2022, the fee total for a single family house in Santa Rosa was $51,862. In Windsor, traffic mitigation fees alone are $11,475 and $6,941. Developers complained to the Grand Jury about both the cost and the inconsistency of these fees.

In addition, school district mitigation fees are charged separately and also vary considerably.

The Rincon Valley School District charges $2.86 per square foot of newly constructed housing.

The equivalent figure for Cotati/Rohnert Park is $3.79 per sq. ft. while Cloverdale has a proposal for $4.79 per sq. ft. Some jurisdictions set fees that are directed at a specific problem or situation. As an example, the continuing drought has led to the adoption of a Water Demand Offset Policy in the City of Santa Rosa. Funds from this fee would be used to implement projects or plans to offset the water needs of the development.

Building Permits, Review Processes, and Personnel
Virtually any construction or rehabilitation of housing requires building permits from the governing authority. Again, there is great variability in the nature and costs of required permits and in the time needed to secure them. Grand Jury interviews of builders and developers indicate that they accept that permitting oversight is needed to ensure quality and meet accepted standards (code), and that costs are involved in approval processes. Builders also wish that more self-certification or video-based remote certification was available. They accept that permit personnel are generally reasonable and professional in their actions. Nevertheless, the inconsistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in processes and procedures is seen as a hindrance to development. They further complain that the permitting process is often very slow, and permit departments often fail to meet their own goals for timeliness. Slowness was considered to be more of a problem than permit costs.

Nevertheless, the total cost of mitigation fees and permit fees is significant. Interviewees indicated that, depending on the nature and cost of a project, between 11% and as much as 20% of the total cost of construction can go to paying fees.

Complex multi-step review processes also add to costs by slowing the pace of a development and increasing the amount of paperwork involved in it. Cotati has attempted to ease this problem by essentially combining preliminary and final review processes into a more streamlined and direct

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 18
negotiation. Lack of sufficient personnel in planning departments was cited as a problem in several interviews. In Sonoma County, staffing of planning departments can range from one person to four or more. Understaffing complicates all aspects of development of additional housing. In contrast, Petaluma takes a novel approach by contracting with an outside consultant to manage their effective Affordable Housing programs.

Unoccupied Housing: Time Shares, Airbnb, Pacaso, etc.

Areas with high levels of tourism can experience large numbers of second or vacation homes that are unoccupied for much of the year or, in the case of Pacaso properties, occupied serially by non-residents. Time-share properties provide housing for short term visitors, as do vacation rentals such as VRBO and Airbnb. Properties of this sort are important to tourism, but they can also be a problem for tourist destinations; in Sonoma County this includes Healdsburg, the Russian River area, and the City of Sonoma. Every house or apartment that is removed from the housing supply, and made unavailable to residents, helps to increase the price of the remaining properties. At the same time corporate buyers purchase houses and leave them vacant while their values increase. This further contributes to the inflation of house prices and leads to the exclusion of local residents.

CONCLUSION
The State of California is committed to significantly increasing the supply of all housing, including Affordable Housing. In Sonoma County and its nine Cities this commitment is expressed through ABAG and the requirements of RHNA. The Grand Jury has confirmed that while there is strong official support for these goals, there is sometimes less commitment to their achievement. Many programs that support development of Affordable Housing are in place. Yet many barriers also exist and greatly inhibit housing development. The principal barriers identified in this report include:
• The sheer complexity of navigating the bureaucracy in all aspects of a project • The high cost of land in Sonoma County
• The difficulty, complexity, and slow pace of financing a project • The shortage and high cost of building materials and supplies • The shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor as well as labor costs • The complexity and costs of mitigation fees and building permits • The inconsistency of costs, procedures, and regulations among the jurisdictions within the County
• Public opposition and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing and itsrecipients

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 19

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.

F2. Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.

F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

F4. Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.

F5. Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.

F6. In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.

F7. There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

F8. Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.

F9. Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.

F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

F11. The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.

F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

F13. The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.

F15. Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.

F16. Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

F17. Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 20
F18. The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to marketrate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.

F19. Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

F20. Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.

F21. Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.

F22. Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.

F23. Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.

F24. Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17) R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22)
R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)
R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F19, F20, F21, F22)
R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes,

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 21
factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Permit Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) • City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAGRegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• California Department of Housing and Community Development, AccessoryDwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml • California Department of Housing and Community Development, Infill Infrastructure Grand Program (IIG) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/infill-infrastructure-grant • California State Treasurer, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Compliance Monitoring https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/compliance.asp • State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: TheCalifornia Environmental Quality Act https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/
• State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Infill Development https://opr.ca.gov/planning/land-use/infill-development/ • City of Santa Rosa, Water Demand Offset Policy and Fees, March 29, 2022 https://srcity.org/3641/Water-Demand-Offset-Policy-and-Fees • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission,
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 22
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Community Development Block Grant https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/communitydevelopment-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhood-investment/fundingopportunities/cdbg • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Housing and Neighborhood Investment, Income and Rent Limits https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/developmentservices/community-development-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhoodinvestment/income-and-rent-limits • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Project Homekey https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission/divisions/homeless-services/be-part-of-the-solution/fundingopportunities/project-homekey • County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/
• Gray, M. N., The Atlantic, “How Californians are Weaponizing Environmental Law,” March 12, 2021 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signatureenvironmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ • Generation Housing, State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022 https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022_Feb_SOH_SonomaCounty.pdf • Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and PalomaPerez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 California Housing Resource Handbook-2020 (Holland & Knight)
• Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County https://www.housinglandtrust.org/ • Manuela Tobias, North Bay Bohemian, Sonoma Among Cities Resisting New State Housing Law, April 12, 2022 https://bohemian.com/ca-cities-resisting-new-housinglaw/ • Nashelly Chavez, The Press Democrat, Developer enlists 2017 law to advance stalled Sebastopol affordable housing project, April 13, 2022
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/developer-enlists-2017-law-to-advancestalled-sebastopol-affordable-housing/ • NYU Furman Center, The Center for Housing Policy Insights from Housing Policy Research, Don’t Put it Here! https://furmancenter.org/files/media/Dont_Put_It_Here.pdf • Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022
https://library.municode.com/ca/sonoma_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH 26SOCOZORE_ART89AFHOPRREIN
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, https://www.hud.gov/ • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts, July 2021 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/HAP_Contracts_HCV_Guidebook_Ch apter_July_2021.pdf
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Income Limits https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html • U.S. Department of Agriculture https://www.usda.gov/
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Home Investment Partnership Program https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/home

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 23
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Low Income Housing Tax Credits
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html
• YIMBY Law, Fighting For Housing https://www.yimbylaw.org/

APPENDIX A
California Housing Law Enforcement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 24

APPENDIX B
Funding Sources for Affordable Housing
There are many sources of funding for Affordable Housing, but there is no consistency in its availability from year to year. Sometimes a city may save its cash resources for a few – or several – years and then spend them all in one year; other times a city may qualify for some particular funding one time but may not qualify another time. Currently, the most popularsource is Affordable Housing Tax Credits.
https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200121-Gen-H-Housing-FundingOverview.pdf Federal Programs
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low and moderate income tenants. The LIHTC was enacted as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and has been modified numerous times. The Federal Government issues the tax credits to the states. State housing agencies then award the credits to private developers of affordable rental housing projects through a competitive process.

Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding. Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period. (Burbank Housing follows this model) but the property must be maintained as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years. • 9% Tax Credit subsidizes 70% of the eligible costs and is available for projects such as new construction or substantial rehabilitation that do not use tax-exempt bonds. Priority is given to developments that are close to public amenities such as transit, schools or parks.
• 4% Tax Credit subsidizes 30% of eligible costs and is available for projects that do use tax-exempt bonds.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Funds are used for projects that improve the quality of living for lower-income residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median income as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project must meet certain criteria, including being beneficial to low and moderate income people. This could include housing rehabilitation and homeless shelters. Santa Rosa and Petaluma receive their funds directly while Sonoma County manages the funds for the smaller cities.
• HOME Investments Partnership Program (HOME): HOME provides block grants to states and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups. At least 15 percent of HOME funds must be set aside for specific activities to be undertaken by a special type of nonprofit called a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a private nonprofit, community-based organization that has staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 25
State Programs
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC): This program invests cap-and-trade money in projects that connect Affordable Housing with low-emission transportation services and infrastructure. Funds are from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). It provides grants and loans for Affordable Housing, infill and compact transit-oriented development, and infrastructure connecting these projects to transit. In 2022, the state’s budget allocated $130 million from cap and trade auction revenues.
• SB2 Building Homes and Jobs Act: Effective January 1, 2018, this Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 fee charged every time real estatedocuments are recorded. This money funds a variety of housing activities, depending on the needs of the community. These include farm worker housing and mixed-income multifamily housing developments which provide Affordable Housing for Californians with lower and moderate incomes.
• SB3 and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): In 2018 the Veterans andAffordable Housing Bond Act, which funds $1.5 billion in bonds for this program, was passed. The program provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental housing.
• No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for the unhoused and mentally ill. The actual funding started in 2019.

Loans
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA): The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income first-time home buyers.
• Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. Section 221(d)(4) insures loans with up to 40 year duration for construction or rehabilitation of multifamily housing.

These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. The application process is slow and complex, and HUD advises use of an experienced intermediary. HUD 223(f) loans are made for purchase or refinancing of existing multifamily properties. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.

Sonoma County and Local Funding
• Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): The County Fund for Housing was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of Affordable Housing located in Sonoma County. The purpose is to accelerate thepace of development of Affordable Housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. CFH provides loans and grants to qualified developers, public entities, groups and individuals to build Affordable Housing. Various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees provide the funding. County Fund for Housing (CFH) (ca.gov)

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 26
Cities
• Some cities utilize the impact and in-lieu fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees are assessed on new residential developments and in-lieu fees are charged when developers pay a fee instead of providing inclusionary housing. • Linkage fees are assessed on new commercial developments: They are impact fees levied to fund the development of Affordable Housing. They are collected by Sonoma County and cities such as Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol.

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future Report Date: June 14, 2022
Response by: Mark Landman Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: City of Cotati
FINDINGS: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F16, F17, F19, F20, F21, F22 I (we) agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F5, F11, F20 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findingsnumbered: F3, F4, F7, F9, F10, F12, F14, F15, F17,
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8
• Recommendations numbered: R4, R5, R7, R8 have been
implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
• Recommendations numbered: R1, have not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
• Recommendations numbered: R2, R3, R6, require(s) further analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.)
• Recommendations numbered: will not be
implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:

Number of pages attached:
(See attached Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements)
Revised June 2022 Response to Grand Jury Report Form

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Response to Grant Jury Report on Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future – City of Rohnert Park
Response to Findings
General Response: While the City appreciates and supports the Grand Jury’s attention to the need for affordable housing in Sonoma County, the Grand Jury’s report and findings leave out some of the greatest influences on the current housing crisis, namely economic forces and changes in state law regarding funding of affordable housing. Until 2011, through their redevelopment agencies, local agencies were able to directly access property tax revenue for the purpose of constructing affordable housing. This “tax increment” and the housing bonds it secured provided a secure, local revenue source that was committed to the construction of affordable housing.

In 2011, in response to budget difficulties at the state level, the legislature passed and Governor Brown signed ABx1 26 which dissolved local redevelopment agencies, returned property tax revenue to the state and put an end to an important and locally-controlled revenue source that was dedicated to the construction of affordable housing. Not surprisingly, shortly thereafter the production of affordable housing decreased dramatically. Further, in 2019, last minute changes were made to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to allow market rate projects access to these funds. These changes were made with little to no involvement from the affordable housing community, and with very little insight into their reasoning or timing.

These changes at the State level forever transformed the process by which affordable housing units are funded and local agencies are still struggling to effectively respond. This is compounded by the massive volume of housing legislation constantly changing the affordable housing mandates and requirements that must be implemented by local agencies. Over the last decade, the State has passed numerous laws focused on local agency requirements to support affordable housing but has not been willing to reinstate a locally controlled funding source for affordable housing. Until this fundamental mismatch between local agencies’ mandate to support the construction of housing and a lack of substantial locally controlled funding for this construction is resolved, implementing the various Grand Jury recommendations to meaningfully achieve greater housing development will likely fall short of the need.

F1. Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.

Cotati Response: Agreed.

F2. Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.

Cotati Response: Agreed.

F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. City of Cotati staff cannot speak for or comment on the endorsement by other jurisdictions, however Cotati has demonstrated full endorsement of its RHNA adopting goals to comply in the 2015 Housing Element and has sought to meet these goals by approving more total housing units during the 5 th RHNA cycle than allocated.

However, the City is not a developer and does not control the pace of housing construction.

Many of these approved units were never built due to changes in the real estate and

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) construction market. Throughout the 5th Cycle, Cotati has consistently provided available housing sites to enable housing construction, required inclusionary affordable housing units, implemented robust affordable housing programs through Affordable Housing Agreements, streamlined and expedited review of affordable housing projects and provided gap funding for housing projects during this eight-year period.

To date, the City has exceeded its 5th cycle RHNA for total units, and has met or exceeded the RHNA requirements for low-, moderate above moderate-income categories, but has fallen short of its Very Low Income allocation (11 units constructed of 36 allocated). While not all of the units in the very low-income category have been built, a significant number of units in excess of the very low-income allocation were approved by the City.

Cotati Response: Partially disagree. While development requirements may be seen as “hinderances” to development of affordable housing, generally, City’s create development standards and requirements with the goal of maintaining the community character and quality of the built environment, while also respecting the historic development pattern.

Further, the State has adopted specific environmental regulations to ensure impacts to environmental resources are minimized and reduced where possible. Regardless, Cotati’s historic record of supporting development which provides affordable housing clearly identified that Cotati does not seek to “hinder” development through its implementation of land use policy.

F5. Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYismand misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.

Cotati Response: Agreed. However, it should be noted that in the age of social media and electronic communications, the rapid spreading of misinformation and a lack of factual information can be said to have negatively impacted many aspects of civil society.

F7. There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. There are many State regulations governing the development review process (Permit Streamlining Act, Subdivision Map Act, Housing Accountability Act. etc), ensuring a baseline level of consistency across all jurisdictions. Cotati acknowledges that there is some variability between jurisdictions, but this alone does not significantly complicate or slow development. The variability in procedures between jurisdictions is not seen as a significant complicating factor based on the experience of staff.

Specific to Cotati, in the last RHNA cycle, the City expedited the development review process for one 100% affordable housing project which ultimately was not built because available financing was not adequate to support the development (even though the City of Cotati committed $750,000 in Affordable Housing funds and the County CDC also allocated funding to the project). The development of affordable housing is dependent on an extremely complex and at times unpredictable financing system that the County and cities do not control. From the experience of staff, these issues are much more likely than “variability in planning and approval processes” to affect the timing and pace of affordable housing

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) development.

F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

Cotati Response: Disagree. As outlined in the response to Finding F7, local agencies are very capable of streamlining processing for affordable housing projects, and it is generally other factors that impede construction.

The Design Review process is necessary to ensure that projects make a positive contribution to the built environment of each individual community, therefore enhancing the overall acceptability of the project (and future development) to the surrounding neighborhood. In Cotati the process does not significantly add to the project timeline as Design Review is typically processed concurrently with other entitlements required for a development project.

Generally, requiring Design Review motivates housing developers to present well-designed projects with attractive amenities, designed to meet the expectations of the individual communities in which they are proposed. Efforts of cities to require quality designs can actually support affordable housing construction because funding agencies prioritize welldesigned projects with amenities, and neighbors support quality projects that enhance their neighborhood and provide amenities to serve the future residents.

If a project is designed poorly, it may not compete well for financing, and can take longer to move through the permitting process. This is because multiple design revisions may be required to implement community adopted design policies; or neighborhood opposition may result in appeals and legal challenges. Any time saved in the entitlement process by eliminating Design Review could be lost in the building approval process because of these factors. A poorly designed project that does not receive significant preliminary review, can have significant public safety deficiencies with life safety and quality of life implications built into the design. A good Design Review/entitlement process can identify problems early and ensure the functionality and quality of the built project. While there are certainly opportunities to streamline the process, allowing a professional third-party review of the design of projects which construct significant changes into the built environment, provides benefit to the entire community for the life of these buildings (50+ years).

F11. The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.

Cotati Response: Agree. However, as identified in the City’s response to F7 above, there are many State regulations governing the development review process, ensuring a baseline level of consistency across all jurisdictions. Similarly, the development impact fees charged by jurisdictions in the County of Sonoma do vary by individual project and community, however when aggregated are near parity. The design regulations are unique to each community, just as each community within the County has its own identity and priorities.

F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Firstly, it is important to clarify the difference between development impact fees and mitigation fees, which could be required to off-set environmental impacts to protected natural resources or species deemed endangered and threatened by the State and Federal governments. Both development impact fees and mitigation fees do vary by individual location, however local jurisdictions have no influence over environmental mitigation costs (and therefore will not be discussed further in this

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) response). The development impact fees charged by jurisdictions within the County do vary by individual project and community, however when aggregated are near parity. The infrastructure and service needs funded by these fees vary according to location and community need. At their very core, cities and counties are service providers, responsible for implementing a litany of state and federal mandates, as well as community goals and expectations. Funding of these services is notoriously challenging and complex in California due to a combination of factors including Proposition 13 and numerous other voter initiatives controlling development processes, elimination of re-development funds and the reliance by local government on sales and other cyclical funding sources to fund these services.

Given these challenges, development impact fees are an extremely important tool for extending infrastructure to support development of greenfield properties (which is listed in Finding 17 as another barrier to housing) where adequate infrastructure may not exist, and to enhance existing infrastructure to accommodate in-fill growth. Finding F17 below discusses annexation of new land for development as being challenged by a lack of funding for new infrastructure. Annexation without a means to fund adequate infrastructure to serve the newly annexed land would not allow the equitable sharing of costs, put increased costs on development of that land and push up the overall cost of the units in that project.

F13. The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

Cotati Response: Agree. Greater efficiency in all aspect of the development process would help to meet the (housing) needs of Sonoma County.

F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary affordable housing units and houses being built.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. It is correct that the in-lieu fees typically charged of a developer to build inclusionary housing units in a project do not cover the costs to develop those units at an alternative location. In Cotati, construction of on-site “inclusionary” affordable housing for any project over nine units is required at a ratio of 15-percent.

However, CD staff regularly hear from developers that the costs to construct these units is cash flow negative that is absorbed by the market rate units, or simply prevents the projects from moving forward. Given this, having an option of in-lieu fee payments is a valuable tool to provide local jurisdictions with funds to support housing projects. Since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2011, in-lieu fees are often the only dedicated, locally controlled funding source available for affordable housing.

In-lieu fees also provide a tool for ensuring that non-residential development contributes to the construction of affordable housing that their employees often need. Cotati has an Affordable Housing Linkage Fee (established by Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 17.31.115) that ensures non-residential development contributes financially to the construction of affordable housing.

Finally, until quite recently, case law (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles) effectively prohibited local agencies from requiring inclusionary units in rental projects, making affordable housing fees the only option to secure contributions to affordable housing from market-rate apartment projects. While the state has recently passed legislation to reverse this case law, history helps explain why many local jurisdictions have pursued in-lieu fees as a piece of their overall strategy for providing affordable housing.

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) F16. Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Over the last two decades, land use designations in Cotati (and throughout Sonoma County) have trended toward more dense and intense mixed-use environments in transit rich areas (ie. Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Most recently approved projects in Cotati have been on infill sites in transit rich areas of the City. However, it is true that a majority of these approved project have not been constructed. Whether this orientation towards TOD has had a large effect is a subjective judgement, especially given the various non-TOD influences affecting the development of housing.

Cotati Response: Disagree. Cotati agrees that if developers are generally unwilling to contribute to the cost of the infrastructure that serves their development, this can be a limiting factor. However, infrastructure does not need to be a barrier to annexation, provided that adequate resources are available to fund that infrastructure. Tools like impact fees and reimbursement agreements provide methods to ensure that projects are paying a “fair share” of infrastructure costs while not requiring their funding of 100% of needed infrastructure costs. This balance can help make annexation and infrastructure extensions far more feasible from an economic perspective.

Cotati has significantly more land available for housing within the existing city limits than is required to meet the 2023 RHNA allocation; most of which is already served by city infrastructure. Also, while Cotati has not completed annexation of land outside the current City boundaries in recent history, specific areas served by existing infrastructure (Alder Avenue and Helman Lane) have been pre-zoned for future development efforts as recently as 2019. Further, many areas outside of the current City boundary but within the Sphere of Influence have been granted land use designations by the General Plan to clarify their development potential and future land use designations. Further, Cotati has funded multiple infrastructure improvements in recent years to ensure development capacity is not limited by infrastructure capacity. Specifically, the sewer by-pass project and hub street sewer capacity upgrade project were Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects funded through a combination of sewer impact fees and utility rates to ensure adequate capacity is available to meet the needs of specific development projects (Kessing Ranch residential subdivision) and the projected growth identified by the General Plan. Finally, as mentioned previously, the City has extensive amounts of un-developed and under-developed property within the current City boundaries making the additional cost and process of annexation not necessary for the development of residential housing to occur within the City.

F19. Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

Cotati Response: Agree.

F20. Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Cotati Response: Agree. Cotati has historically and consistently required inclusionary affordable housing units to be developed as a component of larger market rate development projects, and this philosophy is clearly integrated into the City’s adopted Housing Elements, both past and present. Affordable housing should be well-designed and benefit from the location and amenities or market rate homes.

F21. Manufactured and factory-built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.

Cotati Response: Agree
F22. Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.

Cotati Response: Unknown. Finding is vague and needs to provide more insight for an adequate response to be provided. Affordable housing should be of the same quality as the adjacent market rate housing.

Response to Recommendations:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Cotati Response: Cotati continually seeks to streamline the development review process generally and has proposed a 6
th Cycle Housing Element Program to create a streamlined review process for affordable housing projects. The adoption time period for the 6th Cycle Housing Element is currently uncertain, given the new State requirements and unknown Housing and Community Development (HCD) review time frames. However, it should be in place and adopted by mid-2023.

R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Cotati Response: Cotati is willing meet with Permit Sonoma and other cities to discuss opportunities to standardize procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing.

Because of the unique requirements of various municipal and county codes and the varied priorities and concerns of the decision makers of each jurisdiction, there may be limited opportunity for standardizing.

R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Cotati Response: Cotati is willing to meet with Permit Sonoma and other cities to discuss coordination of fee reduction standards.

R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17) Cotati Response: Cotati has already implemented this recommendation. The existing 2015 Housing Element includes these sites, and updated information will be presented in the City’s draft Housing Element, which will be available for review and comment by mid- September.

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22) Cotati Response: Cotati has already implemented this recommendation. The existing 2015 Housin Element includes these sites, and updated information will be presented in the City’s draft Housing Element which will be available for review and comment by mid- September.

R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)
Cotati Response: Requires further analysis, and involvement by the Napa/Sonoma ADU Center (whose priorities are not under the control or management of the City of Cotati) but is anticipated to be implemented by June 1, 2023. Cotati’s draft Housing Element includes a program directing partnership with regional organizations (such as Napa-Sonoma ADU Center) to provide technical assistance to homeowners interested in developing ADUs. Among other things, Napa-Sonoma ADU Center has taken the lead on working with local jurisdictions to develop permit-ready ADU plans.

This implementation schedule of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Programs reflects the City’s full range of priorities, including responding to several State mandates, including completing its housing element in early 2023. As such, a commitment to accelerating one program activity that the City has identified in the context of multiple other programs and priorities necessary to meet the specific housing needs of the City of Cotati cannot be made.

R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F19, F20, F21, F22) Cotati Response: Cotati’s design review process and the planning commission are already integrated. Cotati streamlined its Design Review process in 2018 eliminating the Design Review Committee and delegating final approval to be granted by the Planning Commission.

R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory-built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22) Cotati Response: Implemented. The City has reviewed its requirements and determined that there are no local restrictions that would prohibit the development of these types of units. 5188428.1

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: City Response to Grand Jury - Affordable Housing: Past Present and Future (Grand Jury Response Review/Consideration) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council
Subject: Information received after the agenda was posted.

Date: September 13, 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].

16.A
Packet Pg. 172

Cotati City CouncilSeptember 13, 2022

Cotati City Council
September 13, 2022