Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, November 12, 2024

AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
6:00 PM REGULAR 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 or to receive the City Council agenda by e-mail, contact the Deputy City Clerk at [email protected] or 707-665-3622.

Cotati City Council Meetings will be conducted in person in the Council Chamber. To guarantee your ability to participate, you must attend the meeting in person. As a courtesy to the public, the City allows citizens the opportunity to view and offer public comments virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing platform. Technical difficulties may occur that make the Zoom platform unavailable. If Zoom is unavailable, the meeting will continue. Participants considering using Zoom should consider attending in person, if they desire to ensure their ability to view the meeting and offer public comments.

Subject to the above disclaimer, Zoom Online video conferencing is available to watch or listen in the following ways:

1. Using the following online livestream meeting portal link: https://cotaticity.primegov.com/public/portal

2. Cable T.V. Broadcast, local channel 28
Members of the public can participate in the meeting online by clicking the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84501836098?pwd=TaG2OzbbL9C936u04qoHrbr2rRjFyV.1 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:

Webinar ID: 845 0183 6098 Passcode: 344906
+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.

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 Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

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

Rules of Decorum: To avoid distraction, the following meeting etiquette shall be enforced. • Silence electronic devices, including cell phones.

Cotati City Council Packet November 12, 2024
• Audience members are advised to keep conversations to a minimum or conduct them outside the building. • Photographs or video recordings using tri-pods or other means that would be distracting are to be taken only from the designated media area. • The Presiding Officer shall request that the audience withhold expressions of support or opposition for speakers in the interest of time and to encourage the full expression of differing views. (City Council Policy 2023-01 III.B.1.) 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 2023-01: City Council Rules. This policy available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

Those wishing to address the Council are asked to complete a speaker card and give it to the City Clerk. When you are called, step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Persons wishing to address the Council are not required to identify themselves or complete a speaker card; (Gov’t. Code § 54953.3); however, this information assists the Mayor by ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and it assists the City Clerk in preparing the City Council meeting minutes.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Cotati recognizes that we’re on the ancestral lands of the Coastal Miwok, who are the original caretakers of this area. We respectfully acknowledge the Indigenous peoples who have been stewarding and maintaining a relationship on this land as knowledge keepers for millennia. This acknowledgment does not take the place of authentic relationships with Indigenous communities but serves as a gesture of respect to the land we are on.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. 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 – OCT 22, 2024

6. 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 may consider the item. If the City Council considers the item, citizens will be 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. However, the Brown Act prohibits the City Council from taking action or considering any item that is not on this agenda, to ensure that other members of the community who wish to provide comment are notified in advance through a properly noticed meeting agenda.

B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the Cotati City Council Packet November 12, 2024
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 enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.org, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.

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, and CivicReady.

7. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
This item will only be opened for the public comment if the City Council proposes to take any action to modify this agenda.

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. Pursuant to City Council Policy 2023-01, 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. To facilitate public comment, the Deputy Clerk will alert speakers when there are thirty seconds remaining.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. ACCEPTANCE OF THE REDWOOD DRIVE AND CYPRESS AVENUE PAVEMENT

REHABILITATION PROJECT
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project and direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion and after 35 days with no protests, release the retention to Argonaut Constructors

10. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
A. APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION TO APPROVE

A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 680 EAST COTATI AVENUE
It is recommended by the Community Development Department that the City Council deny an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision and reaffirm approval a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

B. CONSIDERATION AND FIRST READING OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.32

DENSITY BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT

CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW AND POLICY AND CREATE THE

COTATI DENSITY BONUS
It is recommended by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission that the City Council consider and conduct a first reading of the draft ordinance amending Cotati City Council Packet November 12, 2024
Chapter 17.31 Affordable Housing Requirements and Chapter 17.32 Density Bonuses and of the Cotati Municipal Code to implement changes to affordable housing law and policy and to create the Cotati Density Bonus.

12. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. FEE DEFFERRAL AGREEMENT WITH NOEL AND LISA KIRBY OF DARHAL

DEVELOPMENTS LLC REQUESTING DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN PERMIT AND IMPACT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF 902 E. COTATI AVENUE It is recommended by the Community Development Department that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Fee Deferral Agreement to allow portions of the permit and impact fees for an approved development at 902 E. Cotati Avenue to be deferred from building permit issuance to building permit final (occupancy).

13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

14. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS

15. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

16. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9) NAME OF CASE: COUNTRYSIDE MHP LLC V. CITY OF COTATI, SONOMA COUNTY SURPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24CV00804

17. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

18. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before November 8, 2024. /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
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sparks called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Laura Sparks Mayor Present
Ben Ford Vice Mayor Present
Susan Harvey Councilmember Present
Sylvia Lemus Councilmember Present
Kathleen Rivers Councilmember Present
Staff Present: City Manger Damien O’Bid, City Attorney John Bakker, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Patterson, Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter, Director of Community Development Noah Housh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott, Police Chief Chris Simmons

3. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Cotati recognizes that we’re on the ancestral lands of the Coastal Miwok, who are the original caretakers of this area. We respectfully acknowledge the Indigenous peoples who have been stewarding and maintaining a relationship on this land as knowledge keepers for millennia. This acknowledgement does not take the place of authentic relationships with Indigenous communities but serves as a gesture of respect to the land we are on.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. 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 – OCT 8, 2024
No public comment.
5 of 162
Cotati City Council Minutes October 22, 2024
RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sparks, Ford, Harvey, Lemus, Rivers
NAYS: None

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 enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.org, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.

7. PROCLAMATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 24, 2024 AS POLIO AWARENESS DAY
Proclamation was read by Councilmember Harvey. Proclamation was accepted by Wulff Reinhold of the Rotary Club of Rohnert Park-Cotati.

8. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
No changes.

9. 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. Pursuant to City Council Policy 2023-01, 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. To facilitate public comment, the Deputy Clerk will alert speakers when there are thirty seconds remaining. 6 of 162
Cotati City Council Minutes October 22, 2024
Public Comment:

Dawna Gallagher of Cotati
Clint Wise of Cotati
Jennifer LaPorta
Jill Seymour of Rohnert Park
Martha Glaser
Laurie Alderman of Cotati
Joanne Yeager

10. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)

11. DIRECTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Rivers requested a future agenda item to discuss the Community Council concept for Cotati. Councilmember Lemus suggested that a model like a parks foundation may be a good fit.

With a motion from Councilmember Rivers, and a second from Mayor Sparks, Council voted 4-1 to add the item to a future agenda. Councilmember Harvey was the dissenting vote.

12. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. AWARD ENERGY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MICROGRID, EV FLEET

INFRASTRUCTURE
Presentation by City Manager Damien O’Bid.

Councilmembers comment.

No public comment.

RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
AYES: Harvey, Ford, Lemus, Rivers, Sparks
NAYS: None
B. FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 -FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL UPDATE - REPORT FOR

SUMMARY OF REVENUE SOURCES, CASH AND INVESTMENT
Presentation by Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter.

Councilmembers comment.

No public comment.

C. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WEEK WITHOUT DRIVING
Presentation by City Manager Damien O’Bid.

Councilmembers comment.
7 of 162
Cotati City Council Minutes October 22, 2024
Public Comment:

Laurie Alderman of Cotati

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

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

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

16. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sparks adjourned the meeting at 7:56pm.
/s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
8 of 162
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: ACCEPTANCE OF THE REDWOOD DRIVE AND CYPRESS

AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Date: November 12, 2024
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project and direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion and after 35 days with no protests, release the retention to Argonaut Constructors
Background
The Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Road Rehabilitation Project (Project) was identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and, in 2019, the City included it in one of five high priority roadway and bike/pedestrian enhancement projects in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Cycle 1 Funding Program. The Project consists of repaving Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue, replacing old and faded signage, upgrading bike lanes, enhancing traffic calming features including striping narrow lanes and creating bike lane buffers, and upgrading noncompliant ADA ramps. The Project is consisted with recommendations of the City’s recently adopted Active Transportation Plan.

Analysis/Discussion
On December 12, 2023, City Council awarded the Construction contract for the Project and on March 18, 2024, the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor. Work was inspected by contract services and, on June 17, 2024, the a final walk-through inspection was conducted by the City Engineer, City Superintendent, and contract inspector. The City Engineer has determined the work has been completed in accordance with the contract documents and recommends it for acceptance by the City.

Financial Considerations
9 of 162
The Project’s total approved budget amount was $3,265,000, with $946,000 from locally administered Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership (Formulaic) funds (LPP SB1) for Fiscal Year 22/23. The Project came within this budget with the construction contract being completed with a $33,831 reduction and the contract inspection services agreement is projected to have unspent funds of approximately $60,000. The construction contingency was not used. The total project expenses to date, which only have contract Construction Management close-out costs remaining (closeout paperwork and preparing As-Built drawings) total $2,710,243. Unspent Project funds are to be returned to the unappropriated General Fund balance.

Environmental Issues
An environmental review for the Project was conducted and the Project was determined to be Categorically Exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Acti for Class 1 and 2, Sections 15301, minor alterations to an existing public street, and 15302, replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities.
10 of 162
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COTATI CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE

REDWOOD DRIVE AND CYPRESS AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AFTER 35 DAYS WITH NO PROTESTS TO

RELEASE THE CONSTRUCTION RETENTION TO ARGONAUT

CONSTRUCTORS
WHEREAS, the Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Road Rehabilitation Project (Project) was presented in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and, in 2019, the City included it in one of five high priority roadway and bike/pedestrian enhancement projects in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Cycle 1 Funding Program; and WHEREAS, the Project consists of repaving Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue, replacing old and faded signage, upgrading bike lanes, enhancing traffic calming features including striping narrow lanes and creating bike lane buffers, and upgrading noncompliant ADA ramps, and the Project is consisted with recommendations of the City’s recently adopted Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, City Council awarded the Construction contract for the Project and on March 18, 2024, the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor, and work was inspected and construction management performed by contract services and, on June 17, 2024, the a final walk-through inspection was conducted by the City Engineer, City Superintendent, and contract inspector; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined the work has been completed in accordance with the contract documents and recommends it for acceptance by the City; and WHEREAS, the Project’s total approved budget amount was $3,265,000, with $946,000 from locally administered Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership (Formulaic) funds (LPP SB1) for Fiscal Year 22/23; and
WHEREAS, the Project was completed under budget and unspent funds are to be returned to the unappropriated General Fund balance; and WHEREAS, an environmental review for the Project was conducted and the Project was determined to be Categorically Exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Acti for Class 1 and 2, Sections 15301, minor alterations to an existing public street, and 15302, replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities; and 11 of 162
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cotati City Council hereby takes the following actions:

1. Determines the recitals stated above are true and correct, and

2. Accepts the Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project improvements; and

3. Directs the City Clerk to record the attached Notice of Completion for said contract work within 15 days of the date of resolution and provide a copy to the contractor (Cal. Civil Code §9204); and

4. Authorizes the City Manager to release any remaining contract retention to Argonaut Constructors thirty five (35) days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion, provided that no liens or stop notices have been filed against the Project.

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 November 12, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
12 of 162
After recording, return to:

Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
City of Cotati
201 W. Sierra Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931-4217

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The City Council of the City of Cotati has accepted the improvements at the City Council meeting of November 12, 2024, for the Redwood Drive and Cypress Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project. The nature of the City of Cotati’s interest, as owner, of the property is as public right-of-way.

2. The improvements were completed and deemed complete by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on June 17, 2024.

3. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement was Argonaut Constructors for a total constructed amount of $2,593,340.00.

4. The Contractor has provided the City with a maintenance bond and guaranty in the amount of 10 percent of the revised construction contract amount $255,951.00, for a period of one (1) year from the date of City Council acceptance of the improvements.

5. This Notice of Completion constitutes the City’s acceptance of the improvements for this project.

I am the City Engineer/Public Works Director for the City of Cotati, a Municipal Corporation. I make this verification on behalf of the City of Cotati. I have read the Notice and know its contents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: _________________ ___________________________
Craig A Scott
City Engineer/Public Works Director
Document1
13 of 162
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 680
EAST COTATI AVENUE.

Date: November 12, 2024
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community Development Department that the City Council deny an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision and reaffirm approval a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

Background
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 USC §332) prohibits the City from either conditioning or denying projects based on radio frequency emissions (“RF”) concerns, if the proposed facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) guidelines on RF emissions.

In 2012, the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act was passed, requiring projects that propose co-location of wireless facilities be approved by the City (if all Federal and State standards are met) through a ministerial (building permit) process.

In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Declaratory Ruling was made regarding ‘Small Cell’ wireless facilities. The FCC order: a) limits local permitting and discretion; b) establishes new/shorter time limits and deadlines for processing and action; c) limits the fees that can be charged; and d) requires advanced publication of any aesthetic regulations and fees.

California Government Code Section 65964.1 - Deems approved any application for new or substantially changed wireless facilities when time limits and deadlines are not met (subject to specific noticing requirements).
14 of 162
In March 2024, the City of Cotati updated the Telecommunication Facility Ordinance, bringing the City’s regulations into compliance with Federal and State requirements and expanding the allowable areas where these facilities may be located.

T-Mobile West LLC “applicant” submitted a minor use permit application for the telecommunication facility on June 27, 2024. A public hearing was held by the Community Development Director on September 3, 2024. After reviewing Cotati Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 17.44 (Telecommunications Facilities), pertinent information and documents, and listening to public comment regarding the project, the Director approved a Minor Use Permit allowing an unmanned rooftop telecommunication facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

On September 16, 2024, the Village Walk Alliance filed an appeal of the Director’s decision, citing improper noticing of the hearing (see Attachment B).

On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Director’s decision. After considering all public testimony, relevant documents, and evidence, the Planning Commission took no action on the appeal.

On October 17, 2024, the Village Walk Alliance filed a second appeal of the Director’s decision, citing health risks, decreases in property values, and vulnerability to cyber-attacks (see attachment C).

Analysis/Discussion
This item is the City Council consideration of an appeal of a Minor Use Permit allowing an unmanned rooftop telecommunication facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue, with a recommended resolution attached that reaffirms the Community Director’s decision to approve a Minor Use Permit to allow the facility. The proposed telecommunication facility consists of six (6) new rooftop antennas contained within two 8-foot by 8-foot fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) architectural elements that will be textured and painted to match the existing structure. The telecommunication facility will also include base station equipment located (outside) at the southwest corner of the building. The base equipment will be screened from view by an existing 6-foot concrete wall (see Attachment A).

Section 17.44.040 of the CMC conditionally permits building mounted telecommunication facilities when approved through a Minor Use Permit. 680 East Cotati Avenue is a 2-acre parcel within the Commercial, East Cotati Corridor or (CE) District. The parcel is currently developed with a health/fitness facility. The project site is located on the South side of East Cotati Avenue within the CE District. There are other commercial uses directly west of the subject parcel, and residential uses to the North, East, and South.

The proposed telecommunication facility will utilize a stealth design feature (as is required by the CMC) by incorporating antennas into two 8-foot by 8-foot FRP architectural features that will be textured and painted to match the existing building. This design is consistent with the design of the existing structure and the height increase complies with Section 17.44.060(B)(3) of 15 of 162
the CMC, which allows an increase of up to 15 feet above the maximum allowed height of the zoning district for stealth designed, building mounted telecommunication facilities. As designed, the facility complies with all design and siting requirements of CMC Section 17.44.060. The facility will also comply with all operation and maintenance standards listed in CMC Section

17.44.070, as conditioned.

CMC Chapter 17.44 can be found in its entirety at the following link:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/html/Cotati17/Cotati1744.html Minor Use Permits are utilized by the City to review and consider uses that are conditionally permitted, but which may benefit from site specific consideration, limitation on their use and/or public engagement in their decision. CMC Section 17.62.050 governs the process by which a minor use permit much be decided, and identifies the finding required to be made in order to approve such a request.

Minor Use Permit Findings
To approve the Minor Use Permit, the following findings must be made:

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and Municipal Codes.

The proposed use is allowable within the CE (Commercial, East Cotati Corridor) Zoning District with prior Minor Use Permit approval by the Director to allow the telecommunication facility. As conditioned, the proposed use satisfies the requirements in the Land Use Code and Municipal Code.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed use is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation in the General Plan, which allows for the properties to be used to provide the service needs of the local community. The project will not alter the primary use of the properties, the density, or development patterns within the zoning district.

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

The proposed design is consistent with the design of the existing structure and the height increase is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. The proposed telecommunication facility will utilize stealth design and complement the architectural characteristics of the existing building. The proposed project will not impact use of the primary structure as a commercial building.

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. 16 of 162
The existing use is supported by an existing street and other necessary facilities and services. The existing access and utilities are adequate to support the proposed project. There are no physical constraints.

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

The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Cotati General Plan and Land Use Code. The proposed facility will also comply with FCC regulations and operate at radio frequencies authorized by the FCC, and there are no anticipated impacts to public interest, health, or safety. This project is categorically exempt from CEQA, and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated with this project.

6. The communication facility complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter (Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.44).

As conditioned, the proposed communication facility complies with all applicable design, location, operation, and maintenance standards as required by CMC 17.44.

7. The communication facility will not adversely impact the character and aesthetics of any public right-of-way.

The proposed communication facility is located on the roof of an existing structure and will utilize a stealth design, thus will not impact any public right-of-way.

Allegations of the Appeal and Findings to Deny the Appeal

1. Allegation of the Appeal:

Property values around the telecommunication facility will decrease.

Finding:

Potential impacts to property value are not criteria that the City uses when making decisions to approve or deny projects.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The set of criteria that the City uses to make decisions on projects are “findings” found in the Municipal Code. The findings required for a Minor Use Permit are listed above and can be found at Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.62.050(F). These findings address a number of areas of concern for the City including: zoning and General Plan consistency, site suitability, aesthetics, and public health. Potential impacts to surrounding property values are not included in the required findings.

2. Allegation of the Appeal:

The Director’s decision failed to address the known vulnerability of these antennas to cyber-attacks and potential loss of privacy.
17 of 162
Finding:

Cyber-attacks are outside of the purview of the City. Cyber-attacks, and the security of the cell towers would fall under the purview of the FCC, and T-Mobile.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The FCC is responsible for ensuring telecommunications systems are secure from cyber threats, per Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 allows the FCC to regulate service carrier practices related to the security and reliability of their networks. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that the FCC promotes the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. The FCC has used these provisions to provide guidance and establish regulations regarding cybersecurity.

As a private telecommunications provider, T-Mobile is responsible for ensuring the security of its own network infrastructure. T-Mobile is responsible for following FCC guidance and regulations on cybersecurity to mitigate risks and secure their network infrastructure.

3. Allegation of the Appeal:

There are perceived negative health risks associated with the cell towers.

Finding:

The Director’s decision conformed to federal law and the limits imposed on cities and counties when considering approval of new or expanded cellular towers and antennas.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Federal law preserves a local jurisdiction’s authority to make decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities with certain exceptions. The City of Cotati’s provisions regarding cell tower placement, design and construction are set forth in Chapter 17.44 (Telecommunication Facilities) of the Cotati Municipal Code.

A primary exception to the City’s authority to regulate placement of cellular towers and antennas relates to radio frequency emissions. Specifically, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 U.S.

Code (The Communications Act of 1934) to expressly prohibit state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) further provides that Parties may seek relief from the FCC if they are adversely affected by a state or local government’s final action or failure to act that is inconsistent with the provision.
18 of 162
In response to concerns about radio frequency emissions raised at the public hearing the Director added condition #2 (see below) that requires the applicant to submit the RF Exposure Report required by the FCC prior to issuance of a building permit. This report was provided and has been included as an attachment. Any subsequent additions to the telecommunication facility will require submission of an updated RF Exposure Report, compliance with the RF limitations in Federal law and a building permit.

4. Allegation of the Appeal:

The proposed project fails to address fire safety by omitting details on back-up batteries.

Finding:

There are no proposed back-up batteries or generators for this project.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Plans submitted by the applicant do not propose back-up batteries or generators for power storage. If the applicant had proposed back-up batteries or generators for power storage, plans would have been referred to the Rancho Adobe Fire District (RAFD) for review, and the appropriate conditions would have been imposed to address fire safety concerns.

The Community Services and Facilities, Economic Vitality, and Land Use chapters of the 2015 Cotati General Plan include several goals, policies and actions which support the requested Minor Use Permit. Specifically, this direction includes:

Goal CSF 1 Provide high quality public services and facilities to all residents, businesses and visitors in Cotati.

Policy EV 1.2: Ensure the long-term public services and infrastructure needs of the community are met as part of the overall approach to economic vitality and sustainability.

Goal LU 3 Provide for a range of Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Uses to provide Cotati’s residents access to jobs and employment to support the local economy.

Policy LU 4.1 Ensure that public facilities, services and amenities are distributed in a manner that enhances the quality of life for the broadest number of Cotati’s residents.

Action CSF 1d: Provide assistance and support, when feasible, to residents, businesses, and new development areas to secure high-speed communications technologies in areas of the City not currently served by such infrastructure.

The Cotati General Plan can be found at:
https://www.cotaticity.org/DocumentCenter/View/256/General-Plan 19 of 162
PDF
Staff Response:

Staff finds that the proposed project complies with FCC guidelines and the City’s updated Telecommunications Facility Ordinance. Further, the project will implement and further the 2015 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in that the proposed telecommunication facility will allow higher quality telecommunication services throughout the City ensuring the long-term infrastructure needs are met; will provide a wider range of uses on commercial through-out the City; will help to more evenly distribute the available telecommunication services throughout the City; and that the project would aid in providing for the basic service needs of the local community by improving wireless cell service in the surrounding area and implement the General Plan as identified above.
20 of 162
Financial Considerations
Denial of the appeal and approval of the minor use permit is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the City or 2024/25 General Fund. While appeal fees are subsidized and do not cover the full cost of processing these applications, the fee does cover a majority of the hard costs (postage and noticing), with the remainder being staff time to review the materials, manage the project and prepare the documents for the public hearing.

Environmental Issues
The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Further that the proposed project is consistent with the program Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013082037) for the Cotati General Plan Update that was certified on March 24, 2015 (Resolution Number 2015-11), and pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review is required. 21 of 162
RESOLUTION NO. XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF COTATI DENYING A SECOND APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND REAFFIRMING APPROVAL OF A

MINOR USE PERMIT FOR AN UNMANNED ROOFTOP TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 680 EAST COTATI AVENUE IN THE CE (COMMERCIAL, EAST COTATI CORRIDOR) ZONING DISTRICT (144-292-024 / FILE NO. PA# 24/20) WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, T-Mobile West LLC, submitted an application to the City of Cotati for a Minor Use Permit for an unmanned rooftop telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, Section 17.44.040 of the City of Cotati Land Use Code conditionally permits this type of use when approved through a Minor Use Permit; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.60.020 (Table 6-1) and 17.62.050(C) of the Land Use Code establishes the Community Development Director (“Director”) as the appropriate review authority to decide on Minor Use Permit applications; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.88.020 of the Cotati Land Use Code, notices describing the proposed Project were mailed to neighboring property owners and published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the date of the hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, the Director held the required public hearing and considered public testimony and all documents and evidence related to the proposed Project prior to adopting Resolution No. CDD-2024-2 approving a Minor Use Permit for an unmanned rooftop telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2024, the City of Cotati received an appeal filed by the Village Walk Association appealing the Director’s decision to approve a Minor Use Permit for the unmanned rooftop telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, notices of the Planning Commission’s hearing on the Appeal and Project were sent to all neighboring property owners and occupants, the Project applicant, the appellants, all parties having requested notice, and were published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City in accordance with law; and
WHEREAS, October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Appeal and Project and did consider all oral and written public testimony, all other relevant documents, and evidence which are part of the Record of Proceedings (“Record”) prior to voting 2-2 (one commissioner absent) on a resolution to deny the appeal, effectively taking no action on the Appeal application; and
22 of 162
2 WHEREAS, notices of the City Council’s hearing on the Appeal and Project were sent to all neighboring property owners and occupants, the Project applicant, the appellants, all parties having requested notice, and were published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City in accordance with law; and
WHEREAS, November 12, 2024, the City Council (“Council”) held a public hearing on the Appeal and Project and did consider all oral and written public testimony, all other relevant documents, and evidence which are part of the Record of Proceedings (“Record”) prior to acting on the Project and Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Record upon which the City Council bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3); (2) the Cotati Municipal Code; (3) the City of Cotati General Plan and its related Environmental Impact Report (EIR); (4) all staff reports, city files, records, and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City Council; (5) all documentary and oral evidence received at the public hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period on the Project; and (6) all other matters of common knowledge to the City Council, and the City, including, but not limited to, City, state and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records, and projections related to development within the City and its surrounding areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cotati does hereby find and resolve as follows:

Section 1. Denial of the Appeal
A. That the above recitals are true and correct and constitute a part of the findings made by the Council in support of this Resolution.

B. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Record, including all staff reports, all oral and written testimony presented at, or prior to, the hearing on the Appeal and all other matters deemed material and relevant prior to adopting this Resolution.

C. The City Council does, based thereon, hereby deny the Appeal and adopts the following Findings on Appeal:

1. Allegation of the Appeal:

Property values around the telecommunication facility will decrease.

Finding:

Potential impacts to property value are not criteria that the City uses when making decisions to approve or deny projects.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The set of criteria that the City uses to make decisions on projects are “findings” found in the Municipal Code. The findings required for a Minor Use Permit are listed 23 of 162
3 above and can be found at Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.62.050(F). These findings address a number of areas of concern for the City including: zoning and General Plan consistency, site suitability, aesthetics, and public health. Potential impacts to surrounding property values are not included in the required findings.

2. Allegation of the Appeal:

The Director’s decision failed to address the known vulnerability of these antennas to cyber-attacks and potential loss of privacy.

Finding:

Cyber-attacks are outside of the purview of the City. Cyber-attacks, and the security of the cell towers would fall under the purview of the FCC, and T-Mobile.

Facts in Support of Finding:

3. Allegation of the Appeal:

There are perceived negative health risks associated with the cell towers.

Finding:

The Director’s decision conformed to federal law and the limits imposed on cities and counties when considering approval of new or expanded cellular towers and antennas.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Code (The Communications Act of 1934) to expressly prohibit state and local 24 of 162
4 government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) further provides that Parties may seek relief from the FCC if they are adversely affected by a state or local government’s final action or failure to act that is inconsistent with the provision.

In response to concerns about radio frequency emissions raised at the public hearing the Director added condition #2 (see below) that requires the applicant to submit the RF Exposure Report required by the FCC prior to issuance of a building permit. This report was provided and has been included as an attachment. Any subsequent additions to the telecommunication facility will require submission of an updated RF Exposure Report, compliance with the RF limitations in Federal law and a building permit.

4. Allegation of the Appeal:

The proposed project fails to address fire safety by omitting details on back-up batteries.

Finding:

There are no proposed back-up batteries or generators for this project.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Plans submitted by the applicant do not propose back-up batteries or generators for power storage. If the applicant had proposed back-up batteries or generators for power storage, plans would have been referred to the Rancho Adobe Fire District (RAFD) for review, and the appropriate conditions of approval would have been imposed to address fire safety concerns.

Section 2. Approval of Minor Use Permit and Findings
Based upon the analysis in the staff report and the Record as a whole, the City Council does hereby find:

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and Municipal Codes.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 25 of 162
5 The proposed use is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation in the General Plan, which allows for the properties to be used to provide the service needs of the local community. The project will not alter the primary use of the properties, the density, or development patterns within the zoning district.

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

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

The existing use is supported by an existing street and other necessary facilities and services. The existing access and utilities are adequate to support the proposed project. There are no physical constraints.

6. The communication facility complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter (Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.44).

As conditioned, the proposed communication facility complies with all applicable design, location, operation, and maintenance standards as required by CMC 17.44.

7. The communication facility will not adversely impact the character and aesthetics of any public right-of-way.

The proposed communication facility is located on the roof of an existing structure and will utilize a stealth design, thus will not impact any public right-of-way.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the of the City of Cotati does find that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 26 of 162
6 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and further that the proposed project is consistent with the program Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013082037) for the Cotati General Plan Update that was certified on March 24, 2015 (Resolution Number 2015-11), and pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cotati does hereby approve a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned rooftop telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue, subject to each of the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall comply with the latest adopted ordinances, resolutions, policies, and fees adopted by the City Council at the time of building permit review and approval. All fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.

2. To ensure all proposed and future towers are FCC compliant, the applicant shall submit the RF Exposure Report required by the FCC prior to issuance of a building permit. Any subsequent additions will require submission of an updated RF Exposure Report prior to building permit issuance.

3. A building permit is required prior to any construction activities.

4. Final review of the design of the facility will occur during building permit review. Minor modifications to the approved design which are in substantial conformance with this approval may be approved or required by the Director.

5. The owner or operator of the facility shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information. The owner or operator shall notify the city of any changes to the information submitted within thirty days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include the following:

A. Identity, including name, address, telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers and FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility;
B. Name, address, and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies; C. Type of service provided; and
D. Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility provider, shall be posted at all communication facility sites.

6. The communication facility and related equipment, including stealth architectural features and elements, lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism, and any damage or deterioration from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be 27 of 162
7 removed by the service provider from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable, and in no instances more than forty-eight hours from the time of notification by the city.

7. The owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect the site to ensure compliance with the standards identified in Section 17.44.070 of the Cotati Municipal Code.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Cotati held on November 12, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved: ________________________
Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form: ___________________________
City Attorney
28 of 162

VICINITY MAP

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE

SHEET DESCRIPTION REV

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

PROJECT INFORMATION
SCALE: N/A
TN

SITE LOCATION
680 E COTATI AVE, COTATI, CA 94931
BA90019A
R

T-MOBILE WEST LLC

COTATI DOWNTOWN

PROJECT - NSD
"CALL BEFORE YOU DIG"
CALL
811
At all services & grounding trenches, provide
" WARNING" tape at 12" below grade.

NATIONWIDE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI

DOWNTOWN
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG
-
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H.
2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

T-1.1

TITLE SHEET
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
RFDS VER#: 1.0_03/27/2024
STATE PLANE COORDINATE ZONE 2
HAYES
Land Surveying And Mapping
2830 MADIGAN COURT
CONCORD, CA 94518
R
1855 GATEWAY BLVD 9TH FLOOR
CONCORD, CA 94520
DBA

TMO CA/NV, LLC
S
W
N
E
S
W
N
E
HAYES
Land Surveying And Mapping
2830 MADIGAN COURT
CONCORD, CA 94518
R
1855 GATEWAY BLVD 9TH FLOOR
CONCORD, CA 94520
DBA

TMO CA/NV, LLC
TN

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI
DOWNTOWN 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG -
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941 1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H. 2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-1.1

OVERALL

SITE PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI
DOWNTOWN 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG -
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941 1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H. 2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-1.2

ENLARGED

SITE PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI
DOWNTOWN 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG -
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941 1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H. 2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-1.3

EQUIPMENT PLAN
TN

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI
DOWNTOWN 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG -
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941 1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H. 2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-2.1

ANTENNA PLAN

SECTORS A & B
TN

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI
DOWNTOWN 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG -
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941 1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H. 2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-2.2

ANTENNA PLAN

SECTOR C

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI

DOWNTOWN
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG
-
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H.
2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-3.1

ELEVATION

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI

DOWNTOWN
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG
-
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H.
2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-3.2

ELEVATION

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI

DOWNTOWN
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG
-
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H.
2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

A-4.1

DETAILS

PREPARED FOR

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
BA90019A
03/21/24 ZD 90%
Issued For:

COTATI

DOWNTOWN
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS
D. HAYES
S. SAVIG
-
680 E COTATI AVE
COTATI, CA 94931
D.H.

CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520
R

C
3843 Taylor Road, Suite A, Loomis, CA 95650
Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
1 04/19/24 ZD 100% D.H.
2 07/23/24 CLIENT REV S.V.

E-1.1

ELECTRICAL PLAN
41 of 162
42 of 162
43 of 162
44 of 162
45 of 162
46 of 162
47 of 162
48 of 162
49 of 162
50 of 162
51 of 162
09/11/2024
Regarding: Cotati Planning Department Decision 09/03/2024 Approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned telecommunication facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

To Mayor Laura Sparks, Susan Harvey, Ben Ford, Sylvia Limus, Kathleen Rivers and City Manager Damien O’Bid,
We, the Village Walk Alliance, want to bring to your attention a project approved by the planning department which we feel was not properly noticed. The preliminary application this year shows a start date of 03/21/2024. Our neighborhood received a letter dated “on or before August 24th,” for a hearing on September 3rd (included in attachments).The earliest date to receive this letter would be August 26th, just nine days before the public hearing. The one page notice itself was very vague, most people we spoke to didn’t understand it.

During the Labor Day weekend, with only a few days until the hearing, we gathered 134 signatures against the planned cell towers, (seven pages included in attachments). We attended the meeting and have included the minutes.

We found out that several business owners, homeowners and tenants within the 500 feet noticing parameter had not received the City of Cotati’s letter. The city's planning department sent us a list of all the recipients of the City’s Notice of a Public Hearing. The list is included.

Several homeowners and tenants within a radius of 500 feet of the planned cell towers received no notification of T-Mobile’s plans.The licensed businesses adjacent to and within 500 feet of the 680 East Cotati, Energy Gym, received no notification. We have included the names of business owners we personally talked to. We have also included the appeal application and the building plans.

We understand Team Mobile West LLC is a new business, yet we have not seen their new business license.

The Cell Tower notification process was flawed from the beginning. Can you help us by reconsidering the application on the basis of improper notification? Also we are not a business, we are volunteers, and we would like to ask for waiver of the fees to appeal.

We are appealing this project as we think it is not the correct project for our community at this time.

Yours Respectfully,
Village Walk Alliance Dawna Gallagher Monique de Lannoy

52 of 162
53 of 162
54 of 162
City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
________________________________________________________________ 201 W. Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 | (707) 792-4600 | www.cotaticity.org | @cityofcotati

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Development Director will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at 1:30p.m., or shortly thereafter, in person at the Conference Room of Cotati City Hall, 201 West Sierra Avenue, to consider the following matter:

Approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned telecommunication facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

In conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department, Planning Division has found that this project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Project Name: 680 E. Cotati Ave. MUP
Address: 680 East Cotati Avenue
APNs: 144-292-024
Applicant: T-Mobile West LLC
Owner: Finaly Family Partnership LLP
File No. PA 24/13
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend the meeting in person or send their comments on the matters listed above to Eli Arreola, Planning Technician, at [email protected].

DATE POSTED: On or before August 24, 2024
/s/ Eli Arreola,
Planning Technician

WAIVER WARNING

IF YOU CHALLENGE THESE ISSUES IN

COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU

OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE

PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS

NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN

CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO

THE CITY OF COTATI AT, OR PRIOR
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
55 of 162
8/6/2024
680 E Cotati Ave
500ft Radius Map
0 Miles 0.08
Scale 1: 4,800
56 of 162

Approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned telecommunication facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.

DATE POSTED:

On or before August 24, 2024 Eli Arreola
Planning Technician
City Of Cotati
Pub: August 23, 2024
The Community Voice

WAIVER WARNING

IF YOU CHALLENGE THESE ISSUES IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO

THE CITY OF COTATI AT, OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
57 of 162

RADIO FREQUENCY - ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY (RF-EME)

COMPLIANCE REPORT
Report Type: Antenna Modification/Theoretical
Site ID: BA90019A
Site Name: Cotati Downtown
Address: 680 E Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931
Date of Calculation: April 28, 2024
Date of Report: April 28, 2024
Latitude: 38.329081 N
Longitude: -122.697047 W

Prepared By:
58 of 162
( 2 )
Site ID: BA90019A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary / Report Summary............................................................................................ 3

2.0 MPE Calculations................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 Antenna Inventory .............................................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements .......................................................... 7

5.0 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 9

6.0 Safety Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 10

7.0 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Limits...................................................................... 11

8.0 Compliance Measures....................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 Summary And Conclusions............................................................................................................... 14

10.0 Certification....................................................................................................................................... 15 59 of 162
( 3 )
Site ID: BA90019A

1.0 Executive Summary / Report Summary
Purpose of Report
Global Technology Associates (GTA) has been contracted by T-Mobile to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RFEME) modeling for T-Mobile site BA90019A located at 680 E Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931 to determine RF-EME exposure levels from existing and proposed T-Mobile wireless communications equipment at this site.

This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF-EME analysis for the site.

As described in greater detail in the Section titled “Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements” of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general population exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields.

T-Mobile Site Summary
Site ID BA90019A Street Address 680 E Cotati Ave.

Site Name Cotati Downtown City, State, Zip Cotati, CA 94931 Site Type building Latitude 38.329081 N
Classification occupational Longitude -122.697047 W
Access Restrictions controlled Access Type secured outdoor ladder to roof Site Description all the antennas are mounted on the roof deco frame on the roof of the building Max Predictive RF-EME at T-Mobile Facility
(Occupational) 87.7% of FCC’s occupational limit at roof level Max Predictive RF-EME at Ground Level
(General Population)

71.2% of FCC’s general population limit
Predictive RF-EME Analysis at T-Mobile
Facility
The Proposed Antenna Configuration is In Compliance With FCC Rules & Regulations Upon Completion of the GTA
Recommendations.

Table 1
A result of over 100% does not make a site out of compliance with FCC guidelines. For predicted EME over 100% of the applicable FCC limit, further remediation (e.g. signage and/or barriers preventing access) is required to consider the site compliant. Areas exceeding the FCC limit are presented with the barriers and appropriate signages. Accessible areas outside the demarcated are the safety zones that have predicted EME values below the FCC's limits. Installation of the recommended mitigation or remediation measures brings the site into compliance. The predictions model antennas as if they are operating at full power, and this assumption yields a worst-case scenario with more conservative results. On-site measurements may yield different results, as antennas do not always operate at full capacity. 60 of 162
( 4 )
Site ID: BA90019A
Methodology
The site to be determined as the compliance is based on theoretical modeling using the RoofView® modeling tool, appropriate RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory as provided by T-Mobile in the construction drawings and the type & level of restricted access to the antennas at the site.

Compliance Statement
T-Mobile's operation at 680 E Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931 will comply with FCC rules and regulations upon completion of recommendations that include the installation of appropriate RF Safety Signages and/or Barriers as described in Section 8.

Actions for Site Compliance
Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. If required, RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels. Where applicable, barriers can consist of locked doors, fencing, railing, rope, chain, paint striping or tape, combined with RF alert signage.

T-Mobile will be compliant when the following changes are implemented:

T-Mobile proposed Access Point Location
Ensure that a 1 Guideline, 1 Information & 1 Notice signs are installed at the Access Point location, as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report.

T-Mobile proposed Alpha Sector Location
1 Notice sign on the antenna as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report.

No need to install Barrier & Chain/Striping/Tapes enclosing this sector.

T-Mobile proposed Beta Sector Location
1 Notice sign on the antenna as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report.

Install Barrier & Chain that is 16 ft. long along with 3 Notice sign on the Barrier & Chain as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report.

T-Mobile proposed Gamma Sector Location
1 Notice sign on the antenna as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report.

No need to install Barrier & Chain/Striping/Tapes enclosing this sector.

T-Mobile proposed Equipment/BTS Location
Ensure that a 1 Guideline, 1 Information & 1 Notice signs are installed at the Equipment/BTS location, as depicted in the site map in the later sections of the report. 61 of 162
( 5 )
Site ID: BA90019A

2.0 MPE Calculations
For this MPE predictive analysis, GTA considered the area around the accessible areas of the T-Mobile antennas on the site to determine EME field strength levels for the FCC’s human exposure limits. Further GTA has identified any areas with higher levels exceeding FCC MPE limits and then determined spatially averaged field levels in areas with highest fields.

GTA has utilized computer-generated modeling software RoofView® 4.15 to generate the compliance report.

Modeling & Input Assumptions
In this Site Compliance Report, it is assumed that
 All antennas are operating at full power at all times.  The Antenna Inventory Table (Section 3) shows all transmitting antennas at the site.  A 100 % duty cycle and maximum radiated power for each antenna is assumed unless T-Mobile has specified otherwise.
 Obstructions like (screens, trees, buildings, etc.) that would normally attenuate the signal are not taken into account.
 GTA obtained information used in this Compliance Report from T-Mobile which is considered reliable and believes it to be true and correct.
 Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, GTA performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. The scales and the determinations are based on the A&E drawings provided by T-Mobile.
62 of 162
( 6 )
Site ID: BA90019A

3.0 Antenna Inventory ID Technology
Antenna Make
Antenna Model
Azimuth (°)
Bottom of ANT from
Main Roof (ft)
Bottom of ANT from
Ground (ft)
S1A1 N600 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 30 8.92 35.08
S1A1 L700 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 30 8.92 35.08
S1A1 L1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 30 8.92 35.08
S1A1 N1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 30 8.92 35.08
S1A1 L2100 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 30 8.92 35.08
S1A4 N2500 ERICSSON AIR6419 B41 30 11.99 38.15
S2A2 N600 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 150 8.92 35.08
S2A2 L700 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 150 8.92 35.08
S2A2 L1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 150 8.92 35.08
S2A2 N1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 150 8.92 35.08
S2A2 L2100 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 150 8.92 35.08
S2A5 N2500 ERICSSON AIR6419 B41 150 11.99 38.15
S3A3 N600 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 270 8.92 35.08
S3A3 L700 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 270 8.92 35.08
S3A3 L1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 270 8.92 35.08
S3A3 N1900 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 270 8.92 35.08
S3A3 L2100 RFS APXVAALL18_43-U-NA20 270 8.92 35.08
S3A6 N2500 ERICSSON AIR6419 B41 270 11.99 38.15
Table 2
63 of 162
( 7 )
Site ID: BA90019A

4.0 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP.

The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general population/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general population.

Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is transient as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.

General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general population may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general population would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area.

Figure 1
64 of 162
( 8 )
Site ID: BA90019A
Table 3 and Figure 2 (below), which are included in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions.

These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures.

The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the T-Mobile equipment operating at 800 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.66 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.53 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations.

Table 3
Figure 2
65 of 162
( 9 )
Site ID: BA90019A
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below:

Table 4
Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by T-Mobile in this area operate within a frequency range of 600-2500 MHz.

Facilities typically consist of:
1) Electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) Antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables.

Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, except in areas directly in front of the antennas.

Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier that has an installation that contributes more than 100% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards.

5.0 Limitations
This report was prepared for the use of T-Mobile. It was performed following generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under similar circumstances. The conclusions provided by GTA are based solely on the information provided by T-Mobile. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to GTA so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared by Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Personal Wireless Service Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE
Public
MPE
Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2

1.00 mW/cm2
Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2

0.58 mW/cm2
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2

0.57 mW/cm2
Most Restrictive Freq. Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2

0.20 mW/cm2
66 of 162
( 10 )
Site ID: BA90019A

6.0 Safety Recommendations
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Requirements OSHA requires that those in the Occupational classification must complete training in RF Safety, RF Awareness, and Utilization of Personal Protective Equipment. OSHA also provides options for Hazard Prevention and Control:

Table 5
RF Signage and Barriers
All RF signs should be obeyed by at all times.

Figure 3
If there are workers in an area with a sign that they do not understand, they can call the NOC Number at 877-611-5868 for guidance.
67 of 162
( 11 )
Site ID: BA90019A

7.0 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Limits
Contribution to Co-Located areas
Any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greaterthan 100% ofthe MPE limitisresponsible for taking corrective actionsto bring the site into compliance. All co-located sites should have a separate 5% modeling that shows only T-Mobile antennas transmitting. This separate modeling indicates T-Mobile’s contribution in all areasthat isrecognized to be greater than 100% MPE limits.

Occupational Limits
Apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure.

General Population limits
Apply in situations in which the general population may be exposed, or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. (Those without significant and documented RF Safety & Awarenesstraining) Controlled Environment
This applies to environments that are restricted or “controlled” to prevent access from members of the General Population classification.

Uncontrolled Environment
This applies to environments that are unrestricted or “uncontrolled” that allow access from members of the General Population classification.

Generic Values
The use of “Unknown” for an operator means the information about the carrier, their FCC license, and/or antenna information was not available. Generic values are used as estimation for Effective Radiated Power (ERP) and antenna characteristics for unknown antennas.
68 of 162
( 12 )
Site ID: BA90019A

8.0 Compliance Measures
The site needs the following mitigation and/or compliance plan.

The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory and the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. At the time of our analysis, T-Mobile will be complaint with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65 upon implementation of below remediation and/or compliance recommendations.

On building :

Table 6
CAUTION: - The table above represents EVERY compliance item that MUST be implemented by the carrier at the site location; please see the Site Plan shown in diagram 1.

It is recommended to have periodic inspections of the components that are involved in the radiation of RF energy.

Periodic Electromagnetic Emission (EME) measurement should be conducted to reevaluate the RF radiation level at this site.

GTA recommends that T-Mobile and the authorized personal at the site take additional measures to ensure that persons accessing the roof (for example, roofers or other maintenance workers) are informed of areas where RF levels exceed the FCC general population limit and made aware that these areas must be avoided to maintain compliance with FCC requirements. This is important especially when the placement of barriers, striping, taping, or any other positive access control (areas of the roof that exceed the RF levels of the general population limit) is not possible due to the physical construction or constraints or safety measures surrounding the antennas or on the roof like the sloped roof, tiled roof, chimney, steeples, cupolas, hilly terrain, etc.

It is further recommended to distribute this report to anyone accessing the roof and ensure the confirmation that it has been read and understood.

Sign Count Length Barrier & Chain
Access Point(s) 1 1 1 Barrier & Chain
Sector Alpha 1 Barrier & Chain
Sector Beta 1 3 16 ft. Barrier & Chain
Sector Gamma 1 Barrier & Chain
Equipment/BTS 1 1 1 Barrier & Chain
Total Signage 16 ft.

Signages on Access Points, Sectors & Equipment Enclosing Sectors 2 2 5 0 0 3 Recommendations for Site Compliance
Guidelines NOC INFO NOTICE CAUTION WARNING
69 of 162
( 13 )
Site ID: BA90019A
Diagram 1: Site Scale Plan
0 ’ 6’ 10 ’ 20 ’
6 3
secured outdoor ladder
to roof (access)
RF barrier
& chain
TMO A
TMO B
TMO C
lower roof
lower roof
middle roof
upper roof
parking
area
parking
area
adjacent
building
middle roof
ground
ground
BTS
roof deco
frame
roof deco
frame
BA90019A
Secto r Sign o n
A ntenna
B arrier &
C hain
Length
A lpha Not i c e N/ A N/ A 0 ft.

B eta Not i c e Not i c e Ba r r i e r &
Cha i n 16 ft.

Gamma Not i c e N/ A N/ A 0 ft.

A ccess/ B TS Gui de l i ne I nf o. Not i c e 16 ft.
* F o r mo re details please see the M itigatio n T able.

M itigatio n R equired
o n A ntenna 70 of 162
( 14 )
Site ID: BA90019A

9.0 Summary And Conclusions
GTA has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed T-Mobile telecommunications equipment at the site located at 680 E Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931.

GTA has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from T-Mobile antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements.

As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are modeled exposures on any accessible roof-level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational exposure limits at this site. Any of the modeled exposure areas exceeding the occupational limits need to follow the mitigation/compliance plan proposed in the report to bring the T-Mobile antennas to compliance. As such, the proposed T-Mobile project complies with FCC rules and regulations. Posting of the signages and the recommendations presented in Section 8 brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations.

At roof-level the anticipated maximum predictive RF-EME at T-Mobile facility will be 87.7% of FCC’s occupational limit.

This was determined through calculations along a radial from each sector taking full power values into account as well as actual vertical plane antenna gain values per the manufacturer-supplied specifications for gain. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground level related to the proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational or general population exposure limits at this site. At ground level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 71.2% of FCC’s general population limit (14.24% of the FCC's occupational limit). If applicable in special cases and scenarios, appropriate inter-floor radiation losses are taken into account for depicting accurate modeling and simulations at ground level.

A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier that has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards.

Modeling indicates that there will be no accessible areas on the walking/working surfaces at the roof-level in front of the T-Mobile antennas that may exceed the FCC standards for the general population and/or occupational exposure after the implementation of mitigation measures. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, GTA recommends that access to the building or areas associated with the active antenna installation or mitigation measures are restricted and secured where possible.

To alert any workers or general population potentially accessing the site, a blue Notice sign and/or yellow Caution sign, and/or orange Warning sign based on the simulated exposure limits along with a yellow Guidelines sign are recommended for installation at the access to the rooftop/structure along with the barriers/striping to exclude the RF radiations exceeding areas per the applicable limits.
71 of 162
( 15 )
Site ID: BA90019A

10.0 Certification
This report has been prepared under the direction of the following Registered Professional Engineer:

I Michael A. McGuire PE, on the date indicated near my seal below hereby certify that:

I am registered as a Professional Engineer with the License number listed below and I am thoroughly familiar with the Regulations of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), both in general and specifically, as they apply to FCC guidelines for human exposure to Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the EME predictive analysis for the site identified as BA90019A located at 680 E Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931, has performed on April 28, 2024 to determine where there might be electromagnetic energy that is more than both the Controlled Environment and Uncontrolled Environment levels; and that I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
sealed 01may2024
72 of 162
1 | T-Mobile Confidential
BA90019A
Coverage Plots
680 E Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
73 of 162
BA90019A L2100 Coverage
BA90019A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE BA90019A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE BA90019A BA90019A
• 3,635 Additional Indoor Pops covered with the addition of BA90019A 74 of 162 BA90019A L2100 Standalone Coverage
BA90019A L2100 Coverage – Standalone
BA90019A
75 of 162
4 Next Steps :
➢Explore TEK Systems model
➢Look at amendments post SLT approval
76 of 162

APPEAL OF DIRECTOR DECISION TO

APPROVE NEW T-MOBILE CELLULAR
ANTENNAS AT 680 EAST COTATI AVE
City of Cotati City Council
November 12, 2024 77 of 162

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Proposed T-Mobile telecommunications facility
at 680 East Cotati Avenue
78 of 162

LOCATION,

GENERAL

PLAN AND
ZONING
• Project site is
located at 680
East Cotati Ave.
• General Plan
Designation: GC
• Zoning District: CE
Project
Site
79 of 162
80 of 162

BACKGROUND
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• 2012 Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
• 2018 FCC Declaratory Ruling
• 2024 City of Cotati Telecommunication Facility Ordinance • June 27, 2024 – T-Mobile West LLC applied for MUP
• Sept. 3, 2024 – Director Hearing for MUP
• Sept. 16, 2024 – Village Walk Alliance filed 1st appeal • Oct. 7, 2024 – Planning Commission Hearing for Appeal • Oct. 17, 2024 – Village Walk Alliance filed 2nd appeal 81 of 162

APPEAL FINDINGS
• Potential impacts to property values
• Vulnerability to cyber-attacks & potential loss of
privacy
• Perception of potential health risks
• Failure to address fire safety concerns
82 of 162

LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
• Conditionally allowable within CE District
• Siting and design comply with Land Use Code
• Conditioned to comply with operation and maintenance
standards
83 of 162

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
• Goal CSF 1: Provide high quality public services and
facilities to all residents, businesses and visitors in Cotati. • Policy EV 1.2: Ensure the long-term public services and infrastructure needs of the community are met as part of the overall approach to economic vitality and
sustainability.
• Policy LU 4.1: Ensure that public facilities, services and amenities are distributed in a manner that enhances the quality of life for the broadest number of Cotati’s
residents.
84 of 162

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
• The proposed project is exempt from environmental
review under a Class 3 Categorical Exemption
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 given
that the project proposes to construct a small addition to an existing building to house a limited number of
telecommunication antenna.
85 of 162

RECOMMENDATION
• It is recommended by the Community Development
Department that the City Council deny the 2nd appeal
of the Community Development Director’s decision to
approve PA#24/13 and reaffirm the approval of a
Minor Use Permit to allow an unmanned
telecommunications facility at 680 East Cotati Avenue.
86 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential
Customer Driven. Locally Focused. Magenta
Built.

A NETWORK LIKE NO OTHER
Building T-Mobile’s Network in Sonoma County
87 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

T-MOBILE SITE IN CITY OF COTATI
§ Proposed Application Roof Stealth facility to include 6 antennas located within two separate s § Location 680 East Cotati Avenue, Cotati, CA
§ Complies with Code
– Positive Staff Recommendation
– No Variances Requested
– Projects complies with city wireless codes Chapter 17.44 (Ord. 924 § 6, 2024) – Project is consistent with city Telecommunications Design Guidelines adopted in 2021 – Maximum height allowance; multiple stealth design options proposed – Consistent with State & Federal regulations
– Radio frequencies may not be considered (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) § Community Benefit
– 3,635 additional indoor residences will be covered with reliable in-building service – Supports and furthers the goals of the Sonoma County Broadband Action Plan 2 88 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

SITE MAP OF PROPOSED LOCATION
3 • Code Preference: Parcel is C-2
zoned and is a commercial building;
Requires stealth design.
680 E Cotati
Ave
89 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

SITE DESIGN - BEFORE
4 90 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

SITE DESIGN - AFTER
5 91 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

COVERAGE MAP
6 BA90019A WITHOUT THE SITE BA90019A WITH THE SITE
92 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

COVERAGE MAP
7 BA90019A Standalone Coverage
93 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential 8

BUILDING MEETS HEIGHT OBJECTIVE
• Line of Site
• No Obstructions
• Height consistent with
wireless ordinance
94 of 162
T-Mobile Confidential

T-MOBILE SITE IN CITY OF COTATI
§ Proposed Application Rooftop stealth facility to include 6 antennas located within two separate screened architecture features. § Location 680 East Cotati Avenue, Cotati, CA
§ Complies with Code
– Positive Staff Recommendation
– No Variances Requested
– Projects complies with city wireless codes Chapter 17.44 (Ord. 924 § 6, 2024) – Project is consistent with city Telecommunications Design Guidelines adopted in 2021 – Maximum height allowance; multiple stealth design options proposed – Consistent with State & Federal regulations
– Radio frequencies may not be considered (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) § Community Benefit
– 3,635 additional indoor residences will be covered with reliable in-building service – Supports and furthers the goals of the Sonoma County Broadband Action Plan 9 95 of 162
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDERATION AND FIRST READING OF A DRAFT
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.32 DENSITY

BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO

IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW
AND POLICY AND CREATE THE COTATI DENSITY BONUS.

Date: November 12, 2024
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission that the City Council consider and conduct a first reading of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 17.31 Affordable Housing Requirements and Chapter 17.32 Density Bonuses and of the Cotati Municipal Code to implement changes to affordable housing law and policy and to create the Cotati Density Bonus.

Background
In June 2023, the City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which identifies numerous goals, policies and programs to address the housing needs of the community over the next housing “cycle” (2023-2031). Many of these goals, policies and programs are implemented through the Chapter 17.31 Affordable Housing Requirements of the Cotati Municipal Code (CMC).

On May 24, 2024, the City of Cotati held a housing workshop and proposed the concept of a Cotati Density Bonus, the intent of which was to create an option whereby project applicants could be granted additional residential density beyond the allowances of State density bonus law, in exchange for proposing a project design that is in keeping with the development goals and policies of the City of Cotati.

On June 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed code changes to the City’s current Density Bonuses section of the CMC, the primary goal of which 96 of 162
was to ensure compliance with state density bonus law, but which also included conceptual code language intended to create the “Cotati Density Bonus”. At this meeting the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Gilardi absent) to recommend the City Council adopt the draft ordinance.

On August 27, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the draft ordinance amending the CMC to both remain consistent with State Density Bonus Law and create a Cotati Density Bonus. After reviewing the draft ordinance, the City Council indicated support for the broader ordinance bringing the City into compliance with State law, but directed staff to remove the Cotati Density Bonus language, requesting a more robust discussion of the potential policy options for the Cotati Density Bonus be brought back before the Council for further review and consideration.

On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission considered a resolution recommending that the City Council conducted the first reading of the draft ordinance amending the existing affordable housing policy and density bonus sections of the CMC, in keeping with the policy direction previously provided. After conducing the public hearing and considering the resolution, the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the resolution.

Analysis/Discussion
Land Use and Planning Considerations
Cotati Density Bonus
The concept of a Cotati Density Bonus builds on the past actions of the City Council creating a mechanism to provide additional residential density in exchange for a developer meeting codified expectations identified as high priority for the community. Previously, the Council has modified the CMC to allow up to double the base density for “cottage housing” projects as well as for certain projects qualifying for a “mixed-use density bonus”. These two Cotati specific density bonus options provide a mechanism allowing for additional density bonus units (up to 100%) above and beyond those available through state density bonus law (generally a maximum of 50%). The intent of these allowances is to create a greater incentive than what is provided through State density bonus law for projects to meet the development goals of Cotati. State density bonus allow developers to utilize waivers, concessions and incentives to avoid compliance with individual elements of a local jurisdictions land use policy, when those policies are seen as affecting the ability of the project to construct the density bonus units.

Notable in this discussion is that the City of Cotati “inclusionary housing requirement” (i.e. the number of affordable housing units required to be built within any “market rate” project) is 15 percent, which coincides with the state density bonus formula for projects to receive a density bonus. The number of density bonus units is based on the proposed number of “base” units and affordability levels set by a prescribed formula (15 percent moderate income=10 percent density bonus; 15 percent low income=27.5 percent density bonus; 15 percent very low income=50 percent density bonus) as laid out in the State Density Bonus Table (attached).

The local mandate for 15 percent of the units of any project to be affordable housing, has 97 of 162
resulted in nearly all projects proposed (since these state law changes) being “density bonus” projects. Providing a local “density bonus” option beyond those identified in state law is intended to incentivize developers to meet the City’s development criteria, and to provide more flexibility in the affordable unit mixes being proposed in local projects. In their consideration of the Cotati Density Bonus Option, the City Council is seeking to balance making the local option certain enough to entice developers to utilize it, while also ensuring adequate community benefits are provided to justify granting the additional density.

To inform this consideration, the Council requested to have a facilitated discussion including the most common incentives and concessions required of density bonus projects; cost/benefits of making elements of the “Cotati Density Bonus” guaranteed vs. at the complete discretion of the Council; and defining the appropriate level of housing affordability required to qualify for a Cotati Density Bonus.

Common Density Bonus Incentives and Concessions
Height Limit
Public and Private Open Space Requirements
Architectural Design Flexibility (various Objective Design Guideline architectural criteria) Parking*
Lot Coverage*
*These standards were recently modified with adoption of the “Plex Housing Ordinance” and are not likely to remain as significant hinderances needing concessions, incentives or waivers.

Certainty of the Cotati Density Bonus and Affordability Levels Given that the State Density Bonus law is a guaranteed right to developers (and this process can grant any number of incentives, concessions and waivers to proponents of these projects) certainty in the approval of a Cotati Density Bonus, and flexibility akin to concessions, incentives and waivers may be beneficial to incentivize use of a Cotati specific density bonus program. One further consideration of this element is the recent implementation of AB 1287 which allows certain projects to receive up to 100% State density bonus via a density bonus “stacking” option summarized below.

AB 1287 (Jan. 2024)-Allows stacking of density bonus such that projects can get to 100% density bonus by providing 15 percent of the base units as very low income and 15 percent as moderate income. One of the most powerful combinations allowable under this law is providing 15 percent very low-income, entitling a 50 percent bonus; then adding an additional 15 percent of moderate units, allowing an additional 50 percent bonus [under AB 1287] for a total 100 percent density bonus. This recent change in State law now allows up to 100 percent density bonus for projects providing 30 percent of the base density units at very low- (15%) and moderate-income (15%) levels. This recent change in state law may motivate some consideration of incentivizing low-income unit development as well as introducing certainty into the granting of a Cotati Density Bonus and/or rights to incentives, concessions and waivers in this local program.
98 of 162
Draft Cotati Density Bonus
Finally, staff has provided some draft language for consideration to further facilitate the consideration and discussion of a Cotati Density Bonus. This language includes the use of the outstanding RHNA requirements as the basis for determining affordable housing income levels in a Cotati Density Bonus.

Cotati Density Bonus. For projects providing twenty-five percent of the proposed units as affordable housing at income levels spread across very low-, low- and moderate-income categories based on the City’s remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or the affordable housing priorities of the City; which are evenly distributed throughout the project site; and which comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards, the city council shall grant up to a one-hundred percent residential density bonus. Such projects shall be entitled to receive two incentives, concessions or waivers from development standards as defined by state density bonus law (in total).

Affordable Housing Requirements
Chapter 17.31 of the CMC identifies the specific criteria regarding implementation of below market rates homes in Cotati. The proposed ordinance would make changes to this section with the primary goal of providing clarifying language and implementing changes identified in the Housing Element and State density bonus law. Specific changes include utilizing the City’s RHNA as the primary determinant for unit affordability; identification of the 55-year deed restriction timeline; and incorporation of the City’s Local Preference Policy into the CMC. Other changes include identifying how rental units are to be “re-allocated” if a tenant’s income rises above the affordability levels of their unit and including email into the process affordable housing units are advertised and marketed to potential occupants. Staff requests City Council input on these changes to support the implementation of Housing Element programs.

General Plan Consistency
The amendments to CMC Title 17 in the proposed ordinance are consistent with and will further established goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including the Housing Element, to expand housing opportunities, conserve resources, and use land appropriately.

Specifically, these amendments are consistent with and implement the following Housing Element policies and programs:

Program 1-8: Residential Building Decarbonization: Continue to permit and encourage mixed uses and higher densities on in-fill and vacant sites in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) with public serving facilities, such as medical clinics, schools, and grocery stores, to discourage sprawl and encourage short vehicle trips and/or alternative forms of transportation.

Program 3-1: Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: Amend the City’s Zoning Code to use the maximum parking requirements in Government Code Section 65915 (State Density Bonus) for all multifamily projects without the need for any developer request by December 2023. 99 of 162
In addition, these amendments are consistent with and implement the following General Plan policies and programs:

Policy CON 2.1: Improve air quality through continuing to require a compact development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locating new housing near places of employment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and requiring projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Policy LU 2.5: Locate medium and higher density housing within easy walking or bicycling distance of public facilities, services, transit, and major employers.

Policy LU 2.10: Encourage mixed-use, pedestrian-, and transit-oriented development, with a focus on the Hub and major corridors.

Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.32 Density Bonuses implement the above referenced Housing Element and General Plan policies in that additional density allowed in density bonus projects will increase incentives for in-fill development and provide additional residential units in close proximity to local amenities and employment opportunities; further support implementation of the density bonus parking allowances; support increased compact development and housing near local employment; incentivize use of alternative transportation methods; and further encourage mixed use and transit oriented development through clarifying the increased allowable density, including around the Hub and major transportation corridors.

Planning Commission Consideration
On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed changes to the Cotati Municipal Code. After considering the staff report, public input and elements raised during the commissioner’s discussion, the Planning Commission voted to unanimously support the proposed changes. In making their recommendation, the Commission recommended that the City Council:

1. Consider including limitations on the maximum height allowed to be constructed with any Cotati Density Bonus project.

2. Consider prioritizing health and safety elements when reviewing what concessions are to be included/not included with the Cotati Density Bonus.

3. Consider scheduling a one-year review of the Cotti Density Bonus Ordinance to evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted policies and make modifications to improve on their intent and to address any unforeseen issues and/or challenges.

Financial Considerations
Other than the staff time draft the ordinance, there are no direct impacts to the General Fund 100 of 162
anticipated from the proposed ordinance.

Environmental Issues
The potential impacts of the proposed project were analyzed and addressed to a less-thansignificant level in the Cotati General Plan Update EIR (SCH# 2013082037), which was certified by the Cotati City Council on March 24, 2015, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with an existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designations and densities established by the Cotati General Plan, for which an EIR was certified.
101 of 162
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND 17.32 DENSITY

BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY

WITH CHANGES IN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, CREATE A COTATI SPECIFIC DENSITY BONUSE AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S LOCAL

PREFERENCE POLICY
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the Cotati City Council adopted its updated General Plan (Resolution No. 2015-12), which identifies the City’s vision for the future and provides a framework to guide decisions on growth and development consistent with the quality of life desired by Cotati citizens. On March 24, 2015, the Cotati City Council also certified the City of Cotati General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which reviewed potentially significant environmental effects resulting from the plan’s implantation and developed measures and policies to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Cotati City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the General Plan (“Housing Element”), which includes goals and policies related to housing, including establishment of objective design standards for multifamily plex and single family housing, and facilitation of increased housing development; and
WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the Cotati Municipal Code is to codify mandates in state law and set the standards for implementation of said mandates in order to ensure consistent implementation of the law in Cotati; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Cotati held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed ordinance adopting amendments to update the Cotati municipal code to meet the changes in state density bonus regulations, create a Cotati Density Bonus and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy. After receiving the staff report, reviewing a presentation from the Planning Division, and considering all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the Ordinance, the Planning Commission voted to approve a resolution recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, based on the record, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning code amendments are consistent with and facilitate the General Plan.

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City Council of the City of Cotati held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance to establish amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law, establish local density bonus allowances and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy, received the staff report, reviewed a presentation from the Planning Division, and considered all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the Ordinance prior to voting to introduce the Ordinance.

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

SECTION 1: Recitals.
102 of 162
The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the findings herein.

SECTION 2: Record
The Record of Proceedings (“Record”) upon which the City Council makes its decision includes, but is not limited to: 1) the 2015 General Plan, 2) the FEIR certified for the 2015 General Plan, 3) the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update adopted by the City Council in 2023, 4) the Mitigated Negative Declaration certified for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, 5) all staff reports, City files and records, and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City Council related to adoption of the amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law and create expanded local density bonus allowances.

SECTION 3: General Plan Consistency
The Council of the City of Cotati does hereby find that the amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law and establish local density bonus allowances, as set forth in this Ordinance, are in the best interest of the City in that they will further established goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including the Housing Element, to expand housing opportunities, conserve resources, and use land appropriately.

Specifically, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.31 Affordable Housing Requirement and Chapter

17.32 Density Bonuses implement the below referenced Housing Element and General Plan policies in that they will help to ensure consistency in the implementation of affordable housing requirements; allowing additional density in density bonus projects will increase incentives for in-fill development and provide additional residential units in close proximity to local amenities and employment opportunities; the changes will support increased compact development and housing near local employment and supporting the use of alternative transportation methods; and the updated language will further encourage mixed use and transit oriented development through clarifying the increased allowable density, including around the Hub and major corridors.

Program 1-5: Preservation of Affordable Housing: To Facilitate the preservation of deed restricted and other existing affordable housing, and protect residents from displacement, the City will continue to monitor affordable housing developments, facilitate the acquisition of expiring properties and conduct outreach to property owners.

In addition, these amendments are consistent with and implement the following General Plan policies and programs in that they will increase the allowable density of residential development; put these additional units within closer proximity to multi-modal transportation infrastructure and support the development of mixed use projects by allowing additional density increase beyond those allowed at the state level:

Policy LU 2.5: Locate medium and higher density housing within easy walking or bicycling distance of 103 of 162
public facilities, services, transit, and major employers.

Policy LU 2.10: Encourage mixed-use, pedestrian-, and transit-oriented development, with a focus on the Hub and major corridors.

SECTION 4: Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

In conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Cotati Land Use Code related to density bonus are consistent with and implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the 2015 General Plan, the 6th Cycle Housing Element and state density bonus law and therefore finds that these proposed revisions conform to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which provides a streamlined review of the environmental impacts of the project by tiering from the program level analysis prepared for the Cotati General Plan and its certified EIR, and other previously completed environmental analysis.

The Council further finds that all adopted mitigating General Plan policies, mitigation measures identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR and Housing Element Mitigated Negative Declaration will address any potential environmental impacts of the proposed code changes. Further, these changes are being mandated by updates to state density bonus law and future project-specific environmental analysis of any housing development proposed under the amended Code will be required and will allow project-specific impacts not previously identified or anticipated to be addressed.

SECTION 5: Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.31 is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 17.31

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Sections:

17.31.010 Purpose.

17.31.020 Applicability.

17.31.030 Exemptions.

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

17.31.060 Alternatives.

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

17.31.100 Rental units.

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

17.31.120 Affordable housing trust fund.

17.31.130 Enforcement.

17.31.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within city as mandated by Government Code Section 65580, State Density Bonus Law, and the City’s housing element, et seq.;
B. Offset the demand on housing created by new development, and mitigate environmental and other 104 of 162
impacts that accompany new development by protecting the economic diversity of the city’s housing stock, reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region; C. Implement the policies of the housing element of the general plan. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.020 Applicability.

A. Inclusionary Requirement. Each residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide at least fifteen percent of the total units as inclusionary units restricted for occupancy by moderate-, lowor very low-income households. The number of inclusionary units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of tentative or parcel map approval, or, for developments not processing a map, prior to issuance of a building permit typically as a component of discretionary review and approval. If a change in the project design changes the total number of units, the number of inclusionary units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.

1. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this section, any additional units authorized as a density bonus in compliance with state density bonus law and/or Chapter 17.32 (Density Bonuses) of this title will not be counted in determining the required number of inclusionary units. In determining the number of whole inclusionary units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The remaining portion of a fraction rounded down will off-set its impacts through the payment of the in-lieu fee for the remaining portion of the unit.

B. Minimum Requirements. The requirements of this chapter are minimum and maximum requirements, although nothing in this chapter limits the ability of State density bonus law or a person to waive their rights or voluntarily undertake greater obligations than those imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 854 § 2 (part), 2015; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.030 Exemptions.

The requirements of this chapter do not apply to:

A. The reconstruction of a structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, provided that reconstruction does not increase the number of residential units; B. A development that already has more units that qualify as affordable to moderate-, low- and very lowincome households than this chapter requires; C. Housing constructed by other government agencies; or D. An accessory dwelling unit. (Ord. 893 § 7, 2020; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

Each inclusionary unit built in compliance with this chapter shall comply with to the following standards:

A. Location of Inclusionary Units. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, inclusionary units shall be dispersed throughout a residential development.
105 of 162
B. Design. Inclusionary units shall be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market-rate units. Inclusionary units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than market-rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The number of bedrooms shall be the same as those in the market-rate units, except that if the market-rate units provide more than four bedrooms, the inclusionary units need not provide more than four bedrooms.

C. Timing of Construction. All inclusionary units shall be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of market-rate units or development. In phased developments, inclusionary units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the residential development, provided that the last inclusionary unit in the project shall be constructed before the last market-rate unit.

D. Duration of Affordability Requirement. Inclusionary units produced in compliance with this chapter shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the units were designated, for a minimum of fifty-five years from the date of first occupancy for rental units, and for a minimum of fifty-five years from the date of each sale of any affordable unit for owner-occupied units. (Additional affordability requirements may apply in compliance with State Redevelopment and/or density bonus law (Health and Safety Code Section 33413(c)). (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

A residential development of nine or fewer units may comply with the requirements of this chapter by paying an in-lieu fee as established by council resolution, as it may be amended from time to time. The council may annually review the fee and may, based on the review, adjust the fee. For any annual period during which the council does not review the fee authorized by this subsection, fee amounts will be adjusted once by the city manager based on the Construction Cost Index. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.060 Alternatives.

A. Developer Proposal. A developer may propose an alternative means of compliance in an affordable housing plan as provided in Section 17.31.070(B) of this chapter as follows:

1. Off-Site Construction. Units may be constructed off-site if the inclusionary units will be located an area where, based on the availability of affordable housing, the council finds that the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development.

2. Land Dedication. In lieu of building inclusionary units, a developer may choose to dedicate land to the city suitable for the construction of inclusionary units that the council reasonably determines to be of equivalent or greater value than is produced by applying the inclusionary obligation.

B. Discretion. The council may approve, conditionally approve, or reject any alternative proposed by a developer as part of an affordable housing plan. Any approval or conditional approval shall be based on a finding that the purposes of this chapter would be better served by implementation of the proposed alternatives. In determining whether the purposes of this chapter would be better served under the proposed alternative, the council should consider:
106 of 162

1. Whether implementation of an alternative would overly concentrate inclusionary units within any specific area and, if so, must reject the alternative unless the undesirable concentration of inclusionary units is offset by other identified benefits that flow from implementation of the alternative in issue; and

2. The extent to which other factors affect the feasibility of prompt construction of the inclusionary units on the property, such as costs and delays, the need for an appraisal, site design, zoning, infrastructure, clear title, grading and environmental review. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

A. General. Approval of an inclusionary housing plan and implementation of a city-approved inclusionary housing agreement is a condition of any tentative map, parcel map, discretionary approval or building permit for any development for which this chapter applies. This section does not apply to an exempt project, or to a project where the requirements of the chapter are satisfied by payment of a fee in compliance with Section 17.31.050 (In-lieu fees) of this chapter.

B. Inclusionary Housing Plan. No application for a tentative map, parcel map, discretionary approval or building permit to which this chapter applies is complete until an inclusionary housing plan is submitted with the application. At any time during the review process, the city may require from the developer additional information reasonably necessary to clarify and supplement the application or determine the consistency of the proposed inclusionary housing plan with the requirements of state density bonus law and/or this chapter. The inclusionary housing plan must include:

1. The location, structure (attached, semi-attached, or detached), whether for sale or rental, size of the proposed market-rate and inclusionary units, and the basis for calculating the number of inclusionary units;

2. A floor or site plan showing the location of the inclusionary units;

3. The income levels to which each inclusionary unit will be made affordable;

4. For phased development, a phasing plan that provides for the timely development of the number of inclusionary units proportionate to each proposed phase of development as required by Section 17.31.040(C) of this chapter;

5. Any alternative means designated in Section 17.31.060(A) proposed for the development along with information necessary to support the findings required by Section 17.31.060(B) of this chapter for approval of the alternatives; and

6. Any other information reasonably requested by the city to assist with evaluation of the plan in compliance with the standards of this chapter.

C. Inclusionary Housing Agreement. The inclusionary housing agreement shall use the form provided by the city. The contents of the agreement may vary depending on the manner in which the provisions of this chapter are satisfied for a particular development. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall include, at minimum, the following:

1. Description of the development, including whether the inclusionary units will be rented or owner-occupied;

2. The number, size and location of very low-, low- or moderate-income units;

3. Provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or 107 of 162
rental restrictions;

4. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective resident households for income eligibility; and

5. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this chapter.

D. Recording of Agreement. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall be recorded against owneroccupied inclusionary units and residential projects containing rental inclusionary units, as applicable.

Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and/or other documents acceptable to the city shall also be recorded against owner-occupied inclusionary units. In cases where the requirements of this chapter are satisfied through the development of off-site units, the inclusionary housing agreement shall simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off-site units are to be developed. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

A. General Eligibility. No household may occupy an inclusionary unit unless the city or its designee has approved the household’s eligibility, or has failed to make a determination of eligibility within the time or other limits provided by an inclusionary housing agreement or resale restriction. If the city or its designee maintains a list or identifies eligible households, initial and subsequent occupants will be selected first from the list of identified households, to the maximum extent possible, in compliance with any rules approved by the city, including the City’s Local Preference Policy.

B. Occupancy. A household who occupies a rental inclusionary unit or purchases an inclusionary unit shall occupy the unit as a principal residence. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

C. Local Preference. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7061 and Housing Element Program 4-1, and assuming all other factors being equal, priority for available below market rate housing units shall be extended to people that: 1. Currently live or work in the City of Cotati; 2. Have children who attend a school within the Rancho Cotati School District; 3. Are members of a local Native American Tribe, including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR); or 4. Are an employee of Sonoma State University, over other persons to rent or purchase deed-restricted affordable housing units, in the order of priority with which the categories are listed.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

A. Initial Sales Price. The initial sales price of the inclusionary unit must be set so that the eligible household will pay an affordable ownership cost.

B. Transfer. Renewed restrictions will be entered into on each change of ownership, with a fifty-five year renewal term, upon transfer of an owner-occupied inclusionary unit prior to the expiration of the previous affordability period.

C. Resale. The maximum sales price permitted on resale of an inclusionary unit designated for owneroccupancy shall be the rate of increase of area median income during the seller’s ownership.

To the extent authorized in any resale restrictions or operative inclusionary housing agreement, sellers may recover at time of sale the market value of capital improvements made by the seller and the seller’s necessary and usual costs of sale, and may authorize an increase in the maximum allowable sales price to achieve such recovery.

D. Change in Title. The following requirements apply in the event of a change in circumstance, including death, marriage, and divorce, that may occur prior to the expiration of the required affordability period:
108 of 162

1. Upon the death of one of the owners, title in the property may transfer to the surviving joint tenant, tenant in common, or community property holder, without respect to the income eligibility of the household.

2. Upon the death of a sole owner or all owners, and inheritance of the inclusionary unit by a non-income-eligible inheritee, there will be a one-year compassion period between the time when the estate is settled and the time when the property must be sold to an income-eligible household. A noneligible inheritee may request and the council may waive this requirement on the basis of hardships specified by the council. Alternatively, the council may authorize their continued ownership with the unit rented at an affordable rate to an eligible household for the remainder of the affordability restriction period. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.100 Rental units.

A. Eligibility of Tenants. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall be responsible for certifying the income of the tenant to the director at the time of initial rental, and annually thereafter. This shall be completed by viewing acceptable documentation, including income tax statements or a W-2 for the previous calendar year, and submitting, on a form approved by the city, a certification that the tenant qualifies as an income-eligible household.

B. Selection of Tenants. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall fill vacant units by either:

1. Selecting income-eligible households themselves, as long as the owner complies with the publication requirements in subsection C of this section;

2. Selecting income-eligible households from the city’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List available from the department.

C. Publication of Availability of Units. Whenever an inclusionary unit becomes available, the owner shall publish notices of the availability of inclusionary units via email to the City’s “Housing Interest List”; and in newspapers circulated widely in the city, including newspapers that reach minority communities. The notice should briefly explain what inclusionary housing is, state the applicable income requirements, indicate where applications are available, state when the application period opens and closes, and provide a telephone number and email for questions. Applications may require the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; the number of persons to occupy the household; household income; information regarding the City’s Local Preference policy and any other information relevant to determine whether the applicant is eligible to occupy an inclusionary unit. The owner shall submit proof of publication to the director.

D. Notification to City. Whenever an inclusionary unit becomes available, the owner shall immediately notify the director in writing.

E. Subsequent Rental to Income-Eligible Tenant. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall apply the same rental terms and conditions to tenants of inclusionary units as are applied to all other tenants, except as otherwise required to comply with this chapter (i.e., rent levels, occupancy restrictions and income requirements) and/or government subsidy programs. Discrimination based on subsidies received by the prospective tenant is prohibited.

1. If the tenant’s income does not exceed the income limits of other inclusionary units in the residential development, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit at the tenant’s new applicable affordable housing income category rental rate, 109 of 162
as long as the next vacant unit is redesignated for the same lower income category applicable to the original unit. If the owner does not want to redesignate the next vacant unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If during the year, an inclusionary unit becomes available and the tenant meets the income eligibility for that unit, the owner shall provide the tenant with the opportunity to submit an application for that unit.

2. If there are no units designated for a higher income category within the residential development that may be substituted for the original unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If within that year, another unit in the residential development is vacated, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit and raise the tenant’s rent to market rate and designate the newly vacated unit for the original unit at the applicable affordable housing cost. Unless the tenants household situation has changed, the newly vacated unit must be comparable in size (i.e., number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, etc.) and location (i.e., comparable floor, comparable view, etc.) as the original unit. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.

The requirements of this chapter may be adjusted or waived in extreme cases if the developer demonstrates to the council by the presentation of substantial evidence that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions and/or in keeping with the allowances of state and local density bonus law.

A. Timing. To receive an adjustment or waiver, the developer must make a showing when applying for a first approval for the residential development, and/or as part of any appeal that the city provides as part of the process for the first approval.

B. Considerations. In making a determination on an application to adjust or waive the requirements of this chapter, the council may assume each of the following when applicable:

1. That the developer is subject to the inclusionary housing requirement or in-lieu fee;

2. The extent to which the developer will benefit from inclusionary incentives and how density bonus law directs the approval of such allowances;

3. That the developer will be obligated to provide the most economical inclusionary units feasible in terms of construction, design, location and tenure; and

4. That the developer may obtain other housing subsidies where such funds are reasonably available.

C. Decision and Further Appeal. The council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, will determine the application and issue a written decision.

D. Modification of Plan. If the council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, determines that the application of the provisions of this chapter lacks a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed residential project and the requirements of this chapter, or that applying the requirement of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions or density bonus law, the inclusionary housing plan shall be modified, adjusted or waived to reduce the obligations under this chapter to the extent necessary to avoid an unlawful result. If the council determines that no violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions would occur through application of this chapter, the requirements of this chapter remain applicable. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements. 110 of 162
A. Applicability and Requirements. Unless otherwise exempt under subsection B of this section, any person who constructs new or expanded nonresidential development, shall contribute to the city’s affordable housing program through one or more of the following three methods:

1. On-Site Construction of the Required Affordable Units. Provide the required affordable unit(s) onsite, pursuant to subsection C of this section as allowed by the underlying zoning district (i.e., mixed use, live/work); or

2. Payment of In-Lieu Fee. Pay a fee in lieu of the construction of the required affordable units pursuant to subsection E of this section; or

3. Alternative Equivalent Actions. Perform an alternative equivalent action pursuant to subsection F of this section, which may be allowed to fulfill the affordable housing requirements of this section if approved by the city council, at its sole discretion.

B. Exempt Projects. The affordable housing requirements of this section shall not apply to the following exempt projects:

1. Project with vested rights. A project that demonstrates a vested right to proceed without complying with this section;

2. Public and nonprofit projects. Public projects and nonprofit projects which provide a public benefit to the community;

3. Small projects and additions. Small projects and additions of less than two thousand square feet in total gross floor area;

4. Floor Area Discount. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the first two thousand square feet of nonresidential floor area in all new developments;

5. Structures destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe. Repair, reconstruction or replacement of a legal nonresidential structure that is destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe, provided that a building permit for repair, reconstruction or replacement has been issued and construction begun within five years of destruction;

6. Nonresidential replacements or remodels. Remodels or replacements to existing, legal structures that do not result in the creation of additional floor area;

7. Projects that clearly do not contribute to the demand for affordable housing, such as unmanned utility structures and parking garages.

C. Number of Affordable Units Required. An affordable housing unit requirement is established for nonresidential development in accordance with the following Table 1:

Table 1
Type of Nonresidential Development
Number1 of Affordable Housing Units
Required per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor
Area2
Industry, Manufacturing and Processing, Wholesaling .06 Recreation, Education and Public Assembly .05
111 of 162
Table 1
Type of Nonresidential Development
Number1 of Affordable Housing Units
Required per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor
Area2
Retail Trade .09
Services – Business, Financial, Professional .05
Services – General .05
Transportation, Communications and Infrastructure .05
Notes:
1 All fractional units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2 For purposes of this table, the floor area excludes all garage areas permanently allocated for employee or customer vehicle parking.

1. Level of Affordability Required. At least one-third of the total number of required affordable units shall be provided as affordable to very low-income households. The remaining affordable units may be provided as affordable to households with low incomes. If the number of required affordable units is an odd number, the number of units affordable to low-income households may be one greater than the number affordable to very low-income households, so long as at least one very low-income unit is provided.

2. Mixed Use and Live Work Projects. In any project including a mix of residential and nonresidential development, including but not limited to mixed use and live work projects, the required affordable units required pursuant to this chapter shall be calculated based upon the nonresidential square footage of the development and shall be required in addition to the inclusionary housing obligations for the residential portion of the development as required by Section 17.31.020.

D. Fractional Units. If calculating the number of units required by this section results in a fractional unit requirement, the applicant may satisfy that fractional unit requirement by:

1. Constructing an additional affordable unit; or

2. Paying an in-lieu fee in compliance with subsection E of this section (Workforce Housing In-Lieu Fee); or

3. Performing an alternative equivalent action approved by the city council in compliance with subsection F of this section (Alternative Equivalent Actions).

E. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. An applicant may choose to pay a fee in lieu of providing the affordable housing units required by this section.

1. Determination of Fee. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be established by resolution of the city council. Thereafter, beginning on January 1, 2008, the fee shall be increased or decreased annually by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index for the prior year, as reflected in the third quarter Engineering News Record published in November of each year. The in-lieu fee shall be automatically adjusted, and a new schedule published by the director of planning on January 1st of each year. This adjustment will offset the effects of inflation related to construction cost increases or deflation-related cost decreases. If the Construction Cost Index is discontinued, the director shall use a comparable index for determining the changes in the median home costs for Sonoma County. The fee shall be 112 of 162
periodically reviewed and updated at least every two years to reflect any changes in the funding gap for a low-income household.

2. Timing of Payment. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated at the time of building permit application. The fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit for each nonresidential project, unless proof is provided that the required affordable housing units will be constructed on-site or that an alternative equivalent action was previously approved in accordance with subsection F of this section. If the units are to be constructed on or off-site, the affordable housing agreement shall specify the timing of construction of the affordable housing units and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

3. In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the city’s affordable housing fund and may be used for the purposes set forth in Section 17.31.120.

17.31.117Alternative Equivalent Actions.

The city council may, at its sole discretion, approve an alternative equivalent action to the provision of the affordable units on-site or payment of the in-lieu fee, as follows:

1. Scope of Alternative Proposals. Proposals for an alternative equivalent action may include:
a. The dedication of vacant land (see subsection (F)(5) of this section, Standards for Land Dedications); or
b. The construction of affordable rental or ownership units on another site within the city; c. Employer-based programs providing direct subsidy to qualified employees, including mortgage buy-downs or rental assistance that provides long-term affordability.

2. Content of Proposal. A proposal for an equivalent alternative action shall show how the requested alternative action will further affordable housing opportunities in the city to an equal or greater extent than the actual provision of the affordable housing units on site in compliance with subsection C of this section (Number of Affordable Units Required), or payment of the in-lieu housing fee in compliance with subsection E of this section (Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee).

3. Review and Approval. Only the city council can approve an equivalent alternative action under this section. A proposal for an alternative equivalent action may be approved by the city council only if the council finds that the alternative action will further affordable housing opportunities in the city to an equal or greater extent than the construction of the required affordable units as part of the project or payment of the in-lieu housing fee.

4. Performance of Alternative Action. After approval by the city council of a proposal for an alternative action, entitlements for that alternative action must be processed concurrent with the market-rate projects. If the alternative action includes construction of affordable units on another site or the acquisition and enforcement of rental/sales price restrictions on existing market rate units, an affordable housing agreement in the city’s standard form as approved by the city attorney shall be recorded for each of those units prior to recordation of any final map for, or issuance of any building permit within, the market-rate project, and the affordable units shall be constructed or acquired concurrent with, or before, the construction of the market rate project.
113 of 162

5. Standards for Land Dedications.
a. Offers of Dedication. An applicant who proposes to dedicate land located within city in lieu of constructing the affordable units required by this section shall offer such land dedication as a part of the initial application for project approval. The applicant’s offer shall describe the site, shall offer it for dedication at no cost to the city, and shall include a site plan illustrating the feasibility of locating and constructing the number of required affordable units for which the applicant is requesting in-lieu credit. b. Site Suitability and Appraisal.
i. The applicant shall provide a site suitability analysis which demonstrates that the land proposed for dedication is suitable for the development of affordable housing in terms of size, location, general plan land use designation, zoning, availability of services, proximity to public transit, adjacent land uses, access to streets and walkways, physical characteristics and configuration, and other relevant planning criteria. Staff shall evaluate the site suitability analysis, identify the site’s projected unit capacity, and recommend to the city council whether the site should be accepted or conditionally accepted. An environmental evaluation may be required as a part of the site suitability analysis. ii. The applicant shall provide an appraisal of the land proposed for dedication. The appraisal shall be prepared by a qualified land appraiser and shall conform to the “Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice” as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
iii. All staff costs associated with the determination of site suitability, and all expenses incurred to determine legal status of site, to perform environmental assessments and to obtain an appraisal, shall be borne by the applicant. c. Number of Units Credited to Dedication of Land. Following review of the appraisal and site suitability analysis, the city shall determine the number of required affordable housing units for which the applicant will receive credit upon dedication of the site.
i. The city will offer to credit the applicant for the land dedication only to the extent that the appraised value of the land to be dedicated equals the full development cost of providing the required affordable units, including both land costs and construction costs.
ii. If the appraised value of the land is less than the total projected development cost for the number of affordable units required, the applicant will be credited with only the number of affordable units for which development costs are covered by the value of the land.
iii. The applicant shall agree to provide any remaining affordable units required by this section on the project site, or to pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining number of required units.
d. Procedure for Acceptance of Site. The city shall not accept an offer of dedication nor approve the proposed nonresidential project until such time as the conditions of acceptance of the land, if any, have been completed by the applicant. The city’s formal acceptance of the offer of dedication shall take place concurrently with its approval of the nonresidential project. The grant deed dedicating the site to the city, or to a developer of affordable housing approved by the city, shall be recorded prior to issuance of any 114 of 162
building permit within the nonresidential project. (Ord. 782 § 4 Exh. A, 2006).

17.31.120 Affordable housing fund.

A. Fund Established. There is established a separate affordable housing fund (“fund”). This fund shall receive all fees contributed under Sections 17.31.050 (In-lieu fees) and 17.31.060 (Alternatives) of this chapter, and may also receive moneys from other sources.

B. Purpose and Limitations. Moneys deposited in the fund must be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, and very low-income households in the city. Moneys may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this section.

C. Administration. The fund shall be administered by the city manager with the approval of the council.

The city manager may develop procedures to implement the purposes of the fund consistent with the requirements of this chapter and any adopted budget of the city.

D. Expenditures. Fund moneys shall be used in compliance with the housing element, redevelopment plan, or subsequent plan adopted by the council to construct, rehabilitate or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, pre-home ownership co-investment, predevelopment loan funds, low-income preservation programs, participation leases or other public-private partnership arrangements. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.

E. City Manager’s Annual Report. The city manager shall report to the council and commission on the status of activities undertaken with the fund in compliance with Government Code Section 66006(b). The report shall include a statement of income, expenses, disbursements and other uses of the fund. The report should also state the number and type of inclusionary units constructed or assisted during that year and the amount of assistance. The report will evaluate the efficiency of this chapter in mitigating city’s shortage of affordable housing and recommend any changes to this chapter necessary to carry out its purposes, including any adjustments to the number of units to be required. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.130 Enforcement.

A. Penalty for Violation. It is a misdemeanor to violate any provision of this chapter. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is also a misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an affordable unit under this chapter at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this chapter or to sell or rent an affordable unit to a household not qualified under this chapter. It is further a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete information to the city or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.

B. Legal Action. The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, including:

1. Actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval;

2. Actions to recover from any violator of this chapter civil fines, restitution to prevent unjust enrichment from a violation of this chapter, and/or enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees;

3. Eviction or foreclosure; and
115 of 162

4. Any other appropriate action for injunctive relief or damages. Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not excuse any person, owner, household or other party from the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

SECTION 6: Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.32 Section 17.32.030 Allowed Density Bonuses is amended to add a new Section E. Cotati Density Bonus (as written below) and renumber the remaining F-I:

E. Cotati Density Bonus. For projects providing twenty-five percent of the proposed units as affordable housing at income levels spread across very low-, low- and moderate-income categories based on the City’s remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or the affordable housing priorities of the City; and evenly distributed throughout the project site; and which comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards, the city council shall grant up to one-hundred percent residential density bonus. Such projects shall be entitled to receive two incentives, concessions or waivers from development standards as defined by state density bonus law (in total).

Construction and severability.

It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Cotati to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law, and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intent. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Cotati hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 7: Effective date.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption pursuant to the California Government Code.

SECTION 8: Publication. The city clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and/or posted as required in Section 36933 of the California Government Code.

Approved:

Mayor
Attest:

Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:

John Bakker, City Attorney
116 of 162
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
117 of 162
Chapter 17.31

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Sections:

17.31.010 Purpose.

17.31.020 Applicability.

17.31.030 Exemptions.

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

17.31.060 Alternatives.

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

17.31.100 Rental units.

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

17.31.120 Affordable housing trust fund.

17.31.130 Enforcement.

17.31.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within city as mandated by Government Code Section 65580, State Density Bonus Law, and the City’s housing element, et seq.; B. Offset the demand on housing created by new development, and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new development by protecting the economic diversity of the city’s housing stock, reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region;
C. Implement the policies of the housing element of the general plan. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.020 Applicability.

A. Inclusionary Requirement. Each residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide at least fifteen percent of the total units as inclusionary units restricted for occupancy by moderate-, low- or very low-income households. The number of inclusionary units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of tentative or parcel map approval, or, for developments not processing a map, prior to issuance of a building permit typically as a component of discretionary review and approval. If a change in the project subdivision design changes the total number of units, the number of inclusionary units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.

1. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this section, any additional units authorized as a density bonus in compliance with state density bonus law and/or Chapter 17.32 (Density Bonuses) of this title will not be counted in determining the required number of inclusionary units. In determining the number of 118 of 162
whole inclusionary units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The remaining portion of a fraction rounded down will off-set its impacts through the payment of the in-lieu fee for the remaining portion of the unit.

2. Limitations on Occupancy. Projects constructing affordable housing units shall seek to distribute portions of the below market rate units across income levels, at a ratio based on the City’s unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). At least one-third of the required inclusionary units shall be restricted to occupancy by low-income households.

An additional one-third of the inclusionary units shall be restricted to occupancy by very low-income households. In order to encourage the development of additional low- and very low-income housing, and to provide project applicants with the flexibility to construct fewer moderate-income units in exchange for constructing more than the minimum requirements for low- and very low-income units, the city council may authorize the use of the following equivalents to adjust the inclusionary housing requirements:
a. Each very low-income unit is equivalent to two units affordable to moderateincome households; and b. Each low-income unit is equivalent to one and one-half units affordable to moderate-income households.

17.31.030 Exemptions.

The requirements of this chapter do not apply to:

A. The reconstruction of a structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, provided that reconstruction does not increase the number of residential units; B. A development that already has more units that qualify as affordable to moderate-, low- and very low-income households than this chapter requires;
C. Housing constructed by other government agencies; or D. An accessory dwelling unit. (Ord. 893 § 7, 2020; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

Each inclusionary unit built in compliance with this chapter shall comply with to the following standards:

A. Location of Inclusionary Units. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, inclusionary units shall be dispersed throughout a residential development. 119 of 162
B. Design. Inclusionary units shall be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market-rate units. Inclusionary units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than market-rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The number of bedrooms shall be the same as those in the market-rate units, except that if the market-rate units provide more than four bedrooms, the inclusionary units need not provide more than four bedrooms.

D. Duration of Affordability Requirement. Inclusionary units produced in compliance with this chapter shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the units were designated, for a minimum of thirty fifty-five years from the date of first occupancy for rental units, and for a minimum of thirty fifty-five years from the date of each sale of any affordable unit for owneroccupied units. (Additional affordability requirements may apply in compliance with State Redevelopment and/or density bonus lLaw (Health and Safety Code Section 33413(c)). (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

The council may annually review the fee and may, based on the review, adjust the fee. For any annual period during which the council does not review the fee authorized by this subsection, fee amounts will be adjusted once by the city manager based on the Construction Cost Index. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.060 Alternatives.

A. Developer Proposal. A developer may propose an alternative means of compliance in an affordable housing plan as provided in Section 17.31.070(B) of this chapter as follows:

3. Combination. The council may accept any combination of on-site construction, off-site construction, in-lieu fees and land dedication that at least equal the cost of providing inclusionary units on-site as would otherwise be required by this chapter. The value of a proposed land dedication shall be determined by an appraiser appointed by the city. 120 of 162
B. Discretion. The council may approve, conditionally approve, or reject any alternative proposed by a developer as part of an affordable housing plan. Any approval or conditional approval shall be based on a finding that the purposes of this chapter would be better served by implementation of the proposed alternatives. In determining whether the purposes of this chapter would be better served under the proposed alternative, the council should consider:

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

2. A floor or site plan showing the location of the inclusionary units;

3. The income levels to which each inclusionary unit will be made affordable;

6. Any other information reasonably requested by the city to assist with evaluation of the plan in compliance with the standards of this chapter.
121 of 162
C. Inclusionary Housing Agreement. The inclusionary housing agreement shall use the form provided by the city. The contents of the agreement may vary depending on the manner in which the provisions of this chapter are satisfied for a particular development. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall include, at minimum, the following:

1. Description of the development, including whether the inclusionary units will be rented or owner-occupied;

2. The number, size and location of very low-, low- or moderate-income units;

3. Provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or rental restrictions;

4. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective resident households for income eligibility; and

5. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this chapter.

D. Recording of Agreement. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall be recorded against owneroccupied inclusionary units and residential projects containing rental inclusionary units, as applicable. Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and/or other documents acceptable to the city shall also be recorded against owner-occupied inclusionary units.

In cases where the requirements of this chapter are satisfied through the development of off-site units, the inclusionary housing agreement shall simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off-site units are to be developed. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

B. Occupancy. A household who occupies a rental inclusionary unit or purchases an inclusionary unit shall occupy the unit as a principal residence. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

Have children who attend a school within the Rancho Cotati School District; 3. Are members of a local Native American Tribe, including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR); or

4. Are an employee of Sonoma State University, over other persons to rent or purchase deedrestricted affordable housing units, in the order of priority with which the categories are listed.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

A. Initial Sales Price. The initial sales price of the inclusionary unit must be set so that the eligible household will pay an affordable ownership cost.
122 of 162
B. Transfer. Renewed restrictions will be entered into on each change of ownership, with a thirtyfifty-five year renewal term, upon transfer of an owner-occupied inclusionary unit prior to the expiration of the thirty-year previous affordability period.

C. Resale. The maximum sales price permitted on resale of an inclusionary unit designated for owner-occupancy shall be the lower of:

1. Fair market value; or

2. The seller’s lawful purchase price, increased by the lesser of:
a. Tthe rate of increase of area median income during the seller’s ownership, or b. The rate at which the consumer price index increased during the seller’s ownership.

17.31.100 Rental units.

B. Selection of Tenants. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall fill vacant units by either:

1. Selecting income-eligible households themselves, as long as the owner complies with the publication requirements in subsection C of this section; 123 of 162

2. Selecting income-eligible households from the city’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List available from the department.

D. Notification to City. Whenever an inclusionary unit becomes available, the owner shall immediately notify the director in writing.

F. Changes in Tenant Income. If after moving into an inclusionary unit the tenant’s income eventually exceeds the income limit for that unit, the tenant may remain in the unit (the “original unit”) as directed below: long as his/her income does not exceed one hundred forty percent of the income limit for the original unit. Once the tenant’s income exceeds one hundred forty percent of the income limit for the original unit, the following shall apply:

1. If the tenant’s income does not exceed the income limits of other inclusionary units in the residential development, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit at the tenant’s new applicable affordable housing income category rental rate cost, as long as the next vacant unit is redesignated for the same lower income category applicable to the original unit. If the owner does not want to redesignate the next vacant unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If during the year, an inclusionary unit becomes available and the tenant meets the income eligibility for that unit, the owner shall provide the tenant with the opportunity to submit an application for that unit.

2. If there are no units designated for a higher income category within the residential development that may be substituted for the original unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If within that year, another unit in the residential development is vacated, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit and raise the tenant’s rent to market rate and designate the newly vacated unit for the original unit at the applicable affordable housing cost. Unless the tenants household situation has changed, Tthe newly vacated unit must be comparable in size (i.e., number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, etc.) and location (i.e., same comparable floor, same comparable view, etc.) as the original unit. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.
124 of 162
The requirements of this chapter may be adjusted or waived in extreme cases if the developer demonstrates to the council by the presentation of substantial evidence that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions and/or in keeping with the allowances of state and local density bonus law.

B. Considerations. In making a determination on an application to adjust or waive the requirements of this chapter, the council may assume each of the following when applicable:

1. That the developer is subject to the inclusionary housing requirement or in-lieu fee;

2. The extent to which the developer will benefit from inclusionary incentives and how density bonus law directs the approval of such allowances;

3. That the developer will be obligated to provide the most economical inclusionary units feasible in terms of construction, design, location and tenure; and

4. That the developer is likely tomay obtain other housing subsidies where such funds are reasonably available.

C. Decision and Further Appeal. The council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, will determine the application and issue a written decision.

D. Modification of Plan. If the council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, determines that the application of the provisions of this chapter lacks a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed residential project and the requirements of this chapter, or that applying the requirement of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions or density bonus law, the inclusionary housing plan shall be modified, adjusted or waived to reduce the obligations under this chapter to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional unlawful result. If the council determines that no violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions would occur through application of this chapter, the requirements of this chapter remain applicable. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

A. Applicability and Requirements. Unless otherwise exempt under subsection B of this section, any person who constructs new or expanded nonresidential development, shall contribute to the city’s affordable housing program through one or more of the following three methods:

2. Payment of In-Lieu Fee. Pay a fee in lieu of the construction of the required affordable units pursuant to subsection E of this section; or 125 of 162