Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Status: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment (Appendix A) has been prepared in accordance with Action CON 2b. Findings of the analysis have been referenced in the discussions above. Recommendations to minimize air quality emissions are provided in the Assessment and have been imposed on the Project as COA AQ-1. As conditioned, the project is consistent with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to air quality relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

AQ-1: During any construction period ground disturbance, the Project will ensure that the Project contractor(s) implement the following measures to control dust and exhaust that are recommended by BAAQMD and listed below:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 311 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 47 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

8. Unpaved roads providing access to or on the site located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

9. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 312 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 48 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Change
Relative
to
General
Plan EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Formerly Fish and Game) or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(formerly Fish and Game) or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
313 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 49 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Final Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, 2005, USFWS; Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain, 2016, USFWS; Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on Issuance of Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on the Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California, 2020, USFWS; Biological Resources Analysis Redwood Row Project prepared by Monk & Associates September 24, 2024; Highway 116 and West Cotati Avenue Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Map prepared by Monk & Associates on August 23, 2023; and Highway 116 and West Cotati Avenue Project Biological Resource Assessment prepared by Monk and Associates October 26, 2023.
2013 General Plan EIR Findings
Biological resources are protected by federal and state statute including the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey. These regulations provide the legal protection for identified plant and animal species of concern and their habitat.

The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to biological resources in Chapter 3.3 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.3-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in direct and indirect loss of habitat and individuals of endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate plant and wildlife species, plant species identified by the California Native Plant Society with a rating of List 1A or 1B (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered plants) as well as animal and plant species of concern and other non-listed special status species. This would be a less than significant impact with identified policies including Policy CON 1.1, CON 1.2, CON. • Impact 3.3-2: Implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to result in significant impacts to sensitive natural communities including riparian habitat, however the implementation of the policies and action measures of the General Plan, as well as adherence to state and federal regulations, would reduce these impacts to less than significant. • Impact 3.3-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected waters, however the implementation of the policies and action measures of the General Plan, as well as adherence to state and federal regulations, would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
• Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the General Plan Update could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. This would be a less than significant impact with incorporation of General Plan policies and actions items. • Impact 3.3-5: Implementation of the General Plan Update would support the existing Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance through its policies and will not conflict with the Ordinance or with the policies that the General Plan contains that pertain to protecting biological resources. Implementation of the policies and action measures in the General Plan would ensure consistency with established ordinances and therefore the Project’s impact is less than significant.
314 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 50 of 158 CEQA Analysis
• Impact 3.3-6: Implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans as there are none that have been adopted or are applicable to the General Plan. The General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed General Plan could result in the direct and indirect loss or indirect disturbance of special-status wildlife or plant species or their habitats as well as wetlands and Waters of the United States that are known to occur, or have potential to occur, in the region.

These impacts are mitigated by General Plan Policies CON 1.1-1.14 which provide a framework for protecting, enhancing, rehabilitating, and avoiding sensitive habitat areas including waterways. These policies include requirements for discretionary projects to develop in an environmentally sustainable manner. Furthermore, actions required by the General Plan that mitigate the impacts include Action CON 1a and 1b which requires all development project proposals to submit a biological resources evaluation which determines whether significant adverse impacts will occur and to include mitigation measures as needed. These are further supported by additional Actions CON 1c and 1d, 1f, and 1g which require project review and mapping of sensitive habitats and conservation.

Furthermore, Policy CON 3.13 requires the City to continue to implement the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance and consistent with local policies to protect and preserve biological resources.

Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, Recovery Plan, and Reinitiation Plan The City of Cotati does not have a habitat conservation plan, but it is located within the boundary of the Santa Rosa Plain (SRP). The SRP is a unique environment that supports a mosaic of vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and grassland habitats, which provide habitat to a number of special status species. The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) was developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005 to create a long-term conservation program sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects on listed species due to future development on the Santa Rosa Plain. The conservation strategy provides specific actions necessary to mitigate potential adverse effects on listed species due to future development on the Plain.

The Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain was released by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2016 and provides a framework for the recovery of listed species. Subsequently, in 2020, the USFWS published the reinitiation of formal consultation on issuance of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the Santa Rosa Plain. The reinitiation of the Biological Opinion analyzes the impacts to critical habitat as it relates to development in the Santa Rosa Plain. As noted therein, development in the Santa Rosa Plain would result in the filling of wetlands and removal of upland habitat, resulting in the loss of critical habitat for California Tiger Salamander (CTS) as well as Burke’s Goldfield, Sebastopol Meadowfoam, and Sonoma Sunshine. To address these impacts, the Corps provides several minimization measures and best management practices for each species including updates to measures identified in the 2005 Conservation Strategy and 2007 Biological Opinion to reflect current knowledge and more effectively minimize adverse impacts of development within the Santa Rosa Plain.
315 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 51 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Though not a habitat conservation plan, the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Plan, Recovery Plan, and Reinitiation Plan are intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts on listed plant and animal species within the Plan area. The Plans establish a long-term conservation program to mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with development in the Santa Rosa Plain, conserve and contribute to the recovery of the listed species and the conservation of sensitive habitat, protect public and private land use interests, and support issuance of an authorization for incidental take of CTS and that may occur in the course of carrying out a broad range of activities in the Santa Rosa Plain area, including development such as the proposed project. Sonoma County is in the process of preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan, but it is in the early stages of development and has not been adopted.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR
The Project site was originally the southeastern part of the South Sonoma Business Park Master Plan Project area. A portion of the South Sonoma Business Park Master Plan area has been developed with the Lowe’s Home Improvement Store and the Cotati Cottages subdivision. The Project site is a vacant lot, that was historically used for grazing and horse pasture. As part of the South Sonoma Business Park project and in accordance with an approved stockpile and drainage plan (State Water Resources Control Board Facility ID: 1_49C337161) approximately 10,000 cubic yards of clean fill was placed on the site. To date, the site remains vacant but has been actively maintained by the landowner.

Additionally, the site is within the South Sonoma Business Park Assessment District (SSBPAD) which was created to finance the required mitigation for the development of the SSBP project site. The costs also included the establishment of a maintenance fund and a permanent capital endowment with CDFW for the operation and maintenance of the SSBP wetlands mitigation and California tiger salamander replacement habitat. The property owner has made annual payments to the assessment district. The owners of the Redwood Row property have paid $2,722,208.14 to date and expect to pay approximately $1,027,000.00 in future payments until full maturity in 2033.

5.4(a-c) (Special-Status Species, Sensitive Natural Communities and Jurisdictional Waters) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
In accordance with Action CON 1a, a Biological Resources Analysis was prepared by Monk and Associates on September 24, 2024 (Appendix B) to document the existing biological resource conditions on the site and to analyze potential impacts to biological resources. Monk & Associates biologists have conducted surveys on the project site off and on over a period of 15 years as part of their studies related to the SSBP, with most recent surveys occurring in January 2022, January 23, 2024, February 28, 2024, March 13, 2024, April 8, 2024, and on April 30, 2024.

Monk & Associates biologists concluded that although the site has not been developed, it has been actively managed over the past 20+ years to facilitate site drainage and for fire control; annual disking and mowing have been part of the management regime. The overall topography of the project site is relatively flat, with the long-term soil stockpile forming the only significant hillslope in the northwestern corner of the project site. There is also a slightly elevated area in the southeast portion of the project site, gently sloping down to the northeast and directing stormwater flows offsite to the northeast. Due to mass grading of the project site in 2002 and the annual maintenance (disking) of the project site since then, there are only two remaining plant communities onsite: ruderal herbaceous, and seasonal/constructed wetlands.

Almost all vegetation within the project site consists of non-native, ruderal herbaceous grasses and forbs (i.e., broad-leaved plants) though there are several valley oak trees (Quercus lobata) lining parts 316 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 52 of 158 CEQA Analysis
of the southern and eastern borders, with a prominent valley oak and Eucalyptus standing in the middle of the site. Dominant vegetation includes wild oat (Avena barbata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum gussoneanum), and bur medic (Medicago polymorpha). Owing to the excessively disturbed and unnatural conditions found at the project site, special-status plants would not likely occur.

Special Status Plant Species
The Santa Rosa Plain is known to support three federal and state listed vernal pool plant species:

Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), and Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans). The Project site is outside the expected range of the Core Management Area for both the Burke’s goldfields and Sebastopol meadowfoam. Neither Sonoma sunshine nor Burke’s goldfields have ever been observed on the project site.

The project site is located at the southern boundary of the “Core Area” for the federally and Statelisted Sebastopol meadowfoam and was formerly found on the SSBP project site prior to its mass grading. This is CNDDB Occurrence No. 35 (M&A is listed as one of the sources) which documents 30 plants observed in 1997 in the area that has since been developed into townhomes; accordingly, this record is now listed as being extirpated by development. In compliance with the Corps’ Individual Permit which incorporated USFWS’ Biological Opinion, the waiver of water quality from the RWQCB, a 2081 Agreement with CDFW, and with a grading permit issued by the City of Cotati, in June of 2002 the SSBP applicant graded 100 percent of the 34-acre project site (which includes the 10.6-acre Redwood Row Project Site) removing all Corps’ jurisdictional features, and all of the 0.12 acre of Sebastopol meadowfoam habitat on the project site.

The project site was mass graded, and all wetlands were filled in 2002 and there is no longer Sebastopol meadowfoam habitat onsite. During surveys conducted on the project site between March and May of 2024, no special status plants were identified. The existing seasonal wetlands that remain on the project site were constructed to facilitate site drainage and are heavily degraded; therefore, these features do not provide suitable habitat for vernal pool plant species, specifically Sebastopol meadowfoam. Regardless, all Sebastopol meadowfoam impacts were previously mitigated for, as approved by the CDFW and the USFWS and no new impacts would occur to special status plant species as a result of the proposed project.

Nesting Birds
Passerine birds (songbirds) and raptors (i.e., birds of prey), their active nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503 and §3503.5). Thus, prior to any tree removal or earthwork that would be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1) that could disturb nesting birds (for example, ground vibrations from grading equipment cause some birds to abandon their nests). In order to ensure that the project does not affect nesting birds, COA BIO-1 has been established and requires that preconstruction nesting bird surveys be conducted within 7 days prior to any proposed ground disturbance or vegetation removal. COA BIO-1 includes required actions that must be taken in the event that active bird nests are identified onsite. Through the implementation of COA BIO-1, the project would not result in new or additional impacts to nesting birds.

Special Status Animal Species
317 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 53 of 158 CEQA Analysis
A total of 11 special-status animal species are known to occur in the region of the project site. One special-status animal was historically known from the SSBP project site: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). This record is prior to the site’s mass grading back in 2002. Due to the project site being mass graded, the residential and commercial development surrounding the project site, and the traffic along SR-116, it is very unlikely that any special-status animal currently resides on the project site. However, the project could result in impacts to the American badger (Taxidea taxus), the California tiger salamander, and nesting birds.

California Tiger Salamander
The project site is located within the known range of the Sonoma County “Distinct Population Segment” (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (CTS). Under the FESA, the USFWS emergency listed the Sonoma County DPS as endangered on July 22, 2002. The USFWS formalized the listing of the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered on March 19, 2003 (USFWS 2003b). The USFWS determined that this population is significantly and immediately imperiled by a variety of threats including habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to urban development, road construction, pesticide drift, collection, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms.

CTS occur in grasslands and open oak woodlands that provide suitable over-summering and/or breeding habitats. CTS spend most their lives underground. They typically only emerge from their subterranean refugia for a few nights each year during the rainy season to migrate to breeding ponds which can be up to 1.5 miles away.

There is a known CNDDB record of this species (Occurrence #12; M&A record) on the SSBP project site of which this 10-acre project site is a part of. This occurrence documents three larvae found in a vernal pool on the project site during surveys conducted in April 1995. CTS was last observed on the SSBP project site in April 2002 when larvae were salvaged from their breeding pool prior to permitted mass grading. All the SSBP wetlands were filled, and the entire site was mass graded in June 2002 under appropriate permits issued by the City (grading permit), the CDFW, the USFWS, the Corps, and the RWQCB.

The SSBP developer was also required by the USFWS and CDFW to salvage California tiger salamanders presumed to be migrating from adjacent properties to the former (now developed) breeding pools on the South Sonoma Business Park project site. This salvage was conducted under the assumption that all adult CTS and their breeding habitat had been removed from the South Sonoma Business Park project site when it was mass graded in June 2002. The recovery/salvage project was implemented under the expectation that the balance of the South Sonoma Business Park and the parcel to the north (then called the Nibe project site and now known as the Cotati Cottages) and the west (then called the Reds project site and now known as the Cotati Village 2 project) would be developed under a master development project. There are no extant potential breeding pools within 1.3 miles of the project site and no confirmed breeding habitat in the vicinity of the project site since the only two confirmed breeding habitats were filled over 20 years ago.

The created drainage features on the site are not inundated long enough to support breeding by CTS and as such, there is no wetland on the project site that is deep enough or that has sufficient ponding duration to support breeding California tiger salamanders to metamorphosis. Additionally, there is no suitable upland over-summering habitat for CTS onsite.

As documented in the Biological Resources Analysis, CDFW has confirmed that no additional mitigation would be required for the Redwood Row project since all mitigation for the project’s effects 318 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 54 of 158 CEQA Analysis
on Sebastopol meadowfoam and the CTS was completed in 2002. As such, the project would not result in new impacts and all prior impacts to CTS have been fully mitigated.

American Badger
The American badger is a California “species of special concern” found in a variety of habitats, especially in open habitats such as oak-savannah and grasslands where its presence is typically identified by its distinctive, large underground dens(burrows) excavated in friable (loose) soils.

There are four CNDDB records of American badger within 3 miles of the project site. However, due to the extensive commercial and residential development surrounding the project site, heavy traffic along , and the long history of annual disking onsite for fire control, the project site contains marginal (at best) foraging habitat for this species. While it is unlikely that development of the project could result in impacts to American badgers, in an abundance of caution and to ensure that there are no additional impacts to this California species of special concern, COA BIO-2 has been established and requires preconstruction surveys for American badger prior to site preparation and/or grading. As conditioned, the project will have no effects on the American badger.

Seasonal Wetlands
The Project site was graded in June 2002 with an approved stockpile and drainage plan which included placement of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of clean fill on the site in accordance with the City’s approved stockpile and drainage plan (permit numbers 25090, 25154, 25027) and the creation of artificial drainage swales on the property, but the site was not developed at that time. These swales remain onsite and are dominated by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and annual semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus).

During a wetland delineation conducted in August 2022, a total of roughly 0.27 acre of seasonal wetlands (five seasonal swales) were mapped on the Redwood Row project site. These five seasonal wetlands are artificial ditches related to interim construction measures and upland drainage maintenance of the property that has been ongoing since 2002. They were created to drain the project site and reduce ponding related to the previous mass grading and stockpiling of the project site. These wetlands cover 0.27 acre of the project site and are considered to be “construction-related features” and do not fall under the Corps’ jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has stated that these constructionrelated features may fall under this agency’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Further, the project will be required to construct public improvements along SR-116. A separate delineation for the frontage improvements was completed by Monk and Associates on June 19, 2023.

No Waters of the United States were identified in the delineation. However, the required frontage improvements and development of the entrance from SR-116 would result in impacts to 1,661sf (0.038 acres) of isolated wetlands/roadside ditch and a 62 foot long/124 sf (~0.003 acre) isolated other water/roadside ditch which are considered “waters of the State” and regulated by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Board.5In order to comply with the State permitting requirements and the City of Cotati General Plan Action CON 1a, COA BIO-3 has been imposed to minimize and offset 5 Draft Aquatic Resources Delineation Map, Biological Resource Analysis for Highway 116/West Cotati Realignment Plan prepared by Monk and Associates on October 26, 2023.
319 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 55 of 158 CEQA Analysis
impacts to the regulated waters of the state and isolated seasonal wetlands that will be impacted by the project.

In further compliance with the State permitting requirements and the City of Cotati General Plan Action CON 1a, COA HYD-1 is imposed to require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit. Further, COA HYD-2 requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) which includes post construction BMPs. Through the implementation of the SWPPP and the SCP, the Project will comply with the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and will not result in additional impacts to waters of the state.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to biological resources relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.4(d) (Wildlife Movement) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could interfere with movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and those impacts would be less than significant. The Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk and Associates for the project site concluded that the proposed project will not interfere with the movement of native wildlife.

The project site has no aquatic features such as a stream or river that would serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Similarly, due to the site’s setting within a developed landscape, the site exhibits limited capacity to serve as a local, let alone a regional wildlife movement corridor since it is surrounded by roads and development on three sides. The site provides minimal value to local wildlife for movement.

The Project once constructed will be consistent with surrounding areas (a mix of housing tracts, commercial development, and undeveloped parcels) and will not prevent the movement of wildlife through a wildlife corridor. Therefore, the Project is not likely to substantially interfere with the movement of any native species or native nursery site. Accordingly, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to wildlife movement relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.4 (e,f) (Conflict with Policies, Ordinances, or Habitat Conservation Plan) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
Sonoma County does not have any California Regional Conservation Plans, as identified in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Map. The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Plan (SRPCSP) and the Recovery Plan were reviewed to assess the project’s potential to impact any protected plant or animal species. The SRPCSP mapping shows that the Project site is in an area designated as “Future Development.” The Project site is not located within a “Conservation Area” of the Santa Rosa Plain according to the Recovery Plan.

Accordingly, the USFWS anticipated that this Project site would be developed when it prepared the Conservation Strategy.

The USFWS 2007 Programmatic Biological Opinion is based on the biological framework presented in the Conservation Strategy. Projects that require a Corps permit, that remain consistent with objectives stated in the Conservation Strategy, can be appended to the Programmatic Biological Opinion at the 320 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 56 of 158 CEQA Analysis
discretion of the USFWS. Projects that are appended to the Programmatic Biological Opinion will be provided individual take authorization for impacts to federally-listed species.

The site-specific biological resource assessment determined no naturalized habitats remain, mitigations have been satisfied, and no regulatory agency permitting would be needed for development except as required for frontage improvements in the public right of way. In the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Plan, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Project site is identified with a designation of “Already Developed (no potential for impact)”. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

The City of Cotati tree ordinance, Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 17.54 regulates the protection, preservation and maintenance of native trees, trees of historic or cultural significance, groves and stands of mature trees, and mature trees in general that are associated with proposals for development. Only one eucalyptus tree is proposed for as part of the project, but it is likely two additionally trees will be damaged or removed due to frontage improvements. To ensure compliance with Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 17.54, COA BIO-4 requires that the applicant comply with the preservation and replacement requirements and conditions of the Tree Removal Permit. As Conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to adopted policies, ordinances, or habitat conservation plans relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.
2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CON 1.6: Avoid removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat or contribute to the visual quality of the environment to the greatest extent feasible through appropriate project design and building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over off-site locations.

Status: The Project site will result in the removal of a single eucalyptus tree and potentially two roadside oak trees dependent on the final engineering of the access points from SR-116. The project proposes to retain the remaining trees. However, additional trees could be damaged during construction. The City of Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 17.54 regulates the protection, preservation and maintenance of native trees, trees of historic or cultural significance, groves and stands of mature trees, and mature trees in general that are associated with proposals for development. Project approvals include a Tree Removal Permit which is conditioned for compliance with Chapter 17.54.

COA BIO-4 requires the implementation of tree protection measures during construction. As conditioned, the Project complies with this policy.

Policy CON 1.7: Consult with all resource agencies during the CEQA review process for proposed developments to help identify wetland and vernal pool habitat that has candidacy for restoration, conservation, and/or mitigation. Focus restoration and/or conservation efforts on areas that would maximize multiple beneficial uses for such habitat and provides opportunities for mitigation banking.

Action CON 1a: Require development project proposals, infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects that may potentially impact special-status species and sensitive resources to submit a biological resources evaluation which determines whether significant adverse impacts will occur. Evaluations shall be carried out under the direction of the Community Development 321 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 57 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Department and consistent with applicable state and federal guidelines. Projects shall be designed to avoid or reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Where adverse impacts cannot be feasibly reduced or avoided through project design, projects shall include the implementation of site-specific or project-specific effective mitigation strategies developed by a qualified professional in consultation with state or federal resource agencies with jurisdiction (if applicable) that may include, but are not limited to, the following strategies:
a. Preservation of habitat and connectivity of adequate size, quality, and configuration to support the special-status species. Connectivity shall be determined based on the specifics of the species’ needs.
b. Project design measures, such as clustering of structures or locating project features to avoid known locations of special-status species and/or sensitive habitats. c. Provision of supplemental planting and maintenance of grasses, shrubs, and trees of similar quality and quantity to provide adequate vegetation cover to enhance water quality, minimize sedimentation and soil transport, and provide adequate shelter and food for wildlife. d. Protection for habitat and the known locations of special-status species through adequate buffering or other means.
e. Provision of replacement habitat of like quantity and quality on- or off-site for special status species. Preference shall be given to the preservation of habitat as close to the area of impact as feasible, so long as that habitat is of comparable quality. f. Enhancement of existing special-status species habitat values through restoration and replanting of native plant species.
g. Provision of temporary or permanent buffers of adequate size (based on the specifics of the special-status species) to avoid nest abandonment by nesting migratory birds and raptors associated with construction and site development activities. h. Incorporation of the provisions or demonstration of compliance with applicable recovery plans for federally listed species.
i. Monitoring of construction activities by a qualified biologist to avoid impacts to on-site special status species.

Status: In 2024, Monk and Associates conducted a full regulatory permitting and mitigation implementation review and concluded that the Project site complied with regulatory agency permits (Appendix B). The Biological Resource Analysis concludes that mitigation requirements at the Project site have been satisfied and no further State, Federal, or local agency requirements should be warranted. The prior regulatory compliance did not include the drainage ditch and isolated wetland that will be impacted by required frontage improvements. To ensure compliance policy and action, 322 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 58 of 158 CEQA Analysis
COA BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and the American badger, and that the applicant secure wetland credits at a 1:1 ratio for “waters of the State” that will be impacted by offsite frontage improvements. As conditioned, the Project complies with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to biological resources relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The Project complies with the mitigating policies and actions in the 2013 General Plan and as such the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to biological resources relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting raptors and passerines, a nesting bird survey should be conducted within 7 days prior to commencing with construction work if this work would begin between February 1 and August 31. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where raptors could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. The nesting bird survey should include examination of all suitable nesting habitats within 300 feet of the entire project site. A nesting bird survey report should be prepared upon completion of the survey and provided to the City of Cotati with any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers as necessary to protect nesting birds.

If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the construction project, a qualified biologist shall establish a temporary protective buffer around the nest(s). The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing or orange lath staking.

BIO-2: To ensure there are no direct impacts to American badger, a qualified biologist will conduct a 323 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 59 of 158 CEQA Analysis
preconstruction den survey no more than 14 days prior to site grading. If a potential den is located, infrared camera stations will be set up and maintained for three (3) consecutive nights at the potential den openings prior to initiation of grading/work activities to determine the status of the potential dens. If American badger is not found to be using the den, the burrow (den) will be filled, and site grading may proceed in the vicinity of this burrow(s) unhindered.

If American badger is found to be using a den within the area of proposed ground disturbance, provided it is not a natal den, the badger will be passively and humanely evicted from its den if it could be impacted by grading or other ground disturbing activities; a one-way eviction door placed at the den opening is the least invasive option. If a natal den is found, eviction will not take place until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow. The project proponent will consult with CDFW regarding the natal den and to discuss a suitable eviction plan. The final eviction plan will be submitted to the City of Cotati prior to implementation. Any American badger found onsite will be reported to CDFW’s CNDDB.

BIO-3: Prior to site preparation or grading, the applicant shall secure wetland mitigation credits for impacted waters of the State at a 1:1 ratio (or at the ratio required by RWQCB) from an approved bank within the same conservation area or in proximity as feasible and provide evidence of procurement to the City. During all frontage work and construction activities occurring within 25 feet of wetlands as mapped by the “Draft Aquatic Resources Delineation Map for SR-116 and West Cotati Ave Project” prepared by Monk and Associates on August 23, 2023, the applicant/contractor shall install and maintain exclusion fencing precluding inadvertent access to wetlands to be preserved.

BIO-4: Tree removal shall be done in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.54. All project contractors shall implement all applicable tree protection requirements as determined by the tree removal permit.
324 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 60 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Redwood Dr. Project in Cotati, CA, prepared by Archaeological Resource Management on October 10, 2024; Cultural Resources Addendum for the Proposed Redwood Row Project prepared by Evans & De Shazo on March 14, 2025; and Results of an Archaeological Study for the Gravenstein Highway (SR-116)/West Cotati Avenue Realignment Project prepared by Evans & De Shazo on September 28, 2023.
2013 General Plan EIR Findings:

The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to cultural resources in Chapter 3.4 and determined the following:
• Within the Cotati Planning Area, 36 resources have been recorded of which 7 are prehistoric Native American archaeological sites, and 2 are historic-period archeological sites, and 27 are built environment resources. 31 of these resources are within City limits. • Impact 3.4-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the potential disturbance of cultural resources and human remains. This would be a potentially significant impact and is reduced to less than significant through policies CON 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. • Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the disturbance of human remains or the discovery of human remains during construction activities. The potential impact would be reduced to less than significant through procedures of the Public Resources Code Section 5097 and implementation of General Plan actions CON 4c.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR
Consistent with General Plan Action CON 4b, a Cultural Resource Evaluation was prepared by Archaeological Resource Management on October 10, 2024. The Report included both a records search and surface examination on the Project site.
325 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 61 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.5(a-c) (Historic, Archaeological Resources and Discovery of Human Remains) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
As documented in the Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared by Archaeological Resource Management in 2024, the records search did not indicate the presence of resources on the project site and no artifacts or potentially significant cultural features were observed during the surface inspection.

The entire property was examined in a pedestrian survey and all areas of the site were accessible.

Vegetation within the proposed project area consisted of sparse ankle-high grasses across most of the surface, as well as several established native and non-native trees. Where native soils were exposed, a medium brown to tan silty loam was observed. Rock types noted included gravel of sandstone and metamorphic rock, as well as small amounts of imported gravel.

No significant cultural materials, prehistoric or historic, were noted during surface reconnaissance and there are no structures of historic age located within the Project area. As requested during consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a Historical Human Remains Detection Canine Survey (HHRCD) was completed on March 5, 2025 and a Cultural Resources Evaluation Addendum Report was prepared by Evans and Deshazo on March 14, 2025. The site was divided into 11 search areas, and each was searched by two or more dogs.

The HHRCD concluded that intact burials are not likely present. However, in order to ensure that no human remains, nor potential grave sites are disturbed, COA CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 have been established to require tribal monitoring, post-review archaeological discoveries, and protocol in the event of the discovery of human remains, archeological, or tribal cultural resources.

Further, an Archaeological Study in accordance with CEQA regulations was completed for the SR-116/ West Cotati Avenue Realignment project by Evans and De Shazo on September 28, 2023. The study included the area where frontage improvements will be required for this project. The methods used to complete the study include a NWIC/CHRIS records search; a review of historical maps, aerial photographs, and other documents to determine past land use activities within the Project Area and the potential/sensitivity for buried historic-period archaeological, as well as researching for any important historical persons associated with the Project Area; a review of geologic, soils, geoarchaeological, and other information to assess the potential/sensitivity for buried precontact period archaeological resources; a Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal outreach; outreach to the Cotati Historical Society; and a pedestrian field survey of the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue project area. No CRHR-listed or eligible historical resources or unique archaeological resources were identified within the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue project area, which overlaps with the subject project’s proposed frontage improvements. One isolated historic-period artifact (a horseshoe; age unknown) and a eucalyptus tree windrow (pre-1942) were identified but neither meets the criteria to be considered historically significant and the desktop buried archaeological site sensitivity analysis found that the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue project area has a low potential for buried precontact and historic period archaeological resources.

The project will include grading and ground disturbance, which has the potential to result in impacts to cultural resources if present. As conditioned, the Project implements policies of the General Plan for treatment of cultural resources and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to cultural resources relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.
326 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 62 of 158 CEQA Analysis
2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Action CON 4b: Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any development project where a potential or known historical, archaeological, or other cultural resource is located or which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If significant cultural or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, the project shall be required to implement appropriate measures, such as avoidance, capping of the resource site, or documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource to a less than significant level.

Status: Archaeological Resource Management conducted an archaeological inventory and prepared a Cultural Resource Evaluation for the proposed Project on October 10, 2024 and the location of required frontage improvements was analyzed by Evans and DeShazo in a report prepared on September 28, 2023. Historical Human Remains Detection Canine Survey (HHRCD) was conducted on March 5, 2025. COA CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 were recommended through the cultural investigations and are imposed on the project. As such, the Project complies with this action.

Action CON 4c: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
a. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Department. b. If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Department.

Status: COA CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 requires implementation of actions that comply with Action CON 4c to address potential discovery of archeological resources and human remains during construction. As conditioned, the Project complies with this action.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and, as conditioned, will not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to cultural resources relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to 327 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 63 of 158 CEQA Analysis
implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

CUL-1: Full-time archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted for all Project-related ground-disturbing activities within 200 feet of the canine alert locations and the area where the current mound of imported soil is located.
• Prior to the start of the Project, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring Plan (ATMP) in consultation with FIGR. The ATMP should provide a provision for a pre-construction Cultural Resources Awareness Training (CRAT) and details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be found within the Project Area, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered, including proper notification to Tribes, agencies, and stakeholders; and an assessment of the significance of any archaeological resources encountered during construction.
• The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the finding is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until the Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist in consultation with FIGR, determines that full time monitoring can be reduced to spot check monitoring or that monitoring is no longer warranted. A report shall also be prepared to document findings after the ground disturbance is complete.

CUL-2: If a precontact or historic period archaeological resource is encountered by equipment operators during Project-related ground-disturbing activities and an archaeologist is not present, that work be halted within 100 feet of the discovery area until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the resource. • If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or as a unique archaeological resource. • If the resource is determined to be eligible for the CRHR or is a unique archaeological resource, adverse impacts shall be mitigated.
• If the resource is a Native American resource, the assessment, evaluation, and treatment recommendations shall be made in consultation with FIGR. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures, laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials, preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials, and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. • Any report produced as a result of a discovery shall be submitted to the City of Cotati and the NWIC/CHRIS upon completion of the resource assessment. Precontact period archaeological resources commonly encountered in the area may include obsidian (shiny, black, glass-like stone) and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, charcoal, ash, artifacts, animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and features such as hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal remains. Historic period archaeological resources include backfilled privies, wells, and 328 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 64 of 158 CEQA Analysis
refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal glass, and ceramic refuse.

CUL-3: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the Sonoma County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. The soil excavated from the discovery location shall also be secured. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. • Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
o The NAHC is unable to identify the most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site.
o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
329 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 65 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.6. ENERGY
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; BAAQMD 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan; Climate Action 2020 and Beyond: Sonoma County Regional Climate Action Plan, prepared by Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, July 2016; BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines; and City of Cotati Municipal Code. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings:

Energy resources include fuels, renewable resources, and production of electricity which requires conversion of these resources into energy. Energy production and energy use result in depletion of non-renewable energy resources such as oil, coal, and natural gas, the use of which results in pollutant emissions that contribute to global climate change. Sustainable use of energy resources is facilitated through conservation of non-renewable resources and development of alternative or renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, and geothermal.

The 2013 General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to energy resources in Chapter 3.6 – Greenhouse Gasses and Climate Change. The policies and implementing actions relating to energy conservation are included in Chapter 5: Conservation of the General Plan and addressed under Goal 3 which promotes conservation of energy and other natural resources. The 2013 General Plan EIR specifically identifies the following energy-specific General Plan Policies CON 2.10, CON 3.1 – CON 3.10, LU 1.5, and Actions CON 3a – 3d which would result in a less than significant impact to Green House Gas Emissions and Climate Change and are applicable to this section.

Sonoma County Climate Action Plan 2020
In 2005, the ten local governments within Sonoma County pledged to reduce GHG emissions community-wide to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 (Cotati adopted 30% by 2015, Resolution 05-66). The Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) was created in 2009 to help each jurisdiction reach its goal. Climate Action 2020 is a collaborative effort led by the RCPA and includes nine cities, the County of Sonoma, and several partner entities to take further actions to reduce GHG emissions community-wide and respond to the threats of climate change. 330 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 66 of 158 CEQA Analysis
As presented in the Climate Action Plan 2020, Section 5.2: Cotati, the City of Cotati is focused on infill development and “green” priorities for new building.6 Energy efficiency is a requirement of City of Cotati’s General Plan as provided in General Plan Objective Con 3A, including policies and actions which “achieve a high level of energy efficiency in new buildings and in significant remodels,” which is set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.130 and establishes CalGreen Tier 1 as mandatory for new residential and non-residential structures.

Cotati Municipal Code
The Project will construct new dwelling units and commercial uses that are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code and must meet the requirements for CalGreen Tier 1. In order to secure a building permit, the Project must comply with the uniformly applied standards of the City’s Municipal Code Section 14.04.090 California Energy Code and Section 17.51.030 Citywide Energy Conservation Standards and which requires that the new structures be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum of fifteen percent greater energy efficiency than otherwise required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and to implement the city’s sustainable building program adopted by council resolution.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan

5.6(a) (Energy Consumption) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project proposes new residential and commercial uses which will be served by Pacific Gas and Electric and Sonoma Clean Power.

The California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures;
• Maximum fixture water use rates;
• Compliance with the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent; • Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board; and
• For single-family and some low-rise residential development developed after January 1, 2020, mandatory on-site solar energy systems capable of producing 100 percent of the electricity demand created by the residence(s).

The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2023 and establishes new requirements related to heat pumps, requires that new single-family homes be electric-ready, and 6 Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority. Climate Action Plan 2020 and Beyond. July, 2016. 331 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 67 of 158 CEQA Analysis
expands solar and storage requirements. It is estimated that over a 30-year period, the 2022 energy code will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 10 million metric tons.7 Further, the City has adopted CALGreen Tier 1 standards and as such, they are uniformly applied to all construction projects. The application of these standards to the Project will prevent wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. However, as required by COA GHG-1, the project must comply with Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards in order to comply with BAAQMD thresholds. Additionally, the BMPs required by the BAAQMD and implemented as COA AQ1 limit the use of energy for construction. As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to energy consumption.

5.6(b) (Conflict with State or Local Plans) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR Pursuant to the Sonoma County Climate Action Plan 2020, Section 5.2: Cotati, the City of Cotati is focused on infill development and “green” priorities for new building. The Project is proposed within Cotati’s planning area within the existing city limits and will comply with the uniformly applied energy conservation standards of CALGreen Tier 1 at a minimum. Additionally, the Project proposes all electric appliances and will be required by COA GHG-1 to comply with CALGreen Tier 2 requirements for installation of EV infrastructure. As such, the Project would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Action CON 3a: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with CALGreen Tier 1 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and Land Use Code.

Status: The proposed Project is subject to the uniformly applied development standards in the Municipal Code Section 17.51.030 (Citywide energy conservation standard), CALGreen Tier 1 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, at a minimum. Additionally, the project is required by COA GHG-1 to comply with Tier 2 standards which are more stringent than Tier 1. As such, it complies with this action and would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Conclusion
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to energy relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR.

COA AQ-1 and COA GHG-1 will implement requirements of the 2013 General Plan EIR and the General Plan.
7 State of California, Energy Commission, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standard Summary, August 2021. 332 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 68 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would The Project:

I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Publication 42.

II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
III. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
IV. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
333 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 69 of 158 CEQA Analysis
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Quantum Geotechnical Inc on May 6, 2022; and Public Works/Engineering Conditions of Approval prepared on March 11, 2025.
2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The City of Cotati is in a geologically active area of the San Andreas Fault system and the potential for ground shaking from seismic events is a risk throughout the region. Active faults are located four miles or more to the east, north, and west, but no active faults traverse the City.

The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated the potential impacts related to geology and soils in Chapter 3.5 and determined the following.
• Impact 3.5-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the construction of projects that may expose people or structures to seismic ground shaking from the numerous faults located in the region. No Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones are located within the Cotati Planning Area. The General Plan includes policies and actions that require evaluation and engineering of projects to reduce the impacts of development under the General Plan from seismic shaking to less than significant.
• Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the General Plan Update would allow ground disturbing activities that could result in soil erosion and topsoil loss. The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for all development projects. Application of best management practices required would reduce this impact to less than significant.
• Impact 3.5-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in development that could expose people and structures to adverse effects from ground instability and failure from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. With General Plan policies and implementing actions applied to development projects that require study and design to mitigate these risks, the impacts would be less than significant. • Impact 3.5-4: There is expansive soil located within the City of Cotati, and implementation of the proposed project (General Plan Update) could result in development on expansive soils.

With General Plan policies that require design-level geotechnical investigations for new development, the risk of impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant. • Impact 3.5-5: Implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in a conflict between soil capacity and septic systems because sewerage and wastewater treatment capacity is sufficient to accommodate all development under the General Plan without the use of septic and none will be utilized. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

The 2013 General Plan EIR found that the implementation of the 2013 General Plan could have significant impacts on Geology and Soils but determined that those impacts were mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of Policies CSF 1.8, SA 2.1- 2.11 and Actions SA 2a-2k. 334 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 70 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.7(a i) (Seismic faults) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The General Plan EIR determined that impacts from fault rupture, strong ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, and landslides would be less than significant. The Project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. Strong to very strong ground shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults. However, the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault and future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed is very low. The Project is subject to construction standards established for seismic safety within the latest California Building Code, which would minimize the impact of ground shaking on new development. As such the project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7(a ii,iii) (Ground Shaking, Liquefaction) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The General Plan shows areas of moderate liquefaction potential adjacent to portions of SR-116 per Figure 7.1-2 in the General Plan Background Report. A Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment (Appendix D) was prepared on May 6, 2022 to identify the presence of potentially collapsible soil and evaluate the consistency of the previously placed fill areas and determine if any mitigation is needed for development.

On February 23, 2022, Quantum Geotechnical Inc. conducted eight pit tests using a track mounted mini excavator. The tests ranged from 7 to 10.5 feet below the current ground surface. Test pits were performed in areas of a previously filled pad area, in areas of previously filled wetlands, and in native areas where no historic grading is known to have occurred. At the northern part of the site, a large soil fill stockpile approximately 280 feet by 190 feet in plan area and approximately 12 feet high is present. A sample of the stockpile material was taken for future laboratory testing.

Soils on the site range from dense compacted fill material consisting of slightly moist, stiff sandy silt with sparce angular soil to highly expansive native soils. During borings conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation, the site was found to have low potential for liquefaction during strong ground shaking.

Public Works/Engineering Conditions of Approval require that all final plans receive sign off from the applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer to demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation Report.

Further, the Project would implement the recommendations of the geotechnical analysis and would be consistent with General Plan Policies SA 2.4, SA 2.11 and General Plan Actions SA 2a and SA 2e that address geologic and seismic hazard mitigations in project design, which are confirmed in the building permit review process, and implemented through COA GEO-1. As conditioned and through the uniformly applied standards of the California Building Code, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7(a iv) (Landslides) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project site is a relatively flat, open field with an existing stockpile that is approximately 12 feet 335 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 71 of 158 CEQA Analysis
high. The site elevations for the remainder of the site range from 105 feet to 99 feet above sea level.

Because steep slopes are not located on the site or in the vicinity, there is no significant impact related to the risk of a landslide. As such the project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7(b) (Erosion) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts from soil erosion would be less than significant with General Plan Policies and Actions mitigating potential impacts. The Project site is previously disturbed from past grading and staging activities and would be developed by removing existing stockpiles and introducing new buildings, driveways, parking, and landscaping. As a project that will disturb more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, it is subject to implementation of stormwater management facilities to treat site runoff under applicable provisions of the City’s MS4 permit. Best management practices for soil erosion and sediment control are required to be applied during construction. In compliance with General Plan Policy CON 1.12, COA HYD-1 is required which will ensure Best Management Practices are implemented during construction. Additionally, Chapter

14.36 of the Cotati Municipal Code which requires, amongst other things, an erosion control plan prepared by a Civil Engineer or other qualified professional that outlines appropriate measures to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation and that complies with design and construction standards contained in the City’s Municipal Code. Preliminary designs are in compliance and through the standard review process, the final plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to Project Conditions of approval as provided by Public Works/Engineering on March 11, 2025. The Public Works/Engineering Conditions include requirements for a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as well as a Stormwater Control Plan and a separate Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) to be used during construction.

As conditioned, pursuant to General Plan Policy CON 1.12, the Project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 General Plan EIR and the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to erosion relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7(c-d) (Geologic Stability and Expansive Soils) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
Per the 2013 General Plan EIR, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the California Building Code, City’s General Plan, Land Use Code, and other applicable regulations, in regards to geologic stability and expansive soils. In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, as well as General Plan Policy SA 2.11, a preliminary geotechnical analysis was conducted to evaluate geotechnical conditions and provide associated recommendations for development at the site. The preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) examined geologic conditions and identified that some areas of the site contained expansive soils. In compliance with General Plan Policy SA 2.1, Action SA 2a and Action SA 2e, COA GEO-1 is imposed to require a final Geotechnical Investigation and to ensure recommendations from the geotechnical investigation are incorporated into the project design, construction documents, and improvement plans, or as otherwise conditioned by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official.

As conditioned, pursuant to General Plan Policy SA 2.1, Action SA 2a and Action SA 2e, the Project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 General Plan EIR and the Project would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to 336 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 72 of 158 CEQA Analysis
geologic stability relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7I (Septic Tanks) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR Implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict between soil capacity and septic systems because sewer and wastewater treatment capacity are sufficient to accommodate all development under the General Plan without the use of septic. The Project site is zoned and planned for residential and commercial uses in the General Plan. The Project proposes to connect to the City’s sewer system and will not use septic systems. As such, the Project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 General Plan EIR and the Project would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to septic tanks relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.7(f) (Paleontological Resources) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The potential to uncover undiscovered paleontological resources was considered in the 2013 General Plan EIR, in which Action CON 4c is identified, which requires work to be suspended within 100 feet of any discovered potentially unique paleontological resources and for the City to be contacted to coordinate further investigation. In compliance with Action CON 4c, COA GEO-2 is required. COA GEO2 requires specific protocol to be followed if paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities.

As conditioned and pursuant to Action CON 4c, the Project complies with the General Plan and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to paleontological resources relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy SA 2.4: Development in areas subject to liquefaction, such as along East and West Cotati Avenues and Gravenstein Highway shall be reviewed by qualified soils engineers and geologists prior to development in order to ensure the safety and stability of all construction. (See Figure 7.1-2 in the General Plan Background Report).

Status: Portions of the site located along Gravenstein Highway (SR-116) are subject to liquefaction per Figure 7.1-2 in the General Plan Background Report. In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter

14.36, as well as General Plan Policy SA 2.10, a preliminary geotechnical analysis was prepared that established recommendations for construction. Confirmation that geotechnical design recommendations meeting current standards have been incorporated into construction plans and documents are required through COA GEO-1. As conditioned, the project complies with this policy.

Policy SA 2.10: An erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a civil engineer or other professional who is qualified to prepare such a plan, shall be submitted as part of a grading permit application. The erosion and sediment control plan shall delineate measures to appropriately and effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation and shall comply with the design standards and construction site Control measures contained In Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code.

Status: Development of the Project will require site preparation and grading activities that will potentially result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil if not properly controlled. A preliminary Stormwater Control Plan has been submitted by the applicant and COA HYD-2 requires the applicant 337 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 73 of 158 CEQA Analysis
to submit a final Stormwater Control Plan which includes a sediment control plan in compliance with Chapter 14.36. As conditioned, the Project complies with this Policy.

Policy SA 2.11: Prior to the development of any new structures and any addition greater than 500 square feet in areas of moderate to high potential for expansive soils as identified in Figure 7.1-5 of the General Plan Background Report, a site-specific soils study shall be prepared. All structures and building foundations located within areas containing expansive soils shall be designed and engineered to comply with the most current version of the California Building Standards Code.

Action SA 2a: Require a geotechnical analysis for construction in areas with potential geological hazards and require that recommendations from the geotechnical analysis are incorporated into the project’s design and engineering.

Action SA 2e: Require the submission of geologic and soils reports for all new developments. The geologic risk areas that are determined from these studies shall have standards established and recommendations shall be incorporated into development.

Status: As noted above, a Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) was conducted that examined geologic conditions and provided recommendations for the Project site. COA GEO-1 requires the incorporation of the recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and subsequent documents into the final plans prior to submission of the building permit application.

Further, Public Works/Engineering Conditions of Approval, includes requirements for grading improvements, erosion control, and geotechnical engineering. As conditioned, the project complies with this policy and associated actions.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to geology and soils relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The project, as conditioned and through the application of uniformly applied standards, complies with the applicable policies and actions in the 2013 General Plan and would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to geology and soils relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental condition of approval is required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

GEO-1: The Project shall implement recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Quantum Geotechnical Inc. on May 6, 2022 (Appendix D).

At the time of permit application submittal, the applicant shall include a letter, together with the geotechnical analyses, from the Project’s geotechnical engineer certifying that all recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical analyses meet current geotechnical design standards and that all applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the construction plans. Where the geotechnical engineer recommends technical changes to the recommendations in any of the geotechnical analyses, such changes shall be clearly identified in the letter. 338 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 74 of 158 CEQA Analysis
All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design, construction documents and improvement plans, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official.

The Project’s geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical analyses.

GEO-2: If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Department. 339 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 75 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 2022; and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment by Illingworth and Rodkin on December 20, 2024. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to air quality and determined that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions that mitigate potential impacts, impacts to air quality would be less than significant. The following impacts to air quality were considered under the 2013 General Plan EIR:
• Impact 3.6-1: General Plan implementation could generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CON 2.6 – CON 2.12, CON 3.1 – CON 3.6, CON 3.8 – CON 3.12, CI 1.2, CI 1.19 – CI 1.21, CI 2.1 – CI 2.3, CI 2.7 – CI 2.10, CI 2.21, CI 3.1 – CI 3.4, LU 1.4, LU 1.5, LU

2.2, LU 2.5, LU 2.10, LU 3.8, OS 1.1 – OS 1.6, OS 1.10, OS 1.11 and Actions CON 2e, CON 2f, CON 2g, CON 3a – CON 3d, CI 1q, CI 2a, CI 2i – CI 2k, CI 3a, CI 3b, LU 2b, and OS 1a – OS 1e, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the General Plan would not an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The General Plan is consistent with the CCAP and AB 32 and as new projects are required to fully implement the City’s Green Building Standards. Compliance with the City’s Green Building Standards would reduce GHG emissions from future development to the greatest extent feasible and implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

A number of regulations currently exist related to GHG emissions, predominantly AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05, and Senate Bill (SB) 32. AB 32 sets forth a statewide GHG emissions reduction target of 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order S-3-05 sets forth a transitional reduction target of 2000 levels by 2010, the same target as AB 32 of 1990 levels by 2020, and further builds upon the AB 32 target by requiring a reduction to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 also builds upon AB 32 and sets forth a transitional reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To implement statewide 340 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 76 of 158 CEQA Analysis
GHG emissions reduction targets, local jurisdictions are encouraged to prepare and adopt areaspecific GHG reduction plans and/or thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.

Bay Area Management District 2022 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds On April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Air District Board of Directors adopted the proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project), the thresholds are intended to assist public agencies in determining whether projects would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The adopted thresholds are intended to evaluate projects based on their effect on efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals. As determined by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, a project would be considered to have a less than significant air quality impact under CEQA so long as it contributes its fair share toward achieving long-term climate goals. As such, new land use development projects are required to either (A) incorporate design elements including replacing natural gas with electric power, eliminating inefficient or wasteful energy usage, reducing project-generated VMT to the recommended 15-percent reduction below existing, and providing sufficient electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure to support the shift to EVs or (B) must comply with a qualified local GHG reduction strategy.

The BAAQMD uses a “fair share” approach for determining whether an individual project would have an effect on the environment. The “fair share” approach requires that projects are incorporating design elements that will reduce emissions and thus contribute toward achieving long-term climate goals to reduce emissions. These are stated as:

Table 5.7: Climate Impact Thresholds of Significance (Project Level) Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects (Must Include A or B) A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory:

Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita 341 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 77 of 158 CEQA Analysis
b. The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Source: BAAQMD, 2022 CEQA Guidelines Thresholds of Significance, April 20, 2022 Sonoma County Climate Action Plan 2020
As presented in the Sonoma County Climate Action Plan 2020, the City of Cotati’s GHG inventory in 2010 resulted in the emission of 52,060 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) and a per capita emission level of 7.2 MT CO2e/yr. A backcast effort identified 1990 emission levels at 51,480 MT CO2e/yr and a per capita emission level of 9.0 MT CO2e/yr. Table 5.8 presented below provides the forecast emission levels for the City of Cotati.

Table 5.8: GHG Emission Forecasts
2020 Forecast 2040 Forecast 2050 Forecast
Total Emissions 61,350 68,980 70,900
Per Capita Emissions 7.9 7.8 7.5
Source: Sonoma County Climate Action Plan 2020 Table 5.2-3 Cotati Community.

The City of Cotati will achieve GHG reduction targets through a combination of state, regional and local measures. At the state level, fuel efficiency standards, Title 24 building standards, low carbon fuel standard, and RPS are estimated to achieve a GHG reduction of 13,710 MTCO2e by 2020. Regional efforts are projected to achieve a GHG reduction of 4,070 MTCO2e through activities carried out by the Regional Climate Protection Authority, Sonoma Water, County of Sonoma Energy Independence Office, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, and Sonoma Clean Power. Locally, the City of Cotati is expected to realize a GHG reduction of 1,550 MTCO2e through implementation of Measure 11-L1 (Senate Bill SB X7-7 – Water Conservation Act of 2009), Measure 2-L4 (Solar in Existing Non-Residential Buildings), and Measure 2-L1 (Solar in New Residential Development).

On March 27, 2018, the Cotati City Council adopted Resolution 2018-15 reaffirming its intent to reduce GHG emissions as part of a coordinated effort through the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority.

Project Consistency with 2013 General Plan EIR

5.8(a) (Greenhouse Gas Generation) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 862 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. As stated in Section 5.3 Air Quality of this document, COA AQ-1 are imposed on the project and are consistent with the BAAQMD and 2013 General Plan Policies and as conditioned 342 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 78 of 158 CEQA Analysis
and the Project would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

As discussed above in Section 5.6 Energy, the Project is subject to the California Building Code and CalGreen Energy Code. The City has adopted Tier 1 voluntary measures of CalGreen which are required for all new construction. As determined in the Energy section, the Project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy.

As described above, BAAQMD requires the implementation of specific project design elements in order to be considered below the threshold of significance. The project’s incorporation of these design elements are as follows:

1. The Project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas.

2. Through the implementation of COA AQ-1 and AQ-2 and the application of the uniformly applied standards of CALGreen Tier 1 Building Standards as adopted by the City of Cotati, the project will be energy efficient and will not result in any wasteful or unnecessary energy usage.

3. The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Project (15.3) would be below the significance threshold (15.5).

The Project will provide EV parking spaces as required by Cotati Municipal Code 14.04.130. However, this would only meet Tier 1. In order to ensure that the project will not result in new or more significant impacts, COA GHG-1 is established and requires the applicant to meet the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements for EV charging infrastructure.

As designed, conditioned, and through the application of the uniformly applied standards in the City of Cotati Building Code the project is below the threshold of significance for land use projects as established by BAAQMD. As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.8(b) (Conflict with Plans) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project will construct residential units and commercial floor area on a site that is planned for such uses under the General Plan. The proposed Project is consistent with applicable local plans, policies, and regulation related to GHG emissions and does not conflict with the stipulations of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other State or regional plan, policy, or regulation of an agency for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Project is consistent with applicable local plans, policies, and BAAQMD regulation related to GHG emissions and as designed and as conditioned by COA AQ-1 and COA GHG-1 and does not conflict with an applicable air quality plan, or any other State or regional plan, policy, or regulation of an agency for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CON 3.1: Continue to require all new public and privately constructed buildings to meet and comply with CALGreen Tier 1 standards.
343 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 79 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Action CON 3a: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with CALGreen Tier 1 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and Land Use Code.

Status: The Project is subject to the uniformly applied standards of CALGreen Tier 1 and as conditioned by COA GHG-1 is subject to CalGreen Tier 2. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CON 3.3: Promote the use of alternative energy sources in new development.

Status: The uniformly applied standards of the California Building Code requires that all new construction includes solar panels. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CON 3.6: Ensure that street layout and design minimize the use of pavement to the greatest extent feasible in order to reduce cooling energy needs.

Status: The Project does not propose any additional paving other than that which is necessary for roads, sidewalks, common areas, and parking. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CON 3.10: Ensure that the layout and design of new development and significant remodels encourages the use of transportation modes other than automobiles and trucks.

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

Status: The Project proposes the development of higher density housing and includes the construction of a Class I Multiuse Path at the SR-116 frontage and bicycle parking within the site as well as an internal network of bike and pedestrian pathways. An existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Redwood Dr. and SR-116. As such, the project is consistent with Policies CON 3.10 and LU 2.5.

Policy OS 1.10: Require residential development, with the exception of rural and low density residential, to be contiguous to existing urban development.

Status: The Project is located on a site that has been planned for urban development. Existing urban development includes the Cotati Cottages residential development to the northwest, retail uses to the north and west, as well as other commercial uses to the south on the opposite side of SR-116.

Action CON 2e: Continue to review new development, significant remodels, and infrastructure projects for consistency with the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Implementation Plan (GRIP).

Status: The Proposed Project is subject to Measure 11-L1 (Senate Bill SB X7-7 – Water Conservation Act of 2009) and Measure 2-L1 (Solar in New Residential Development) which are identified to reduce the City of Cotati’s greenhouse gas emissions in the Climate Action Plan. As the Project shall comply with water conservation and solar energy installation requirements, the Project is consistent with Policy OS 1.10 and Action CON 2e.
344 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 80 of 158 CEQA Analysis
As conditioned, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable mitigating policies and actions of the 2013 General Plan and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and as conditioned will not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental condition of approval is required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

GHG-1: The Project shall comply with CalGreen Tier 2 Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure requirements.
345 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 81 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.9. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport of public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
346 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 82 of 158 CEQA Analysis
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1); Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021, prepared by Tetra Tech Consultants for Permit Sonoma, October 2021; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Stantec on February 22, 2022; Draft Stormwater Control Plan prepared byCSW|ST2 on September 27, 2024; and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment West Cotati Avenue Alignment Project, Cotati, CA prepared by Harris and Lee Environmental Science, LLC on July 12, 2023; GeoTracker, managed by the State Water Resources Control Board, accessed December 2024; and EnviroStor, managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessed December 2024; Memorandum from Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District prepared on August 15, 2023 and reaffirmed on September 11, 2023; Public Works/Engineering Conditions of Approval prepared on March 11, 2025; and City of Cotati Municipal Code. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and determined that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions that mitigate potential impacts, impacts would be less than significant. The following impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were considered under the 2013 General Plan EIR:
• Impact 3.7-1: The General Plan has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 3.7, CSF 3.8, SA 1.1 – SA 1.7 and Actions CSF 3d, SA 1a – SA 1i, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.7-2: The General Plan has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Through compliance with all existing regulations and hazard mitigation plans as well as the implementation of mitigating General Policies CSF 3.7, CSF 3.8, SA 1.1 – SA 1.7 and Actions CSF 3d, SA 1a – SA 1i, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact
• Impact 3.7-3: The General Plan has the potential to have projects located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Through Compliance with state and federal regulations and the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 3.7, CSF 3.8, SA 1.5, SA 1.7, SA 1.9 and Actions CSF 3d, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.7-4: The General Plan is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The City of Cotati does not have any airport facilities located within the city limits, sphere of influence, of urban growth boundary. The City of Cotati does not lie within the Runway Protection Zone, Inner/Outer Safety Zones, Inner Turning Zone, Sideline Safety Zone, or Traffic Pattern Zone for this airport. According to the National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database, there have been no accidents within the City of Cotati between January of 1950 to 347 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 83 of 158 CEQA Analysis
January 2014. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.7-5: The General Plan does not have the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies SA 1.1 – SA 1.6 and Actions SA 1a – SA 1i, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.7-6: The General Plan does not have the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 2.28 – 2.32, CSF 2.36, SA 1.1 – SA 1.7 and Actions CSF 2o, CSF 2p, SA 1a, and SA 1d, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan
On September 28, 2021, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan to guide pre- and post-disaster mitigation of identified hazards. The plan includes actions to mitigate current risk from hazards and changes in hazard impacts resulting from climate change. Through the County-wide plan, the City will coordinate strategies for hazard mitigation with other planning programs under its jurisdiction, as well as promote and support the mitigation strategies of all County partners.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.9(a-b) (Routine Transport, Use, Disposal, or Release of Hazardous Materials) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in less than a significant impact relative to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, and that accidental release could constitute a hazard to the public or the environment.

The Project would not include routine transport and management of hazardous materials in ongoing operations. Development consists primarily of new residential units with no hazardous materials management associated with the use. The Project proposes commercial ground floor space. No specific uses have been identified for the spaces; however, based on the design and location, the spaces would most likely be oriented to resident-serving and light commercial uses (e.g., retail, restaurant, offices, and commercial services) as opposed to uses that may be more industrial in nature. Where a proposed future business may involve use, storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous materials, such business is subject to City review prior to issuance of a business license and would be required to comply with all existing federal, state, and local safety regulations governing hazardous materials.

Construction activities of the subject Project may result in the temporary presence of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to, fuels and lubricants, paints, solvents, insulation, electrical wiring, and other construction related materials onsite. Although potentially hazardous materials may be present onsite during construction, the Project is required to comply with all existing federal, state, and local safety regulations governing the transportation, use, handling, storage, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials.
348 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 84 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Additionally, applicable regulations include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. COA HYD1 requires that the applicant receive approval of the SWPPP prior to commencing site preparation, grading or construction, which is also a requirement of the Public Works/Engineering Project Conditions of Approval. Additionally Public Works/Engineering requires that the project comply with the condition that if hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of the project all work shall be stopped immediately and the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department, the Fire District, the Police Department, and the City Inspector be notified. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. Compliance with standard Public Works and Engineering conditions of approval ensures project consistency with General Plan polies related to hazardous materials.

Accordingly, impacts of hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials from the proposed Project would not exceed those analyzed in the 2013 General Plan EIR. As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to routine transport, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.9(c) (Emit Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of a School Site) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact due to the release and exposure of hazardous material onto school sites.

There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. The nearest school to the Project site, Thomas Page Academy, is located approximately 0.4 miles southwest. Additionally, there are no activities associated with the proposed Project that would pose a threat to nearby schools from the release or handling of hazardous materials. Through the implementation of applicable state and local regulations, the Project will not result in accidental exposure related to the handling of hazardous materials or result in any increased risk of exposure to existing schools. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.9(d) (Existing Hazardous Materials Sites) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The 2013 General Plan EIR found six sites that were on a list of hazardous materials sites, however the cases were in various stages of clean up and the Project site is not listed as a site that has or had an open case. A review of available records, databases (EnviroStor and GeoTracker) and reports indicate the Project is not located on a hazardous materials site. The nearest voluntary cleanup site under EnviroStor is the Cotati Rod and Gun Club, located approximately 1 mile west of the Project site.

The Project site is not identified as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site or Cleanup Program Site under Geotracker. Two sites with records of prior hazardous materials cleanup in Geotracker have been identified in the vicinity. However, cleanup has been completed and the cases have been closed: the LUST cleanup listed at 8505 Gravenstein Highway for Arco #1341, (T0609700006) was closed in 2014 and the Cleanup Program Site for BP Service Station (T0609700386) was closed in 2020. Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Stantec (2022) 349 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 85 of 158 CEQA Analysis
evaluated the site for potential hazardous materials contamination and found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions8in connection to the property (Appendix E).

Further, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by Harris and Lee Environmental Sciences, LLC dated July 12, 2023, that evaluates the portion of the site where frontage improvements are required. Due to long term road use on SR-116, aerially deposited lead (ADL) may be present on the areas of the site subject to frontage improvements. The construction of frontage improvement will include grading and trenching as well as repaving. During this work, soils that potentially contain ADLs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be disturbed. In order to ensure that no hazardous materials are released into the environment during the construction of the Project, COA HAZ-1 requires a Lead Compliance Plan (LCP), a Soil Management Plan (SMP), and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) be prepared in compliance with Caltrans guidelines prior to construction. The plan shall include sampling and analyzing soil for lead and petroleum hydrocarbons, appropriate disposal of any hazardous materials, and health and safety protections for workers handling contaminated soils.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.9(e) (Public Airport Land Use Plans) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The General Plan is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. As such, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.9(f-g) (Emergency Response and Wildland Fire) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project is within the projected development under the General Plan and does not interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans. The Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District (RAFD) has reviewed the proposed site plan and did not indicate issues with emergency response and access in connection to site design. The project design includes emergency vehicle access and will undergo final review and permitting by the RAFD to confirm compliance with uniformly applied emergency vehicle access requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. The Project site is located outside of local and State fire hazard severity zones and through the application of uniformly applied standards would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CSF 3.7: Continue to coordinate with Sonoma County to require all businesses and residents to comply with the local and State requirements regarding the proper disposal of toxic and hazardous materials and waste.

Status: The construction phase of the Project may involve use and handling of hazardous materials as part of construction. In compliance with Policy CSF 3.7, through the application of uniform 8 Recognized Environmental Conditions - the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws (Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Property Solutions, Inc), 350 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 86 of 158 CEQA Analysis
standards applied during the building permitting process, the project must comply with all local, State, and federal regulatory standards applicable to management of hazardous materials associated with the Project and to obtain any necessary approvals from Sonoma County. As such, the Project complies with Policy CSF 3.7.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The uniformly applied laws for the handling of hazardous materials as well as the Project conditions ensure that the Project is consistent with federal, state, and local regulations for the treatment of hazardous materials as identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and will not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental condition of approval is required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern on the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
352 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 88 of 158 CEQA Analysis
plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Sources: Cotati General Plan adopted and 2013 General Plan EIR certified on March 24, 2015; Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin prepared by Sonoma Water and approved on January 26, 2023; Public Works Draft Conditions of Approval Memo prepared on March 11, 2025; Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Cotati Condominiums prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. on October 4, 2024; and Stormwater Control Plan for Cotati Commons prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. on September 27, 2024. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality in Chapter 3.8 and determined the following.
• Impact 3.8.1 – Implementation of the General Plan could result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Through the implementation of the mitigating Policies CON 1.8 – CON 1.14 and Actions CON 1f – CON 1k, and the requirements of the NPDES Phase 1 MS4 permit and the LID Manual requirements, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.8.2 – Implementation of the General Plan could contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 2.1- CSF 2.15 and Actions CSF 2a - CSF 2g, combined with the City continuing to obtain surface water from the Russian River and reducing the consumption of groundwater, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.8.3 – Implementation of the General Plan could alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff.

Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CON 1.1, CON 1.2, CON

1.7 – CON 1.14, SA 3.1 – 3.13, Actions CON 1f – CON 1k, SA 3a – 3h, and compliance with state and local regulations, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.8.4 – Implementation of the General Plan could otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CON 1.8 – CON 1.14, Actions CON 1f – CON 1k, and compliance with state and local regulations, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.8.5 – General Plan implementation could place housing and structures within a 100- -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies SA 3.1 – SA 3.13, Actions SA 3a – 3h, and compliance with state and local regulations, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.8.6 – Implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of failure 353 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 89 of 158 CEQA Analysis
of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. There are no levees or dams upriver from the City of Cotati and it is not located within the vicinity of a body of water that could be subject to a seiche or tsunami. The relatively level slopes and soil types throughout the City of Cotati result in a very low potential for mudflow. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.

The 2013 General Plan EIR found that with the implementation of mitigating General plan Policies CON 1.1, CON 1.2, CON 1.7 – CON 1.14, CSF 2.1-2.15, SA 3.1- SA 3.13 and Actions CON 1f-1k, CSF 2a2g, SA 3a-3h as well as through the application of applicable state and local regulation, impacts to hydrology and water quality were less than significant.

Stormwater Regulation
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) and has issued a statewide General Permit for construction, which acts to minimize pollutant runoff to surface waters and groundwater. The City of Cotati is mostly located within the North Coast Hydrologic Region, which manages the Russian River watershed, and a portion of the southern part of the city drains to San Pablo Bay by the Petaluma River and is managed as a part of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Within the city, there are two hydrologic subareas, the Upper Laguna de Santa Rosa Subarea (Russian River) and the Petaluma River Subarea (San Pablo). Cotati has joined with other permittees in the Santa Rosa Plain under a Phase 1 NPDES permit (Water Quality Order No. R1-2009-0050) (NPDES No. CA0025054) which imposes requirements on municipalities to mitigate for stormwater quality and quantity and provides the Santa Rosa Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) as guidance.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.10(a) (Discharge) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR Construction
The Project’s construction activities and the installation of new impervious areas have the potential to result in increased runoff that could contain sediment and other pollutants that could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Potential pollutants commonly associated with construction include fuel, grease, oil, concrete material, sediment, and litter. However, as concluded in the 2013 General Plan EIR, the NPDES requirements, including the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with the RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030, Waste Discharge Requirements minimize the impacts from development activities. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify potential sediment sources and other pollutants and prescribe BMPs to ensure that potential adverse erosion, siltation, and contamination impacts would not occur during construction activities.

Public Works has imposed a Condition of Approval that requires that the SWPPP be approved by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). Further, the Project is required to conform to Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code, which contains grading and erosion control requirements. In compliance with the 2013 General Plan Policy CON 1.12, Policy SA 3.3, and Policy SA

3.13, COA HYD-1 requires that the applicant secure an SWPPP approved by the NCRWQCB and submit to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. With condition of approval, implementing the Policies of the General Plan and in conformance with RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030, the 354 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 90 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Project’s potential to result in impacts due to contaminated discharges during construction will be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project is required to conform to Chapter 13.68 of the Cotati Municipal Code, which regulates storm water discharge. A preliminary Stormwater Control Plan was prepared for the Project that demonstrates that Low Impact Design Strategies can feasibly pre-treat stormwater prior to entry into the municipal storm drain. A preliminary Hydrology Report was prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (October 2024) that evaluated existing hydrology of the site and the proposed stormwater conditions. The report concluded that sufficient capacity exists in the proposed storm drain network to convey the 10-year storm event to the treatment areas and offsite. The report also concluded that the storm drain network proposed is compliant with the City of Cotati Storm Drain Master Plan.

Public Works provided Conditions of Approval that require that Project stormwater capture and discharge design meet the most recent edition of City of Cotati, Phase I MS4 permit and the City of Santa Rosa Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual, and that prior to approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a Final Storm Water Low Impact Development Plan (FSWLID), subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer. The applicant prepared a preliminary Stormwater Low Impact Development Submittal, and to ensure compliance with this requirement, COA HYD-2 is imposed, and requires that the FSWLID include post-construction storm water treatment and peak reduction measures and address maintenance of private and/or public storm water facilities.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to stormwater discharge relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.10(b) (Groundwater) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR Buildout of the Cotati General Plan would result in the introduction of new impervious surfaces that could potentially reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. However, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be minimal in urban areas since the net change in impervious surfaces would be negligible. The 2013 General Plan EIR further determined that development anticipated under the General Plan would result in less than significant impact due to the depletion of ground water supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. The City has established maximum groundwater extraction volume policies that reduce the drawdown of groundwater and is not expanding use of groundwater supplies.

The State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014 which called for the creation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans for the long-term management of groundwater resources. The Santa Rosa Plain GSA was formed through a joint powers authority (JPA) between the cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol, Town of Windsor, County of Sonoma, Sonoma Water, Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District, and Sonoma Resource Conservation District (Sonoma RCD) and has a participation agreement with mutual water companies and CPUC-regulated water corporations that allows for participation in the GSA. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin was approved by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on January 26, 355 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 91 of 158 CEQA Analysis
2023. It establishes a standard for sustainability of groundwater management and use and determines how the basin will achieve this standard by 2042.

The Project proposes to rely exclusively on municipal water supplies and does not propose the extraction or use of groundwater. Furthermore, the Project is required to comply with guidance from the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual, including low impact development strategies and best management practices in site design to mimic pre-project site hydrology as required by COA HYD-1. As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.10(c i-iv) (Drainage Pattern) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that impacts due to increase in impervious surfaces and alteration of drainage conditions, as they relate to erosion, runoff, and drainage flow would be less than significant with General Plan policies and mitigation. Implementation of General Plan policies, Municipal Code, and applicable provisions of the City’s MS4 permit were identified as measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Project will comply with these requirements and is subject to COA HYD-1. The site design would also implement best practices for low impact development to mimic pre-project site hydrology through COA HYD-2. The Public Works/Engineering conditions require the implementation of the recommendations and methodology proposed in the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study (Appendix F). Further, as discussed in the Public Works Draft Conditions of Approval Memo prepared on March 11, 2025, to ensure compliance with the MS4 permit, the City Engineer requires final submittal of a map showing storm water drainage through the project.

The City is served by an existing storm drain system, and the City Engineering Division confirms infrastructure capacity for new developments. As new development has the potential to incrementally increase the use of storm drains, the City has established development impact fees levied on new developments to contribute to any needed new or expanded infrastructure. Payment of development impact fees, as well as review of final drainage plans for compliance with uniformly applied standards, is a requirement in the building permit process. Development impacts fees are used to maintain and build out the city’s storm drain system as planned. The Project includes a preliminary plan for onsite infiltration and connection to the storm drain system. To ensure compliance with the 2013 General Plan EIR Policy CON 1.12, SA 3.2, and SA 3.3, COA HYD-2 requires the applicant to submit the final plans showing drainage and stormwater management for final review and approval to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. The plans shall include onsite storm drain infrastructure with connections to the existing storm drain system and shall pay any required development impact fees. As conditioned, and through the application of uniformly applied standards, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.10(d) (Pollutants in Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The City of Cotati is subject to flooding of the Laguna de Santa Rosa and Cotati creeks and implementation of the General Plan could result in the flooding of development in these areas. As shown in Figure 3.8-1: Watersheds of the 2013 General Plan EIR, the Project site is not located near any streams or rivers that could be directly impacted by the proposed Project. As shown in Figure 3.8- 356 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 92 of 158 CEQA Analysis
2: Flood Hazard Map of the 2013 General Plan EIR, the Project site is located within the 500-year floodplain, a low to moderate flood hazard area; therefore, the Project would not place housing within a regulated flood hazard area. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.10(e) (Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that new development would be required to adhere to pertinent local, state, and federal agency requirements, and that with mitigation measure SA 3.2 and compliance with water quality regulation including NPDES requirements, potential impacts to water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels.

The Project would meet this requirement through compliance with procedures under Chapters 13.68 and 14.36 of the Municipal Code. COA HYD-1 and COA HYD-2 require implementation of pertinent local, state, and federal agency requirements, including the Cotati Municipal Code, and ensures the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.
2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CON 1.12: Require discretionary projects, as well as new flood control and stormwater conveyance projects, to integrate best management practices (BMPs) and natural features to the greatest extent feasible, while ensuring that these features adequately convey and control stormwater to protect human health, safety, and welfare.

Status: The Project is subject to the regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and as a project that is larger than one acre is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), comply with the RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030 Waste Discharge Requirements, implement BMPs, and comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.68 which regulates storm water discharge, as well as Chapter 14.36, which regulates erosion and sediment control. A preliminary storm water control plan has been prepared and COA HYD-2 requires submittal of final plans and acceptance by the City Engineer to ensure incorporation of regulations into Project construction and operation. As conditioned, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CON 1.13: Prioritize the use of natural features such as bioswales, vegetation, retention ponds, and other measures to remove surface water pollutants prior to discharge into surface waters.

Status: The Project is designed to include a series of bioswales and bioretention areas that will remove surface water pollutants prior to entering into storm drains and as such complies with Policy CON

1.13. Policy SA 3.2: Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s MS4 permit and companion documents, which collectively define the design storm event for water detention and retention features. 357 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 93 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Policy SA 3.3: Ensure that construction activities will not result in adverse impacts to existing flood control and drainage structures.

Status: The Project includes the use of bioretention facilities that will treat stormwater on site and storm drain lines that connect to the existing storm drain system. As new development has the potential to incrementally increase the use of storm drains, the City has established development impact fees levied on new developments to contribute to any needed infrastructure. The City Engineering Division reviews preliminary plans as well as final construction plans to assess infrastructure capacity for new developments and application of best practices for low impact development to manage runoff. The City Engineer has reviewed the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (Appendix F) prepared by the applicant and has established conditions of approval accordingly.

Further, implementation of COA HYD-2 ensures that the Project complies with Policies SA 3.2 and SA

3.3. Policy SA 3.12: Require all new developments in the city to be designed to minimize vegetation removal, soil compaction, and site coverage.

Status: In order to develop the vacant site, removal of vegetation and soil compaction is required.

The site is dominated by ruderal vegetation and some native and non-native trees. The landscaping plan includes the preservation of one heritage oak tree within the central portion of the Project site and the trees on the southeastern portion of the site. . Compaction and treatment of expansive soils would be conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Project geotechnical report, as required by COA GEO-1, to treat soil to the extent required to accommodate the proposed development. The Project would be required to implement low impact development strategies per the Santa Rosa Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual and in compliance with COA HYD-2. As conditioned the project complies with this policy.

Policy SA 3.13: Ensure that adequate drainage and erosion controls are provided during construction of all new developments.

Status: Best management practices for soil erosion and sediment control are required to be applied during construction. Compliance with these uniformly applied development standards ensure that potential adverse effects of erosion during construction are avoided. The Project is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which requires preparation and implementation of a final erosion and sediment control plan. COA HYD-1 requires that the applicant submit an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. As conditioned, the Project complies with Policy SA 3.2 Action SA 3g: As part of the development review process, require developers to prepare hydrological studies for all new developments as required by the City Engineer. Studies shall encompass the project site as well as the entire drainage area.

Status: A hydrology and hydraulics study for the project, dated October 4, 2024, was prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc, encompasses the Project site and drainage area as required by SA 3g. The City Engineer has conducted an initial review of the proposed plans and provided a memo that includes conditions of approval. Through the application of uniform regulations, the final construction plan set, and hydrological analysis are required to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to permit issuance in order to confirm compliance with requirements of Chapters 13.68 and 14.36 of the Municipal Code and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the project complies with this policy. 358 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 94 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and as conditioned, complies with the mitigating policies and actions in the 2013 General Plan EIR. As conditioned, the Project would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to hydrology and water quality relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies:

HYD-1: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Prevention and Pollution Plan (SWPPP) and erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices for construction activities as well as accounting for any BMPs required for operational activities. The SWPPP shall incorporate the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Submitted plans shall also demonstrate compliance with City of Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 13.68 Storm Water Ordinance and Chapter 14.36 Erosion and Sediment Control.

HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage plans including a final Stormwater Low Impact Development and Stormwater Control Plan that implements the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit.
359 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 95 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Land Use in Chapter 3.9 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.9-1: General Plan implementation has the potential to physically divide an established community. The proposed General Plan does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities and would result in a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.9-2: General Plan implementation has the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Implementation of the General Plan could result in potential adverse environmental impacts, including traffic, noise, water quality, biological resources, drainage and water quality, air quality, hazards, geology/soils, and cultural resources. Through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations as well as the mitigating policies and actions evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.11(a) (Physically Divide Community) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project proposes development on a privately-owned, vacant parcel. The site is surrounded by an existing road to the south, Lowe’s to the north, the Cotati Cottages residential development to the northwest, a vacant parcel to the west (recently approved for mixed use development), and other residential and commercial development to the east and south. The Project would introduce new residences, commercial space, and site access/circulation in a manner anticipated by the General Plan and consistent with the site’s zoning. As such, the Project would not physically divide a community.

Additionally, the project’s internal circulation is designed to connect to the approved development 360 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 96 of 158 CEQA Analysis
west of the site (Cotati Villages 1). Finally, the Project includes the installation of a multi-use pathway along the project site frontage to SR-116, which would connect to other planned and existing pathways. Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the less than significant impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts related to physical division of an established community that were not identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.11(b) (Conflict with Land Use) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and allowable density per State Density Bonus Law and the allowable FAR for the site. Through the environmental review process and design review process, the Project is found to be consistent with the General Plan policies and zoning code standards applicable to the proposed development. Implementation of the Project would be subject to compliance with conditions of approval imposed on the Project as a standard part of the entitlements process to ensure compliance and implementation of General Plan policies, regulations, and development standards, from the subsequent permitting and construction process. Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the less than significant impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts that were not identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
There are no applicable 2013 General Plan EIR mitigation measures related to Land Use.

Conclusion
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan. As conditioned through the review process, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with the City’s zoning code and would not physically divide a community. As conditioned, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the less than significant impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts that were not identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. No Conditions of Approval are required beyond compliance with uniformly applied development standards and applicable local and state regulations.
361 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 97 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The California Department of Conservation Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§ 2710), also known as SMARA, provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that permits the continued mining of minerals, as well as the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. The 2013 EIR did not identify any known significant mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state within the city.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.12(a-b) (Mineral Resources) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The site does not contain known significant mineral resources of value.9 As such, the Project will not impact mineral resources and the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
There are no applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures to this Project.

Conclusion
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to land use and planning relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR.
9 California DOC, Division of Mne Reclamation. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html Accessed: December 5, 2024. 362 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 98 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.13. NOISE
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; City of Cotati Municipal Code; and Redwood Row Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on December 20, 2024. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR identifies the City’s existing noise and vibration sources and levels, standards of measurement and thresholds, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The 2013 General Plan EIR concludes that, with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts to ambient noise levels in the City due to traffic noise sources as well as cumulative stationary noise sources and increased traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable.

The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Noise in Chapter 3.10 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.10-1: General Plan implementation has the potential increase ambient noise levels due to traffic noise sources. While implementation of the Policies N 1.1 – N 1.3, N1.6 – N 1.14 and Actions N 1a – N 1g of the General Plan will reduce noise and land use compatibility impacts from vehicular traffic noise sources and would ensure that new development is designed to include noise-attenuating features, some traffic noise impacts cannot be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level due the proximity of sensitive receivers to major roadways, and because 363 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 99 of 158 CEQA Analysis
noise attenuation may not be feasible in all circumstances. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan could potentially result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
• Impact 3.10-2: General Plan implementation has the potential increase ambient noise levels due to railroad noise sources. This is considered a less than significant impact. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies N 1.1 – N 1.3, N 1.8, N 1.11, and Actions N 1a – N 1c, and 1g, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.10-3: General Plan implementation has the potential increase ambient noise levels due to stationary noise sources. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies N 1.1, N 1.2, N 1.3, N 1.4, N 1.5, N 1.7, N 1.8, N 1.9, N 1.11, N 1.13, and Actions N 1a – N 1c, and 1g, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.10-4: General Plan implementation has the potential increase ambient noise levels due to construction noise sources. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies N 1.5, N 1.12, and Actions N 1c, N 1d, N 1e, and N 1h, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.10-5: General Plan implementation has the potential to cause increased perceptible groundborne vibration levels during construction. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies N 1.5, N 1.12, N 1.15, and Actions N 1c and N 1h, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.10-7: Under cumulative conditions, the General Plan would accommodate development that would result in increased traffic noise and an increase in stationary noise sources. The General Plan includes mitigating Policies N 1.1- N 1.14, and Actions N 1a – N1h that are intended to reduce noise associated with both stationary sources and traffic. While these policies will reduce noise impacts, some traffic noise impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level due the proximity of sensitive receivers to major roadways, and because noise attenuation may not be feasible in all circumstances. As a result, this is a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
• The City of Cotati adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on March 24, 2015, including for the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for Noise (Impact 3.10-1 and 3.10-7). The City findings determined that subsequent development under the General Plan would result in an increase in noise. While consistency with policies and actions would help reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to noise levels, it may not be feasible to mitigate the impact to less than significant levels in all instances, particularly where existing development is located near proposed development. Additionally, some traffic noise impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels due to proximity of sensitive receptors to major roadways and noise attenuation may not be feasible in all circumstances. The City findings determined that despite the significant and unavoidable impact to noise, no other 364 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 100 of 158 CEQA Analysis
project alternative would meet the City’s objective to realize the development potential of undeveloped lands for residential, office, and commercial uses necessary for housing opportunity and job growth.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.13(a) (Increase in Ambient Noise) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan FEIR The existing noise environment at the site consists primarily of noise from vehicular traffic on SR116 and Highway 101 contributing to background sound levels. Other sources of noise include equipment noise from neighboring commercial and the occasional aircraft associated with Charles M. Shulz Sonoma County Airport. The General Plan provides that “specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.” The City of Cotati Municipal Code Section

17.30.050 further states that the maximum allowable noise levels for residential outdoor and interior spaces are 65 dBA Ldn and 45 dBA Ldn, respectively.

A Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix H). A noise monitoring survey was conducted October 16-18, 2024, with measurements at three long-term and two-short-term locations.

Long-term One noise measurement (LT-1) used a location at the southeastern boundary of the project site, approximately 210 feet north of the centerline of SR-116 and 155 feet west of the centerline of Redwood Drive. Hourly average noise levels at LT-1 typically ranged from 51 to 62 dBA Leq during the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and from 45 to 61 dBA Leq at night (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.).

Long-term Two noise measurement (LT-2) measured noise levels along the southern boundary of the project site, approximately 30 feet north of the centerline of Highway 116. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 67 to 75 dBA Leq during the day and from 59 to 71 dBA Leq at night.

Long-Term Three noise measurement (LT-3) was made near the northeastern boundary, approximately 30 feet from the property line shared with Lowes. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 46 to 59 dBA Leq during the day and from 43 to 59 dBA Leq at night.

Short-term (ST) noise measurements were made over 10-minute measurement periods, concurrent with the long-term noise data on October 16, 2024, between 10:40 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. They were located near the center of the site (ST-1) and along the eastern boundary of the site (ST-2). The background ambient noise levels at (ST-1) ranged from 48 to 50 dBA and the 10- minute average noise level was 56 dBA Leq. The background ambient noise levels at ST-2 ranged from 46 to 48 dBA and the 10-minute average noise level was 50 dBA Leq.

Noise levels at outdoor use areas that are affected by transportation noise are required to be maintained at or below 65 dBA Ldn to be considered normally acceptable for multi-family residential land uses, according to the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the Cal Green Code standards specify an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources not to exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq) of 50 dBA in occupied areas of nonresidential uses during any hour of operation.
365 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 101 of 158 CEQA Analysis
As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Assessment, and established by General Plan Policy N1.7, a substantial permanent noise increase would occur if the noise level increase resulting from the Project is 1.5 dBA where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, 3 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn, and 5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn as established by the Cotati General Plan.

Noise & Future Residents
The future noise environment at the project site would continue to result primarily from vehicular traffic along nearby U.S. Highway 101 and SR-116. Additionally, mechanical equipment noise from the surrounding commercial uses would continue to contribute to the ambient noise environment at the project site. To estimate the future permanent noise level increase, a 1% to 2% traffic increase per year through 2045 was estimated. The noise level increase by the year 2045 was calculated to be 2 dBA Ldn. This increase was applied throughout the project site to represent worst-case conditions.

The site plan shows a community pool and deck near the center of the site; a children’s play area and community park with a social seating area east of the pool area; and a public park at the rear of the site along the western boundary. The centers of each of the outdoor use areas would range from 190 to 435 feet from the centerline of SR-116 and would receive some shielding from the buildings introduced by the project. These intervening buildings would offer shielding from the noise and with such shielding future exterior noise levels would be below 65 dBA Ldn at each of the outdoor use areas.

Residential interior noise levels are required to meet the performance standard of 45 dBA Ldn.

The Cal Green Code standards specify an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources not to exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq) of 50 dBA in occupied areas of nonresidential uses during any hour of operation. The two buildings that front SR-116 have ground-level commercial uses that face the roadway and residential units on the upper levels.

With setbacks of 60 feet from the centerline of SR-116, these units would be exposed to future exterior noise levels of 73 dBA Ldn. Assuming windows to be partially open, future interior noise levels in the residential units would be up to 58 dBA Ldn. The apartment building would also have direct line-of-site to SR-116 with setbacks from 80-210 feet from the centerline of SR-116. Some units in the apartment building would be exposed to future exterior noise levels ranging from 66 to 72 dBA Ldn. Assuming windows to be partially open, future interior noise levels in these units would range from 51 to 57 dBA Ldn. All other buildings on the site would be adequately shielded and exposed to future noise levels at or below 60 dBA Ldn and assuming windows to be partially open, future interior noise levels would be at or below 45 dBA Ldn. To ensure the project complies with the uniformly applied standards of the California Building Code, COA NOI-1 has been established, which requires that interior noise level to be at or below 45 dBA.

Temporary Construction Noise
Project construction is expected to be completed over approximately 18 months, with construction work occurring Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Construction phases would include site preparation, excavation/grading, trenching/foundation, building exterior, architectural coating, and paving. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary 366 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 102 of 158 CEQA Analysis
within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. The typical range of maximum instantaneous noise levels for the proposed project would be 70 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment. Table

5.9 shows the typical ranges of construction noise at 50 ft.

Table 5.9: Typical Ranges of Leq Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, dBA Construction Stage Domestic Housing Public Works Roads & Highways, Sewers, and Trenches

I II I II
Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84
Evacuation 88 75 88 78
Foundations 81 81 88 88
Erection 81 65 79 78
Finishing 88 72 84 84
I – All pertinent equipment present at site, II – Minimum required equipment present at site.

Source: Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc, December 20, 2024 Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously at the receiving property lines of the noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the site.

Table 5.10 Estimated Construction Noise by Activity
Phase of
Construction
Total Number
of Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction Noise
Level at 50 ft. dBA Leq
Site Preparation
10 Rubber-Tired Dozer (3)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
(4)a
82 Grading/
Excavation
30 Excavator (2)
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
(2) a
Scraper (2)
84 Trenching/Found
ation 30 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)aExcavator (1)a 82
Building –
Exterior
300
Crane (1)
Forklift (3)
Generator Set (1) a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (3)a
Welder (1)
82 Building – Interior 20 Air Compressor (1)a 74
Paving
20 Paver (2)a
Paving Equipment (2)a
Roller (2)
83 367 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 103 of 158 CEQA Analysis
a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase.

Construction noise levels would intermittently range from 74 to 84 dBA Leq when activities occur 50 feet from nearby receptors. While construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s 85 dBA Leq threshold at the surrounding commercial uses, construction noise levels would potentially exceed the exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the residential uses adjoining the site by up to 4 dBA when activities would occur within 50 feet of the receptors. In accordance with General Plan Action N1h, COA NOI-2 has been established which requires project construction to incorporate Construction Best Management Practices to reduce the impacts of noise. With the implementation of COA NOI-2, the project will not have new noise impacts from construction.

Operational Noise
According to the Noise Analysis provided by Illingworth and Rodkin and Policy N 1.7 of the City’s General Plan, a significant impact would occur if the stationary or non-transportation noise sources generated by the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this Noise Element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dBA.

For transportation sources, a significant impact would occur if the permanent noise level increase due to project-generated traffic was 5 dBA Ldn or greater where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses; was 3 dBA Ldn or greater where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses; or was 1.5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses.

The Project would add 86 peak AM hour trips and 116 peak PM hour trips to existing traffic volumes. Compared to the existing volumes along SR-116 (1250 during the peak hour), these peak hour trips would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase (0 dBA Ldn increase). The project’s trips are also not anticipated to result in a significant increase in noise along other roadways, as the project’s trips are minimal and would disperse beyond SR-116, the primary point of project access.

The site plan shows a transformer located on the ground level in the northeast corner of Building B. Transformers up to 1,000 kVA typically generate noise levels up to 64 dB, as measured at 1 meter (about 3 feet). Assuming the transformer runs continuously during daytime and nighttime hours, the day-night average noise level would be 70 dBA Ldn at a distance of about 3 feet. Due to the location of the transformer, all surrounding receptors to the north and east would be well shielded from transformer noise. The future residences to the west and commercial uses to the south would be mostly shielded, as well. These receptors would be 250 feet or more from the transformer, and the unattenuated hourly average noise levels would be at or below 26 dBA Leq, which would be below existing ambient noise levels. Over a 24-hour period, the day-night average noise level would be at or below 32 dBA Ldn. When added to the existing ambient noise environment, transformer noise would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase (i.e., 0 dBA Ldn increase).

The occupation and use of the project would generate noise typical of residential developments and commercial tenant spaces. Noises such as voices of residents, home maintenance activities, and barking dogs are typical of residential uses. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) 368 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 104 of 158 CEQA Analysis
and other mechanical equipment associated with the development would contribute to the noise environment.

Typical noise levels produced by residential HVAC units would range from 53 to 63 dBA at 3 feet during operation. These types of units typically cycle on and off continuously during daytime and nighttime hours. Assuming up to four units operate simultaneously at any given time in the same general area of the roof, the estimated hourly average noise level at 3 feet would be 69 dBA Leq, and the day-night average noise level would be 75 dBA Ldn, assuming this worst hour level operates over a 24-hour period. The site plan also shows parapet walls about 3.5 feet high surrounding the rooftop units. For all surrounding receptors, located at the ground level or elevated above the ground by up to three stories, a minimum attenuation of 11 dBA would be provided by the elevation of the units above the ground and the parapet wall. This attenuation would apply to all receptors, future and existing. With attenuation, rooftop equipment (HVAC) would range from 28-40 dBA. Ldn. Therefore, mechanical equipment noise levels would not exceed the existing ambient average hourly average noise levels during daytime or nighttime hours and would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase.

The operational noise levels produced by the proposed project combined (i.e., traffic, mechanical equipment) would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase at existing noisesensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

As conditioned, the Project will not substantially increase the severity of the significance of impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.13(b) (Groundborne Vibration) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project would not result in long-term and excessive groundborne vibration and groundborne noise once operational. The City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR determined that construction activities from buildout of the General Plan could result in periods of significant ambient noise levels and groundborne vibration. As outlined below, General Plan action items relevant to the proposed Project include Actions N 1c and N 1h. Action N 1requires an acoustical study for all new discretionary projects and Action N 1h contains suggested “best practices” for control of construction noise. In compliance with these action items identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR, a Noise and Vibration Analysis was prepared for the Project (Appendix H).

Construction activities would include site preparation work such as grading and the installation of utilities, foundation work, and new building framing and may generate groundborne vibrations.

Construction techniques that generate the highest vibration levels, such as impact or vibratory pile driving, are not expected. Policy N 1.15 of the City’s General Plan limits construction vibration levels to 0.08 in/sec PPV for sensitive historical structures and to 0.3 in/sec PPV for normal conventional buildings to limit cosmetic damage. According to the Noise Analysis provided by Illingworth and Rodkin, each piece of construction equipment has a different level of vibration and in order to meet the 0.3 in/sec PPV, a minimum distance of anywhere from less than one foot to 19 feet would be needed. All buildings (existing and approved) would be 40 feet or more from the nearest project site boundary and most large vibration-inducing equipment would be 10 feet or more from the property lines. Therefore, vibration levels would be less than 0.1 inch/second PPV at all surrounding off-site buildings and the project would not substantially increase the severity of the significance of impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 369 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 105 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.13I (Airfield Noise) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact to airfield noise relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy N 1.2: Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards indicated in General Plan Table N-1 (EIR Table 3.10-9) to ensure acceptable noise levels at existing and future uses.

Policy N 1.3: Require development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt.

Policy N 1.8: Ensure that new development does not expose indoor sleeping areas to indoor noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Ldn.

Status: The Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Project (Appendix H) determined that with incorporation of sound attenuation measures as imposed by COA NOI-1, the Project can be constructed to meet noise level standards. As conditioned this Project complies with these policies.

Action N 1c: Require an acoustical study for all new discretionary projects, including development and transportation, with potential noise impacts. The study shall include mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with this Noise Element and relevant noise standards in the Land Use Code.

Status: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc prepared a Noise and Vibration Assessment for the proposed Project (Appendix H) on December 20. 2024. The study addressed the existing and future noise environment with respect to the requirements of the City of Cotati General Plan and Cotati Municipal Code and proposed noise attenuation measures, which are imposed as Conditions of Approval. As such, the Project complies with this action.

Action N 1h: During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby residents and require mitigation measures in addition to the standard “best practice” controls. Suggested “best practices” for control of construction noise:
• Construction period shall be less than twelve months. • Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays (if allowed through specific project conditions of approval). No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays. 370 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 106 of 158 CEQA Analysis
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The required construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Status: Construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to result in temporary noise and vibration levels that would impact adjacent homes periodically over the course of the construction period and COA NOI-2 is required for consistency with this policy which includes the standard noise attenuation conditions including conformance with Chapter 17.30.050 of the Municipal Code, which establishes allowable hours of operation for construction activities. As conditioned, there would be no additional construction-related noise and vibration impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2013 General Plan EIR and the Project is consistent with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and as conditioned complies with the 2013 General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to noise relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

NOI-1: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final design plans and an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer demonstrating that the design incorporates adequate controls to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower within residential units. The acoustical engineer shall verify that appropriate building construction techniques required to meet the interior noise standard, which may include sound-rated windows 371 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 107 of 158 CEQA Analysis
and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, and acoustical caulking are installed in a manner that achieves 45 dBA Ldn.

NOI-2: The Project shall implement best management practices to minimize construction-related noise impacts as set forth in Action N1h of the General Plan, as listed below, and shall meet all applicable noise standards as set forth in Section 17.30.050 of the Cotati Municipal Code:

1. Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays.

2. All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

3. The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

4. At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.

5. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

6. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

7. Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

8. The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

9. The contractor shall construct a solid plywood fence along the western and northwestern property lines to shield the adjoining future (if applicable) and existing residential receptors from construction work. A temporary 8-foot-tall noise barrier would be tall enough to block direct line-of-sight with ground-level receptors and reduce noise levels generated by large earthwork equipment by a minimum of 4 dBA. 372 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 108 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; and City of Cotati Housing Element Update 2023-2031 certified on June 2, 2023.
2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Population and Housing in Chapter 3.9 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.9--‐5: General Plan implementation has the potential to induce substantial population growth. Through implementation of General Plan policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and limit land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan, population and housing growth associated with the proposed General Plan would result a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.9--‐6: General Plan implementation does not have the potential to displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. The General Plan could result in development that would remove residences, but the development allowed under the General Plan would result in an increase in the total number of residences and provide housing opportunities for persons that may be displaced as a result of development. This provision of replacement “housing opportunities” is essentially a self-mitigating aspect and implementation of the General Plan and would have a less than significant.

The City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR determined that the 2030 General Plan would accommodate approximately 2,140 new residential units within the City Limits and the Sphere of Influence through 2035. This new growth would increase the Planning Area’s population by approximately 5,243 residents. The population in Cotati in 2013 was estimated at 7,310 in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The proposed General Plan is intended to accommodate the City’s fair 373 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 109 of 158 CEQA Analysis
share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds but did not specify any mitigating policies.

Additionally, the 2013 General Plan EIR determined that while the proposed General Plan may result in development that would remove residences, development allowed under the General Plan would result in an increase in the total number of residences and provide housing opportunities for persons that may be displaced as a result of development. This provision of replacement “housing opportunities” was found to be self-mitigating aspect as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan and impacts from population and housing were found to be less than significant.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.14(a) (Induced Substantial Growth) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The City of Cotati has an existing population of approximately 7,584 residents10 which is only slightly more than the population in 2010 (7,2650 and the City has not reached the growth planned in the 2013 General Plan (an additional 5,243 residents). The Project would result in the construction of 178 rental units. The estimated population increase would be approximately 484 persons,11 which is within the planned growth in the 2013 General Plan EIR.

The Project site is located within City limits and would connect to the existing water and sewer lines, as well as other existing and planned service connection. As such, the Project site is served by existing services and infrastructure and will not require the extension or construction of new utilities to provide adequate service. There are no other elements of the Project that would induce growth at levels beyond what has been anticipated by the City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR. The project will not substantially increase the severity of the significance of impacts due to induced growth nor would it result in new significant impacts relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.14(b) (Displacement) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project site is located within the City limits and contains no existing residences. As such, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of people or existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, Project impacts related to the displacement of housing or people would not exceed those analyzed in the City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR and the Project will not substantially increase the severity of the significance of impacts nor would it result in new significant impacts relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
There are no applicable 2013 General Plan EIR mitigation measures related to Population and Housing.
10 City of Cotati, Housing Element 2023-2031, certified on November 18, 2022. 11 Based on the City’s Housing Element 2023-2031 estimate of 2.72 persons per household in Cotati. 374 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 110 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to population and housing relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. No Conditions of Approval are required beyond compliance with uniformly applied development standards and applicable local and state regulations. 375 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 111 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; and Memorandum from Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District prepared on October 29, 2024. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Public Services in Chapter 3.11 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.11-1: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in adverse physical impacts associated with governmental facilities and the provision of public services.

Through the implementation of mitigating policies CSF 1.1 – CSF 1.3, CSF 2.28 – CSF 2.36, CSF 4.7, CSF 4.8, OS 2.1 – OS 2.6, LU 3.12, LU 3.14, LU 3.15, and LU 4.1 and mitigating actions CSF 1a, CSF 1b, CSF 2o – CSF 2s, CSF 4d, CSF 4e, OS 2a – OS 2c, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.11-2: Implementation of the General Plan has the potential to result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities or the construction of new parks and recreation facilities. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan policies OS 2.1 – OS 2.6 and mitigating actions OS 2a – OS 2c, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. 376 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 112 of 158 CEQA Analysis
The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that development accommodated under the 2013 General Plan would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, including new residential, industrial, office, and commercial uses and accommodate approximately 1,541 new residential dwelling units. The new growth was expected to increase the City’s population by approximately 3,775 residents while development within the City limits and the Sphere of Influence of influence could add 2,140 new residential units or 5,243 new residents. This would result in increased demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and governmental services. The 2013 General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that public services are provided at acceptable levels and to ensure that development and growth does not outpace the provision of public services. The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of the mitigating policies CSF 1.1 – CSF 1.3, CSF 2.28 – CSF 2.36, CSF 4.7, CSF 4.8, OS 2.1 – OS 2.6, LU 3.12, LU 3.14, LU 3.15, and LU 4.1 and mitigating actions CSF 1a, CSF 1b, CSF 2o – CSF 2s, CSF 4d, CSF 4e, OS 2a, OS 2b, and OS 2c would result in a less than significant impact.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.15(a) (Fire) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project site is served by the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District (RAFD). The RAFD was formed in 1993 through the combining of two smaller districts, the Cotati Fire Protection District and the Penngrove Fire Protection District. The RAFD provides services to the Penngrove, Cotati, and unincorporated areas of Petaluma. RAFD covers an emergency response area of roughly 86 square miles and serves approximately 28,000 people. Service is provided by three stations located at 1 East Cotati Avenue; 11000 Main Street in Penngrove, and 99 Liberty Road in Petaluma. Currently, there are 13 full-time Firefighters, Engineers and Captains; three Battalion Chiefs; 24 part-time Firefighters; one part-time Fire Chief; and one Administrative Manager.12 The RAFD has automatic aid agreements with neighboring districts, including the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the City of Rohnert Park. CAL FIRE provides automatic aid for emergency incidents in the west portions of the District and to State Responsibility Area fires. CAL FIRE provides fire response to anywhere in the District at the District’s request. Under the automatic aid agreement between RAFD and the City of Rohnert Park, the City of Rohnert Park responds to structure fires, water-flow alarm-sounding, vegetation fires, and vehicle collision calls in the RAFD service area, including locations in Cotati.

The Project proposes to install new water mains onsite that will be sized according to City standards that would connect to existing water main on SR-116. The system is required to comply with the standards of the California Fire Code (CFC) as referenced in the City of Cotati Municipal Code Section

14.04.110. The Project proposes new fire hydrants on site, the final number and location of which would be subject to review and approval by RAFD. Project plans have been reviewed by the RAFD and as noted in the Memo prepared on October 29, 2024, a final review and approval is contingent on the implementation of conditions required for compliance with uniform standards in the California Fire Code.
12 Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District Website, https://www.rafd.org/about-rancho-adobe-fire-protection-district accessed on December 30, 2024.
377 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 113 of 158 CEQA Analysis
As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant will be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, including fire suppression facilities impact fees. These funds will be sufficient to offset any cumulative increase in demands for fire protection services. Through the implementation of uniformly applied standards, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.15(b,d,e) (Police, Parks, Other) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth in the area, either directly or indirectly.

However, the increase in residents will incrementally increase the demand for public services including police and parks. New demands on police services and recreational facilities have been anticipated as part of the General Plan buildout. As a standard condition of Project approval, the applicant will be required to pay all development impact fees applicable to a mixed-use development project, including recreation facilities impact fees. These funds will be sufficient to offset any increase in demand for public services. As such, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.15(c) (Schools) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The proposed Project involves the construction of 178 dwelling units, which could increase student enrollment within the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD). The CRPUSD includes eight elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. The 2022-2023 total enrollment within the CRPUSD was 6,067 students. The CRPUSD has a capacity to serve approximately 7,444 students;13 therefore, the school district can accommodate up to 1,377 more students.

The City of Cotati levies School Impact Fees on new development as allowed by Senate Bill 50 (SB 50).

It is outlined in California Government Code Section 65996 that development fees authorized by SB 50 are considered, “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” While the Project may introduce new students, the payment of requisite school impact fees will offset any potential impacts related to school facilities. Fees will be leveraged as student enrollment reaches capacity to expand facilities as necessary. As such, the CRPUSD has the capacity to serve the increase in student enrollment from the proposed Project and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Action CSF 2q: As part of the development review process, consult with the Police Department in order to ensure that the project design facilitates adequate police response time and public safety and that the project addresses its impacts on police services.

Status: In accordance with City processing procedures, the application was routed to the Police Department for input. The Police Department reviewed the site plans and found them adequate for police protection purposes. As a Tentative Map Condition of Approval, the Community Development Department requires the applicant to annex into the Community Facilities District, which covers the 13 Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, Facilities Plan Presentation prepared by Quattrocchi Kwok Architects on August 20, 2024 https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=36030608&AID=874303&MID=31064 378 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 114 of 158 CEQA Analysis
cost of public facilities and services including police services. Through the implementation of the Tentative Map Condition of Approval, the Project complies with Action CSF 2q and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Conclusion
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to public services relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. No Conditions of Approval are required beyond compliance with uniformly applied development standards and applicable local and state regulations.
379 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 115 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.16. RECREATION
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015. California State Parks Community FactFinder Report pulled from State of California Department of Parks and Recreation website on December 30, 2024.
2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Recreation in Chapter 3.11 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.11-2: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities or the construction of new parks and recreation facilities. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies OS 2.1 – OS 2.6 and Actions OS 2a – OS 2c, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a caseby-case basis with new residential development.

Chapter 17.76.030 of the Cotati Municipal Code provides for the dedication of land and/or the payment of fees to the City for park and recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative map, as authorized by the Quimby Act. As a standard condition of tentative map approval, 380 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 116 of 158 CEQA Analysis
applicants are required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee at the discretion of the City Council for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. The Municipal Code requires that one acre of property for every 200 persons residing within the City be devoted to neighborhood and community park and recreational purposes.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.16(a-b) (Deterioration of Recreational Facilities, Additional Recreation Facilities) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
Cotati contains a total of 15 parks. One of these parks, Helen Putnam Park (8.3 acres), is located approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the Project site. Additionally, Sonoma County Regional Park District (EBRPD) manages approximately 15,500 acres of open space and preserves providing regional amenities to Cotati residents.

The Project is subject to Municipal Code 17.76.030 Park land dedications and fees which implements the Quimby Act. Using the formula in 17.76.030(C)(2), the applicant would be required to provide

2.1 acres of parkland. two new public parks onsite that will add approximately 47,210 square feet (1.08 acres) of improved parkland. This does not meet the total parkland required by Cotati Municipal Code 17.76.030(C)(2). Therefore, COA REC-1 requires the applicant to provide the remaining balance of parkland or pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section

17.76.030(D).

As conditioned, the Project will not cause substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of recreational facilities and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Action OS-2a: Update the Municipal Code to establish minimum parks and open space standards for new development. At a minimum, the standards shall seek to maintain one acre of park land per 200 residents. Additional measures may include requirements to establish assessment or tax districts to fund park maintenance, open space requirements, and provisions for in-lieu fees in instances where it is not feasible or appropriate for new development to provide park land on-site.

Status: The Project will result in an estimated 484 new residents. The site is located in an area where there is a ratio of 0.65 acres parkland per 1,000 residents. The Project proposes two new public parks onsite that will add approximately 47,210 square feet (1.08 acres) of improved parkland. COA REC-1 requires that the applicant dedicate additional parkland or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee in compliance with Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.76.030. As conditioned this Project complies with Action OS-2a and will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to recreation relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and 381 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 117 of 158 CEQA Analysis
there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental condition of approval is required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

REC-1: The applicant shall provide the remaining balance of parkland in compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C) or pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(D) and as approved by the Planning Director. 382 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 118 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.17. TRANSPORTATION
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA, prepared by the California Office of Planning and Research, December 2018; Cotati Active Transportation Plan, prepared by Sonoma County Transportation Authority for the City of Cotati, adopted May14, 2024; Guidelines for Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled, adopted by City of Cotati September 22, 2020; Memorandum from Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District prepared on October 29, 2024; and Traffic Impact Study for the Redwood Row Project, prepared by W-Trans, April 4, 2025.
2013 General Plan EIR Summary
The City of Cotati 2013 General Plan EIR identifies the City’s circulation network, including the roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit service, park and ride lots, rail service, and truck routes. The 2013 General Plan EIR concludes that, with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts to traffic operations in the City due to funding uncertainty, traffic operations on SR-116, and traffic operations on US 101 freeway facilities would be significant and unavoidable. The following impacts to transportation and circulation were considered under the 2013 General Plan EIR:
• Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in acceptable traffic operation at the study intersections and roadway segments controlled by the City of Cotati, though the ability to fully fund all identified improvements is uncertain. Implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.1, CI 1.2, CI 1.3, CI 1.5, CI 1.7, CI 1.20, CI 3.2, CI 3.3, CI 3.4, and Actions CI 1a, CI 1b, CI 1e- CI 1g, CI 1o- CI 1r, and CI 3b are not sufficient to reduce the impacts and implementation of the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
383 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 119 of 158 CEQA Analysis
• Impact 3.12-2: General Plan buildout as well as regional growth would require improvements on Gravenstein Highway, a Caltrans facility. Because the City does not control the funding or timing of these improvements, the City cannot determine that the improvements will be made in time to accommodate regional and local growth. Implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.1, CI 1.2, CI 1.3, CI 1.5, CI 1.7, CI 1.20, CI 3.2, CI 3.3, CI 3.4, CI 4.1, CI 4.3, - CI 4.7 and Actions CI 1a, CI 1b, CI 1e- CI 1g, CI 1o- CI 1r, CI 3b, and CU 4a would not sufficiently mitigate the lack of a regional fee program, or other Identified source of funding. As such, implementation of the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact and no further mitigation is available.
• Impact 3.12-3: General Plan implementation would contribute to unacceptable operation on US 101 freeway facilities. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, County of Sonoma, City of Cotati, and SCTA recognize that US 101 will experience congestion into the foreseeable future, and that there will be no further major capacity enhancements such as expansions or new freeways. Implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CI 3.2 – CI 3.4, CI 4.1, CI

4.4, CI 4.6, CI 4.7, LU 2.5, LU 2.10, LU 3.8, and Actions CI 3b and CI 4a would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels and implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Impact 3.12-4: The proposed General Plan would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program. As of the writing of the 2013 General Plan EIR, there was no congestion management program for Sonoma County or the City of Cotati. As such, implementation of the General Plan would have no impact.
• Impact 3.12-5: The proposed General Plan would not result in a change in air traffic patterns.

The City has no existing or planned airport facilities and is not located near any airports, approach, or departure zones. As such, the General Plan would have no impact. • Impact 3.12-6: Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Development and infrastructure projects in Cotati would be required to comply with the General Plan, Land Use Code, and applicable state and local regulations. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.8, CI 1.9, CI 1.18, and CI 1.24 and Actions CI 1j, CI 1l, CI 1m, CI 1r, and CI 2f, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.12-7: Emergency Access. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.10, CI 1.14, CI 1.16 and Actions CI 1r, implementation of the General Plan would not impede emergency access and would result in a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.12-8: The proposed General Plan would accommodate increased demand for public transit and supports a shift in trips from automobile to transit modes. Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.6, CI 2.14 – CI 2.22, and CI 3.2 and Actions CI 2i – CI 2k, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.
• Impact 3.12-9: The proposed General Plan is consistent with adopted bicycle and pedestrian plans and supports enhancements that emphasize bicycle and pedestrian circulation. 384 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 120 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Through the implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CI 1.2, CI 1.6, CI 1.9, CI

1.11, CI 1.12, CI 1.17, CI 1.19, CI 1.20, CI 1.21, CI 2.1-CI 2.13, CI 2.23, and CI 2.24, and Actions CI 1a, CI 1m, CI 1n, CI 1p – CI 1r, CI 2a – CI 2d, CI 2f – CI 2h, and CI 2l – CI 2o, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • The City of Cotati adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on March 24, 2015, including for the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for Transportation and Circulation (Impacts 3.12-1, 3.12-2, and 3.12-3). The City findings determined that despite the significant and unavoidable impact to transportation and circulation, no other project alternative would meet the City’s objective to realize the development potential of undeveloped lands for residential, office, and commercial uses necessary for housing opportunity and job growth.

Level of Service to Vehicle Miles Traveled (SB 743)
Level of service (LOS) has historically been used as a standard measure of evaluating transportation impacts. Pursuant to SB 743, as of July 1, 2020, lead agencies are required to evaluate transportation impacts of a project using a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric, which focuses on balancing the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through increased active transportation facilitated by closer proximity to alternative travel modes and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

In December 2018, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which provides recommendations for evaluating a project’s transportation impact using a VMT metric, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. Pursuant to Government Code Section 15064.3(b), lead agencies have discretion to select the most appropriate methodology for evaluating a project’s VMT impacts.

On September 22, 2020, the City of Cotati adopted VMT guidelines for analysis of vehicle miles traveled. The guidelines identify criteria, situations, and thresholds to determine VMT impacts and their significance. The VMT guidelines identified that the City of Cotati maintained a residential VMT per capita of 19.42. Based on data from the February 2022 update of the SCTA model, the City of Cotati has a baseline average residential VMT of 18.3 miles per capita. Applying the City guidelines, a residential project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 15.5 miles per capita or less, would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The SCTA model includes traffic analysis zones (TAZ) covering geographic areas throughout Sonoma County that are used to determine the baseline VMT. Projects which are within a half mile of an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor are determined not to have significant VMT impacts.

It should be noted that LOS is still used by the City for purposes of determining consistency with the General Plan but is no longer used for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, impact significance is based upon VMT. Consistency with General Plan goals and policies related to transportation, including adopted LOS policies, will be considered by the decision-makers as part of the project review process.

Public Transit
385 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 121 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Bus service in Cotati is provided by Sonoma County Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and Paratransit.

Sonoma County Transit is the primary transit provider in Cotati; it provides regularly-scheduled fixedroute service to major activity centers and transit hubs within the City limits. Golden Gate Transit Routes 74, 80, and 101 serve Cotati with stops located at either the Hub or the St. Josephs Park and Ride. Paratransit, also known as dial-a-ride or door-to-door service, is available for those that are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability.

The project site is located along Sonoma County Transit Bus Route 26 which provides service between Sebastopol, Cotati, and Rohnert Park with a stop at the Cotati SMART Station. An unimproved bus stop is located about 100 feet southeast of the Project site near the intersection of SR-116 and Redwood Ave. for westbound passengers. An unimproved bus stop serving eastbound passengers is located across SR-116.

Rail Service
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) offers passenger rail service in Sonoma and Marin counties.

SMART’s initial 43 miles of rail corridor includes 10 stations, from the Sonoma County Airport to Downtown San Rafael, and includes a station in Cotati. The full project will provide 70 miles of passenger rail service and a bicycle-pedestrian pathway.

Rail freight operation on the SMART rail corridor is overseen by the North Coast Railroad Authority.

Freight service currently operates between Lombard (located in Napa County where the North Coast Railroad Authority interfaces with the national rail system) and Petaluma. Several round-trip freight trains per week are expected to pass through Cotati as freight service expands.

The Cotati SMART station is located approximately 1.7 miles from the site.

Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
This Cotati Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was developed as a component of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority‘s (SCTA’s) 2024 Countywide Active Transportation Master Plan and was adopted by the City Council on May 14, 2024. While part of the Master Plan, the City of Cotati’s ATP is also a stand-alone document to be used by the City of Cotati to guide implementation of local projects and programs and document city policy. It is also designed to be a component of the SCTA Countywide Active Transportation Master Plan to improve coordination in realizing the countywide bicycle and pedestrian system.

The purposes of the SCTA Countywide Active Transportation Master Plan are to:
• Assess the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout Sonoma County in order to identify a set of local and countywide improvements and implementation strategies that will encourage more people to walk and bicycle;
• Identify local and countywide systems of physical and programmatic improvements to support bicycling and walking;
• Provide local agencies that adopt the Plan with eligibility for various funding programs, including the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) which is now part of the State’s Active Transportation Program;
• Act as a resource and coordinating document for local actions and regional projects; and 386 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 122 of 158 CEQA Analysis
• Foster cooperation between entities for planning purposes and to create Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and a database of existing and proposed facilities countywide.

City of Cotati Local Roadway Safety Plan (2021)
The City Council of Cotati adopted the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) on December 14, 2021. The plan serves as a framework to systematically identify and analyze transportation safety issues, collaborate with partner agencies and stakeholder, and develop a multidisciplinary toolbox of traffic safety countermeasures. It is also a blueprint for addressing traffic safety issues throughout the County across the 4 E's of traffic safety disciplines; Engineering, Education, Enforcement, & Emergency Services. The LRSP is divided into 3 core parts. The first is an assessment of historical collision trends and patterns. The second is identification of systemic Citywide collision patterns, not at any specific location, with a framework and toolbox for countering those collision patterns. The third is identification of the highest location specific collision patterns, with recommended countermeasures to reduce collisions. The City of Cotati adopted the updated LRSP on December 14, 2021.

Vision Zero Action Plan (2022)
Developed in collaboration with the City of Cotati, the Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan outlines practical, evidence-based steps to build a future for Sonoma County where roads are free of fatal and life-altering crashes. Vision Zero is a traffic safety philosophy that lays out a new set of principles for engineering roads, educating travelers, and creating a sense of collective responsibility.

The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and Sonoma County Department of Health Services (OHS) convened the Vision Zero Advisory Committee (VZAC) and set a target goal of zero traffic deaths and severe injuries on roadways within the County by 2030. The Vision Zero plan builds on the efforts of local jurisdictions, including the City of Cotati LRSP, and other agencies and identifies the additional strategies and resources required to meet Sonoma County's Vision Zero goal. It represents a commitment to specific Vision Zero actions that are organized into six high-level goals:

Create Safe Speeds, Eliminate Impaired Driving, Create a Culture of Safety, Build Safe Streets for All, Make Vehicles Safer and Reduce Private Vehicle Use, and Improve Data for Effective Decision Making.

The City of Cotati adopted the Vision Zero Plan in February 2023, and will incorporate program, maintenance, and infrastructure improvement actions to address identify challenges along the City’s High Injury Network (HIN).

Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Moving Forward 2050, Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), is a 25-year plan that serves as the vision for transportation throughout Sonoma County, with goals for the transportation system and the well-being of the communities. Moving Forward 2050 establishes five goals: Deliver a seamless network that allows people to use a variety of transportation types easily, affordably and dependably; Provide safe and well-maintained transportation infrastructure; Implement place-based transportation projects, tailored to urban, suburban, and rural communities that will improve local mobility; Provide zero-emission transportation opportunities that meet diverse community needs, improve health and enhance quality of life.

Projects identified in Moving Forward 2050 relative to Cotati include: updating the US 101 and Railroad Avenue Interchange; widening and rehabilitation of SR-116 between US 101 and Stony Point Road and the addition of signalized intersections, new bike lanes, and new sidewalk to improve the vehicle LOS, 387 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 123 of 158 CEQA Analysis
improve the safety of SR-116 for all modes of transportation, and create safe new corridors for pedestrian and bicyclists; Bicycle and pedestrian upgrades (citywide); constructing sidewalks along west Cotati Avenue to close gaps; US 101/SR-116 north bound on-ramp improvements; Multimodal streetscape improvements joining all four legs of La Plaza Street around La Plaza Park; widening Old Redwood Highway for safer bike lanes, sidewalks, and center island medians; US 101/West Sierra Avenue south bound off-ramp improvements; and local street pavement rehabilitation from La Plaza to Gravenstein Highway.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.17(a) (Conflicts with Plans, Policies, Ordinances) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan FEIR
The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed by W-Trans on April 4, 2025. The study analyzes 178 multi-family housing units and 10,032 square feet of commercial space.

The proposed Project includes the creation of an internal network of roads and driveways that will be accessed from two connections with SR-116. One new entrance matches the proposed new alignment of West Cotati Avenue and SR-116, which is planned to be a signalized intersection at full buildout and is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 1.19 which requires effective linkages to the surrounding circulation system. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) is proposed from SR-116 at the southeastern corner of the site.

Parking
The Project incorporates 400 parking spaces including 268 garaged spaces to serve the townhomes, 34 guest parking spaces, 57 to serve the apartment building, and 41 spaces for the commercial space.

Using the standards in the City’s Land Use Code Section 17.36.050 Number of Parking Spaces Required, the project would be required to provide 201 spaces or the townhouses, 56 spaces for the apartment building, 44 guest spaces, and 41 commercial spaces. However, through the application of State Density Bonus Law, the project is only required to provide 41 commercial spaces, 201 spaces for the townhouse units, 56 spaces for the apartment units, and no guest units are required. Through application of State Density Bonus Law the project is in compliance with the required number of parking spaces.

Level of Service
General Plan Circulation Element Policy CI 1.3 calls for a minimum level of service (LOS) standard of LOS D at intersections. The TIS analyzed traffic operations along the project frontages on and Alder Avenue, as well as the intersections of SR-116 at Alder Avenue, West Cotati Avenue, and a proposed future north-south street to be constructed west of Locust Avenue to determine the level of service under the existing conditions, existing conditions plus project conditions, baseline (existing plus approved projects), baseline plus project, future, and future plus project conditions at weekday morning peak hour and weekday afternoon peak hour. The analysis found that the Project would result in the generation of an average of 1,558 trips per day including 85 a.m. peak hour trips and 116 p.m. peak hour trips. The results of the LOS analysis are summarized in Table 5.11, Table 5.12, and Table 5.13 below.

Table 5.11: Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 388 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 124 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Existing Existing + Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. SR-116/W. Cotati Ave.

Northbound Approach

0.5 A 0.9 A 0.5 A 0.9 A

18.1 C 17.7 C 18.4 C 18.2 C
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics.

Source: Transportation Impact Study, prepared by W-Trans, February, 6, 2025 Table 5.12 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Baseline Baseline + Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
SR-116/W Cotati Ave
Northbound Approach

0.5 A 0.9 A 0.5 A 0.9 A

19.3 C 18.7 C 19.6 C 19.3 C
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics, shaded cells indicated conditions with recommended improvements (as conditioned)
Source: Transportation Impact Study, prepared by W-Trans, April 4, 2025 Table 5.13 Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Future Future + Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

2. SR-116/W Cotati Ave 12.0 B 33.7 C 16.1 B 36.9 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Source: Transportation Impact Study, prepared by W-Trans, April 4, 2025 The study intersections would be able to continue operating within the LOS D standard which is consistent with Policy C1.3, when considering trips from the Project, existing traffic, other pending and approved projects, and anticipated future volumes.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The Project proposes the construction of a Class I Multiuse Path serving bicyclists and pedestrians.

The facility provides a pedestrian and bicycle circulation extension from the existing sidewalks and bike lane on Alder Avenue. The Cotati Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan indicates that the portion of SR-116 in front of the Project site was planned for a Class II Bike Plan, and the Project proposal for a Class I facility is an improvement that provides physical separation from vehicular traffic.

The Project provides bicycle parking to meet minimum municipal code requirements. As required by Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.36.070, a ratio of one space per ten motor vehicle spaces is required for new development. This would require 33 bicycle parking spaces for the project. The Project plans 389 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 125 of 158 CEQA Analysis
indicate that one bicycle parking space is provided for each townhome (located within the garage).

However, this would not provide bicycle parking for the public park, apartment building, or the commercial spaces. In order to ensure that adequate bicycle parking is provided for all uses on site, final project plans, as conditioned under COA TRA-1, would be required to provide bicycle parking spaces for the apartment building (6 spaces), public park (4 spaces), and the commercial development (4 spaces) that meet minimum requirements of Section 17.36.070.

Transit
Bus stops are located within an acceptable walking distance of the Project site which is served by Sonoma County Transit Routes 10, 26, and 48 and Golden Gate Transit Route 101 NB/SB. Route 26 stops at the intersection of Hwy 116 and Redwood Drive making one trip in each direction per weekday. Routes 10, 48, and 101 NB/SB stop at Old Redwood Highway and St. Joseph way which is approximately 0.6 miles from the Project site. The project would not be expected to negatively impact transit operations and existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips. The addition of the Class I path along SR-116 will connect to adjacent pedestrian facilities, providing connectivity to bus stops in the area.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided comments upon review of the project referral. Caltrans comments stated that any improvements on SR-116 would need to comply with Caltrans Standards in the Highway Design Manual. Therefore, COA TRA-2 requires the applicant to secure an encroachment permit during which the final public improvement plans will be reviewed and approved by Caltrans.

As further discussed and conditioned in this section, the Project does not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, as conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.17(b) (Conflict with 15064.3(b) VMT) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Traffic Impact Study (Appendix I) for the Project analyzed the estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that would be generated by the Project. The City uses a VMT threshold of fifteen percent (15%) below the existing baseline city residential VMT per capita. Based on the Sonoma County Transportation Authority model, the baseline average residential VMT for Cotati is 18.3 miles per capita and 15 percent below this value provides a significance threshold of 15.6 miles per capita. The Project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 425, which has a baseline VMT per capita of 20.2 miles.

For the Project to be below the significance threshold of 15.6 per capita, VMT would need to be 22.8 percent lower than the average for the TAZ. As analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study, the Project proposes high density residential development, which is associated with lower VMT per capita compared to conventional single-family development and has a project-specific rate of 15.3 vehicle miles traveled per capita. Therefore, the project would be 24.3 percent lower than the average VMT for the TAZ and would be less than significant.

City VMT guidelines indicate a retail project resulting in a net increase in regional total VMT is considered to have a significant VMT impact. The Project would contain approximately 10,032 square feet of commercial space. While this is 32 square feet (0.3 percent) higher than the City’s small screening threshold for local-serving retail projects, based on the location of the site, it is expected that these retail uses would be local-serving and would therefore not generate new regional trips, as 390 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 126 of 158 CEQA Analysis
they would primarily cater to residents of Cotati as well as pass-by traffic from US 101 and SR-116.

Since the proposed retail uses would be local-serving, it is assumed that they would not result in an increase in total VMT and are therefore be screened from a further VMT analysis.

The proposed Project would not exceed thresholds and would have a less than significant impact on VMT. Therefore, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.17I(c,d) (Geometric Design Feature Hazard, Emergency Access) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The Project will not result in inadequate emergency access or introduce geometric design hazards.

The site is located just west of the intersection of Redwood Drive and SR-116. The Project site’s primary access would be from SR-116 via two new access driveways. A separate access to the project site via SR-116 is proposed for emergency vehicle access (EVA) only. The access driveways, EVA, and frontage improvements would be built to City standards. The site layout has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District (RAFD), which provides fire protection services to the City, for evaluation of preliminary design with regards to design standards and adequate emergency access. The standard review process of approval which is required by the RAFD includes uniformly applied requirements for emergency access.

Sight distances at locations where the Project would create connections to SR-116 were evaluated in the Transportation Impact Study and found to be adequate. From the proposed northern segment of W. Cotati Avenue, the proposed intersection of W. Cotati/SR-116 has a minimum corner sight distance of 495 feet based on its 45-mph speed limit. The eastern driveway to the project at SR-116 has a minimum sight distance of 360 feet. Site distances in each direction are 550 feet and would be adequate provided that site lines are kept clear of obstructions within the sight triangle. To ensure minimum sight lines are kept free of obstructions, COA TRA-3 has been imposed.

Further, the project was evaluated to determine whether a left-turn lane was warranted on SR-116 at the Project access points. Prior to the realignment of the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue intersection, the primary access point for eastbound vehicles on SR-116 would be at the eastern project driveway where a left-turn pocket is to be provided. Once the intersection is reconstructed, vehicles heading eastbound on SR-116 would enter the site from a dedicated turn lane at the signalized intersection of W. Cotati Ave and SR-116. Upon completion of the W. Cotati realignment, a center median will prevent left-turn lanes into the project from the eastern driveway which will only accommodate right-turn in and right-turn out travel. However, in the event that the proposed Redwood Row project will be completed and operational prior to construction of the W. Cotati Realignment, COA TRA-4 requires the installation of a dedicated left-turn lane with a minimum of 50 feet of storage.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CI 1.3: Establish a minimum motor vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standard of LOS D at intersections. The following shall be taken into consideration in applying LOS standards: (see General Plan Page 2-5 for full list of considerations)
391 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 127 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Status: The proposed Project would not result in any intersections falling below the required minimum standard of LOS D and is consistent with this policy.

Policy CI 1.18: Intersections shall be designed to provide adequate and safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities.

Status: The proposed Project will include the development of a Class I Multiuse Path that would serve pedestrians and bicyclists and connect to the existing sidewalk to the east of the site and the planned pathway to the west of the site. As conditioned by COA TRA-3, the Project will maintain clear sight lines and is consistent with this policy because it will help ensure pedestrian safety at project intersections. Additionally, COA TRA-4 requires a dedicated left-turn lane to comply with Highway Design Standards in the interim condition prior to completion of the planned W. Cotati Avenue realignment. As conditioned, the project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CI 1.20: Require new development to contribute its fair share cost of circulation improvements necessary to address cumulative transportation impacts on roadways throughout the City as well as the bicycle and pedestrian network.

Action CI 1e: As part of the development review and planning process, review general plan amendments, zone change requests, specific plans, and development projects to ensure that adequate circulation improvements are included, that the project addresses its proportional share of impacts to the City’s circulation network, and that the project provides for complete streets to the extent feasible.

Action CI 1r: As part of the development review process, ensure that new development facilitates walking, biking, and transit modes; incorporates streets that are designed to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow; constructs or (if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer) contributes funds toward construction of off-site improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts; provides adequate emergency vehicle access; and pays development impact fees that contribute to cumulative circulation improvements.

Status: The Project is subject to payment of City development impact fees as a new development project. Impacts fees, as required by Municipal Code Chapter 4.10 Traffic Impact Fee, contribute fair share costs to circulation improvements for the Project’s proportional share of impacts to the City’s circulation network. The traffic impact fees are calculated and required through the uniformly applied building permit review process. As such, the project is consistent with these policies.

Action CI 1l: Require developers to design local roadways (i.e., streets other than arterials and collectors) for speeds of 25 miles per hour or less.

Status: The construction of streets within the site would be required to comply with the uniformly applied standards in Municipal Code Section 17.26.030 Street and streetscape standards. Section E requires a maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour. Through the application of this standard, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Action CI 1q: As part of the development review process, require new development to mitigate circulation impacts by making improvements to the motorized and non-motorized circulation 392 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 128 of 158 CEQA Analysis
networks as necessary, and in a fair manner with an established nexus between the level of impact and required improvements and/or contributions.

Status: The Project design and COA TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA-3, & TRA-4 provide necessary frontage improvements along SR-116, and internal to the project site to address the potential circulation impacts from the project. As conditioned, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to transportation relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

TRA-1: Final Project plans shall show the location and details of proposed bicycle parking on site based on final vehicular parking space counts and consistent with the requirements of Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.36.070.

TRA-2: Prior to commencing public improvements or construction of frontage improvement and access point along SR-116, the applicant shall secure an encroachment permit from Caltrans and provide a copy of the permit to the Community Development Department.

TRA-3: Final design and landscaping plans shall be submitted and show compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.30.040(c)(2). Final landscaping plans shall include the specific plants that will be placed in the traffic safety visibility area and their maximum projected height which shall be no taller than 36 inches except for trees with their canopy trimmed to a minimum of eight feet above grade.

These standards shall be applied to intersections between the multi-use path and any intersecting streets or driveways.

TRA-4: If Project occupancy occurs prior to the realignment of W. Cotati/SR-116 project, an eastbound left-turn lane on SR-116 with a minimum of 50 feet of storage shall be provided at the eastern project driveway, subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer. 393 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 129 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision I of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in
subdivision I of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Redwood Drive Project in Cotati, prepared by Archaeological Resource Management on October 10, 2024; AB 52 Project Notification dated November 15, 2024; and Cultural Resources Addendum for the Proposed Redwood Row Project prepared by Evans & De Shazo on March 14, 2025.

According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074, tribal cultural resources are defined as follows:
394 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 130 of 158 CEQA Analysis

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1I. In applying the criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1I, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

3. A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of PRC Section 21074(a) to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

4. A historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h), if it conforms with the criteria of PRC Section 21074(a). 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
As stated in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, the 2013 General Plan EIR determined that General Plan implementation could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical or archaeological resource, including tribal cultural resources. Through the implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CON 4.1, CON 4.3 – CON 4.6, and mitigating actions CON 4a – CON 4c, and CON 4f, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Additionally, implementation of the General Plan could result in the disturbance of human remains.

Through the implementation of General Plan Policies CON 4.2 and Action CON 4c and compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.8(a i-ii) (Listed or Eligible for Listing, Significant Tribal Resources) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
In accordance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(d), the City of Cotati provided written formal notification to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) on November 15, 2024, which included a brief description of the proposed Project and its location, the City of Cotati contact information, and a notification that the Tribes have 30 days to request consultation. A written request for consultation, dated December 3, 2024, was received from FIGR; and the City initiated consultation with the Tribe and provided a cultural resources evaluation to the tribe on December 5, 2024. A meeting was requested and scheduled for January 27, 2025. Subsequent correspondence resulted in a request from the Tribe to conduct additional studies of the site.

As requested during consultation with the Federated Tribes of Graton Rancheria, a Historical Human Remains Detection Canine Survey (HHRCD) was completed on March 5, 2025 and a report was prepared by Evans and Deshazo on March 14, 2025. The site was divided into 11 search areas, and each was searched by two or more dogs.
395 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 131 of 158 CEQA Analysis
The HHRCD concluded that intact burials are not likely present; however, fill soil deposits have the potential to contain resources. In order to ensure that no human remains nor potential grave sites are disturbed, COA CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 have been established to require tribal monitoring, postreview archaeological discoveries, and protocol in the event of the discovery of human remains.

Policy CON 4.4: Consistent with State local and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB18, the City shall consult with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Action CON 4a: Work with the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria to prepare a narrative description of the Native American background of the Cotati area and request the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria provide pictorial examples of the types of Native American resources present in the vicinity. Place this description on the City’s website as a link under the History of Cotati section.

Status: In accordance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(d), the City of Cotati provided written formal notification to the tribes on November 15, 2024, which included a brief description of the proposed Project and its location, the City of Cotati contact information, and a notification that the Tribes have 30 days to request consultation. Notified tribal organizations include the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. A written request for consultation, dated December 3, 2024, was received from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria; and the City initiated consultation with the Tribe and provided an archaeological report to the tribe on December 5, 2024. Consultation included a meeting between the City and the Tribe on January 27, 2025 and subsequent correspondence. The Tribe requested that supplemental investigation for potentially buried artifacts be conducted. This included subsurface and canine investigations. Canine investigations were completed on March 5, 2025 and additional conditions were added to protect potential Tribal Cultural Resources on the site. The draft report and conditions were sent to the Tribe for review on March 19, 2025. Follow-up communication was sent to the tribe on April 2, 2025 and on April 9, 2025 and the City notified the tribe that the City considered the tribal consultation satisfied. As such, the Project complies with these policies.

Action CON 4c: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources or human remains
Status: COA CUL-2 and CUL-3 require the implementation of the protocol consistent with Action CON 4c. As such, the Project complies with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources relative to what was 396 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 132 of 158 CEQA Analysis
identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The implementation of COA CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 (see Cultural Resources section) are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policy. 397 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 133 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would The Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; City of Cotati Municipal Code; Sonoma County Water Agency 2020 Urban Water Management Plan prepared by Brown and Caldwell, June 2021; Public Works Draft Conditions of Approval Memo prepared on March 11, 2025; and Redwood Row Water and Wastewater Assessment Report prepared by Carollo on February 13, 2025. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts to Utilities and Service Systems in Chapter 3.13 and determined the following:
• Impact 3.13-1: General Plan implementation has the potential to result in an increased demand for water supplies. However, through implementation of mitigating General Plan 398 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 134 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Policies CSF 1.1-1.6, CSF 2.1- CSF 2.1 and Actions CSF 1a, CSF 1b, CSF 2b- CSF 2g, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.13-2: General Plan implementation would not result in the construction of a new water treatment facility or expansion of existing facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects because the projected 2035 water supplies are adequate to meet demand that would be generated by buildout of the 2013 General Plan. • Impact 3.13-3: General Plan implementation has the potential to exceed wastewater capacity or the requirements of the RWQCB. Upon full buildout of the 2013 General Plan within the City limits, total ADWF is projected to be 0.74 mgd. Within the entire Planning Area, the ADWF would be 0.83 mgd upon full buildout of the General Plan. These ADWF projections exceed the projections used in the 2011 Sewer Collection System Master Plan.

Even with mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 1.1-CSF 1.6 and CSF 2.16 – CSF2.27 and Actions CSF 1a, CSF 1b, CSF 2h-2n, implementation of the General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable impacts. • Impact 3.13-4: General Plan implementation has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Through the implementation of mitigating Policies CSF 2.20, CSF 2.22, and CSF 2.24 implementation of the 2013 General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • Impact 3.13-5: General Plan implementation would be served by a landfill for solid waste disposal needs and will require compliance with various laws and regulations. Through implementation of the mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 3.1-CSF 3.8 and Actions CSF 3aCSF 3e, implementation of the 2013 General Plan would have a less than significant impact. • The City of Cotati adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on March 24, 2015, including for the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for utilities and service systems (Impact 3.13-3). The City findings determined that despite the significant and unavoidable impact to utilities and service systems, no other project alternative would meet the City’s objective to realize the development potential of undeveloped lands for residential, office, and commercial uses necessary for housing opportunity and job growth.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.19(a) (Relocation or Expansion of Utilities) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR As stated in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. However, the increase in residents, which is estimated to be 484 new residents, will incrementally increase the demand for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal.
399 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 135 of 158 CEQA Analysis
The Project site is located within City limits and is currently served by existing utilities and service systems. New service connections will be required to tie into the existing facilities, which are located on SR-116 and the northern corner of the property. A Water and Wastewater Assessment Report was prepared by Carollo on behalf of the City of Cotati and stamped on February 13, 2025 (Appendix J).

The report concludes that the existing 21-inch gravity pipeline in Redwood Drive has sufficient capacity to convey the wastewater flows from the project. The existing water system is deficient in supply, storage, and in relation to low pressures. However, the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses these deficiencies and through the collection of impact, connection, and service fees, the City will implement the upgrades which, when complete, will be sufficient to serve the project. As the project is subject to impact fees that and would not require additional improvements beyond those planned in the 2011 Water Distribution System Master Plan (WDSMP) or the 2017 Sewer Master Plan Update (SMPU), the project would not require the relocation or expansion of infrastructure.

Therefore, the Project will not result in the relocation, construction, or expansion of utilities, and as such will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.19(b) (Sufficient Water Supplies) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The Project would generate water demand consistent with the buildout projections of the General Plan. The City of Cotati receives potable water supplies through a contract with Sonoma Water, the regional wholesale water provider. Water supplies provided by Sonoma Water are sourced principally from the Russian River to eight water contractors, other water transmission system customers, and to the Marin Municipal Water District (Marin Water). Sonoma Water prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (Plan) in 2020 that addresses the water transmission system and includes a description of the water supply sources, historical and projected water use, and a comparison of water supply to water demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.

The Sonoma Water UWMP estimates that 592 acre feet of potable water supplies were provided to the City of Cotati in 2020 and that deliveries to Cotati will increase to 1,215 acre feet per year by 2045.

The Sonoma Water UWMP concludes that that potable water demand for all users, including the City of Cotati, is well within the available supply, during normal water years for cumulative demand through 2045. Sonoma Water has adequate water supplies through the 2045 planning horizon, except for single-dry years, starting after 2025. During single dry years Sonoma Water works with all wholesale customers to reduce water usage in accordance with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan set forth in the UWMP.

The City of Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 13.30 Water Shortage Contingency Plan contains provisions for water conservation during water shortages. Through the implementation of these actions, the City reduces water usage during drought years to ensure sufficient resources to adequately serve all customers in accordance with the requirements of the UWMP.

The City of Cotati is responsible for distributing water to residential consumers and through the WDSM, plans for the supply, storage, and distribution of water to properties located in the service area. The
At the project level, the Water and Wastewater Assessment (Appendix J) anticipated the average daily demand for water generated by the project to be approximately 49,914 gallons per day (gpd). As the existing system is deficient, the project would contribute to the deficiency. However, through the projects planned in the 2011 WDSM and the 2017 SMPU, the system would provide sufficient supply, 400 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 136 of 158 CEQA Analysis
storage, and distribution for the City’s planned growth including the project. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) implements the water and sewer upgrades planned through the WDSM and SMPU. The CIP is funded through impact fees, water connection fees, and service fees. Impact and connection fees paid by the project would support the implementation of planned improvements necessary to serve all City of Cotati customers, including the Project.

Further, the Project is required to incorporate water efficient development standards consistent with all applicable State and Cotati municipal code requirements. The Project is required to adhere to the Water Conservation Ordinance contained in Chapter 13.30 of the City of Cotati Municipal Code.

Additionally, the Project is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 17.34, which requires compliance with standard water efficient landscaping standards. COA UTI-1 requires that final plans showing incorporation of water efficiency requirements be submitted and confirmed prior to building permit issuance. Therefore, the water supplies are sufficient to meet existing water demands of the project and other existing and planned future water users during normal, single, and multiple dry year scenarios.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.19(c) (Wastewater Capacity) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that even with implementation of the policies and action items in the General Plan, an increase in permitted capacity at the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant cannot be guaranteed, and impacts were considered cumulatively considerable, and significant and unavoidable. As part of the development review process, the City Engineer of the City of Cotati reviewed the Project for adequacy and compliance of the Project with the City’s sewer system requirements and compliance with the City of Cotati Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, and Water Distribution System Master Plan.

A Water and Wastewater Assessment was prepared for the Project (Appendix J) that anticipated the average daily wastewater generation to be approximately 39,294 gallons per day (gpd) and peak flow to be 70,347 gpd. The Report determined that the updated sewer model shows that the existing 21- inch gravity pipeline in Redwood Drive has sufficient capacity to convey updated baseline Peak Wastewater Flows as well as the Peak Wastewater Flows from the project.

The City Engineer has reviewed the Project plans and the Water and Wastewater Assessment and determined that the anticipated wastewater generation from the Project can be met by wastewater infrastructure. The final plans are required to be submitted to the City Engineer to confirm wastewater generation of final plans can be met by utilities prior to permit issuance under condition of approval COA UTI-2.

As conditioned, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.

5.19(d-e) (Solid Waste Generation and Compliance with Solid Waste Management) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan implementation would be served by a landfill for solid waste disposal needs and will require compliance with various laws and regulations, and the impact would be considered a less than significant impact. 401 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 137 of 158 CEQA Analysis
During construction, the Project would generate solid waste from concrete and asphalt from the removal of existing improvements and vegetation waste from tree removal. In compliance with the 2016 Cal Green Tier 1 Mandatory Measures, the applicant will be required to recycle or salvage at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste and prepare a Construction Waste Management Plan that documents the diversion of materials as required by CalGreen.14 The Project will be required to comply with Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.39.030.G(5), which requires coordination with refuse pickup providers to determine the adequate size and number of containers required to accommodate all waste streams (landfill, recycling, and composting). Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to solid waste will not result in new or more severe impacts relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR.
2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CSF 1.1: Require all development projects to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the City’s public services and utilities can accommodate the increased demand for services associated with the project.

Status: As part of the development review process, the City Engineer has reviewed the Project, including the Water and Wastewater Assessment. The engineer determined that through the implementation of the 2011 Water Distribution System Master Plan (WDSMP) or the 2017 Sewer Master Plan Update (SMPU) as planned in the Capital Improvement Program and funded through impact fees, connection fees, and service fees required, the City’s facilities will be adequate to serve the Project. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CSF 1.2: Require new development to offset or mitigate impacts to public services and facilities to ensure that service levels for existing users are not degraded or impaired by new development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Status: Through the building permit review process, the Project will be required to pay water and sewer impact fees and connection fees that are intended to cover the maintenance and incremental expansion of facilities as planned to accommodate buildout of the General Plan. Through implementation of the uniformly applied development standards in the Municipal Code, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CSF 1.3: Limit approvals of new development to areas where adequate infrastructure and services are available or will be provided by the development.

Status: The Project site is located within City limits and is currently served by existing utilities and service systems. New service connections will be required that tie into the existing facilities, which are located along Redwood Drive and SR-116. The connection of new services is anticipated by the General Plan and does not require substantial infrastructure improvements or enhancements to adequately serve the Project beyond those already programed in the Capital Improvement Program. As such the Project is consistent with this policy.
14 California Green Building Standards Code (2022), Effective January 2, 2023. 402 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 138 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Policy CSF 1.6: Require development, infrastructure, and long-term planning projects to be consistent with all applicable City plans and programs related to public services and facilities, including but not limited to the Water Master Plan, the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan.

New projects shall assist with the implementation of these plans through the provision of fair-share payments, construction of improvements, or other means identified as appropriate by the City Engineer.

Status: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to pay development impact fees for the incremental increase in demand for public services and facilities, as well as comply with all Public Works/Engineering’s Conditions of Approval. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

Policy CSF 2.2: Prior to the approval of development, infrastructure, Specific Plans, or other projects that would result in increased demand for public water production, conveyance, treatment or storage, project proponents must demonstrate proof of adequate water supply (e.g., that existing services are adequate to accommodate the increased demand, or improvements to the capacity of the system to meet increased demand will be made prior to project implementation) and that potential cumulative impacts to water users and the environment will be addressed.

Action CSF 2a: As part of the development review process, determine the potential impacts of development and infrastructure projects on the water system and ensure that new development contributes its fair share toward necessary water infrastructure and supply. The Planning Department and the City Engineer shall be responsible for ensuring that the assessments are made.

Status: The City Engineer has determined that the Project will adequately connect to and comply with the City’s sewer system requirements and compliance with the City of Cotati Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, and Water Distribution System Master Plan.

Additionally, the City requires that the Project enter into a Public Improvement Agreement (PIA). The City also requires that the site be annexed into the Community Facilities District (CFD) and COA UTI-3 is required. As conditioned, the Project complies with this policy and action.

Policy CSF 3.8: Require new or significantly remodeled residential and all non-residential development to incorporate sufficient, attractive, and convenient interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste.

Status: The Project site plan identifies space in each garage to accommodate three household sized waste bins (trash, recycling, compost). A trash room is proposed on the ground floor at the northeast corner of both Building A and Building B to accommodate waste, recycling, and compost from the commercial units. A trash enclosure is proposed for the northeast corner of the parking lot that would serve the apartment building. COA UTI-3 requires the submission and approval of final plans that demonstrate enclosed waste, recycling, and compost storage are sufficient and appropriately located.

As conditioned, the Project design is consistent with this policy.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval:

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to utilities relative to what was identified in the 2013 403 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 139 of 158 CEQA Analysis
General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The following environmental conditions of approval are required to implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies and actions:

UTI-1: The applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for plantings at the time of the Improvement Plan submittal package. All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the City Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all plantings and irrigation systems in the approved final landscaping plan shall be completed.

UTI-2: The final Project plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval to confirm water demand and wastewater generation can be met by utilities prior to permit issuance.

UTI-3: The applicant shall execute a City standard Public Improvement Agreement to address the proposed public improvements. The agreement shall address design, construction, dedication of and City acceptance of the public improvements. The agreement shall include an engineer’s cost estimate for the public improvements, security for the completion of these improvements, an initial deposit and execution of the City’s deposit account agreement for City inspection of the construction of the public improvements. The agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The agreement shall also address the ownership, maintenance, lighting, parking, and access and shall be recorded against the lands of the project.
404 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 140 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones June 15, 2023; Local Responsibility Area Recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zones February 24, 2025 ; and Memorandum from Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District prepared on October 29, 2024. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
The 2013 General Plan EIR addressed impacts related to wildfire hazards in Chapter 3.7 – Hazards.

The following impact related to wildfires was considered under the 2013 General Plan EIR:
• Impact 3.7-6: The General Plan does not have the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Through the 405 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 141 of 158 CEQA Analysis
implementation of mitigating General Plan Policies CSF 2.28-CSG 2.32, CSF 2.36, and SA 1.1 - SA 1.7 and Actions CSF 2o, CSF 2p, CSF SA 1a, and SA 1d, implementation of the 2013 General Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigating policies and actions provided in the General Plan are included in the 2013 General Plan EIR to ensure public facilities are able to respond to wildfire emergencies, effective coordination between fire districts, and maintenance of emergency response facilities and infrastructure. Individual projects are directed to be reviewed by the City and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District for code compliance. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) has identified the site as being located outside of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

In October 2017, the Tubbs Fire (Central LNU Complex) burned approximately 36,807 acres in Sonoma County. Residents were exposed to direct effects of the wildfire, such as the loss of structures, and to the secondary effects of the wildfire, such as smoke and air pollution. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals) and gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides). Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduced visibility.

SONOMA COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
On September 28, 2021, the Cotati City Council adopted the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMGP) to guide pre- and post-disaster mitigation of identified hazards. The plan includes actions to mitigate current risk from hazards and changes in hazard impacts resulting from climate change, including wildfires. The plan includes Best Management Practices to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard. These practices include what are called “personal scale” alternatives such as:
• Clear overgrown underbrush and diseased trees;
• Create and maintain defensible space around structures; • Regular mowing/landscape maintenance;
• Use of fire-resistant building materials;
• Employ techniques from the Firewise USA Program; and
• Installing or replacing roofing with non-combustible materials.

Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
In June 2023, the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was incorporated by reference into the Sonoma County Annex of the Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Part of this plan includes the Sonoma County Wildfire Risk Index (WRI). Published on November 17, 2022, the WRI predicts relative wildfire risk. The Wildfire Risk Analysis divides the county's landmass into 100-acre hexagons which are assigned a risk level. While each hexagon is assigned an overall risk level, conditions may vary significantly within the shape. It is entirely possible that areas of relatively low risk could exist within a polygon whose overall risk is high. The purpose of the CWPP and WRI is to inform planning to improve wildfire resiliency.

Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.20(a-d) (Impair Emergency Plans, Exacerbate Wildfire Risks, Infrastructure Contribution to Risks, Exposure to Wildfire-Related Risks) – No Change Relative to the General Plan EIR 406 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 142 of 158 CEQA Analysis
The Project is consistent with the allowable uses under the land use designations in the General Plan.

As such, the Project would not conflict with an emergency plan in that the General Plan accounts for the impacts of the planned development under the 2013 General Plan EIR. The Project site is not located in the VHFHSZ as provided by CalFire and is not within a watercourse or significant slope that may become unstable following a wildfire.

Additionally, the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the RAFD who implements the fire resiliency requirements in the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The project has undergone initial review by RAFD and initial plans have been determined to be adequate with standard conditions applied to all projects. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an emergency plan, interfere with emergency access, or otherwise exacerbate wildfire risk.

Through the application of uniformly applied standards in the building and fire codes, the Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact relative to the 2013 General Plan EIR. 2013 General Plan EIR Mitigating Policies and Actions
Policy CSF 2.30: Design and maintain City streets in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

Status: The final Project plans will be reviewed by RAFD for review and approval. Construction plans will be routed to the District for confirmation that final design meets emergency access requirements.

Through the implementation of uniformly applied development standards, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Action CSF 2o: Continue to enforce the California Building Code and the California Fire Code to ensure that all construction implements fire-safe techniques, including fire resistant materials, where required.

Status: The final building plans will undergo review for compliance with the uniform standards of the California Building Code and the California Fire Code by the City of Cotati Building Department and RAFD during the building permit review process. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Action CSF 2p: As part of the development review process for new projects, the City will continue to refer applications to the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District for determination of the project’s potential impacts on fire protection services. Requirements will be added as Conditions of Approval to project’s approving resolutions.

Status: The application for the Project has been referred to the RAFD for initial review and conditioned accordingly. Furthermore, the Project will be subject to final review and approval by the RAFD prior to issuance of a building permit.

Conclusion and Environmental Conditions of Approval
The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and through the application of uniformly applied standards would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts to wildfire relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. No Conditions of Approval 407 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 143 of 158 CEQA Analysis
are required beyond compliance with uniformly applied development standards and applicable local and state regulations.
408 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 144 of 158 CEQA Analysis

5.21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
New
Significant
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
More
Severe
Impact
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No
Substantial
Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
No Change
Relative to
General
Plan EIR
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources: Cotati General Plan and 2013 General Plan EIR adopted and certified on March 24, 2015; and Public Works Draft Conditions of Approval Memo prepared on March 11, 2025. 2013 General Plan EIR Findings
Under the requirements of CEQA, an EIR is required to discuss cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute. A cumulative impact is defined as an impact resulting from the combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities. The 2013 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gasses and Climate Change, Hazards, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Population, Agriculture, Public Services, and Recreation. 409 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 145 of 158 CEQA Analysis
The 2013 General Plan EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan would result in the following Cumulative impacts:
• Impact 3.10--‐7: Cumulative Noise Impacts (Significant and Unavoidable) • Impact 3.13--‐3: Potential to exceed wastewater treatment capacity or the requirements of the RWQCB (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable) • Impact 4.1: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable) • Impact 4.11: Cumulative Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Noise in Excess of Normally Acceptable Noise Levels or to Substantial Increases in Noise (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
• Impact 4.13: Cumulative Impact on the Transportation Network (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
• Impact 4.14: Cumulative Impact on Utilities (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
• Impact 4.15: Irreversible Effects (Significant and Unavoidable) Project Consistency with the 2013 General Plan EIR

5.21(a-c) (Threaten to eliminate a biological resource or cultural resource, cumulatively considerable, substantial adverse effects) – No Substantial Change Relative to the General Plan EIR
The proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial and Zoning designation of Commercial, Gravenstein Corridor (CG). The Project Conditions of Approval ensure that the Project complies with the policies and actions of the 2013 General Plan.

Additionally, and as noted throughout this document, the Project shall comply with the federal, state, and local regulations including the uniformly applied standards of the City of Cotati Municipal Code.

Additionally, there are three other approved projects in the vicinity, Cotati Village 1, Cotati Village 2, and the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue Realignment. While these projects are on different timelines, it is possible that construction activities may overlap. In order to prevent cumulative effects from multiple projects, COA MF-1 will be required of the project applicant to coordinate with the City on any concurrent construction activities and reduce any possible lane closures, haul trips, and minimize dust and noise as much as feasible.

The Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan and is conditioned such that it would not result in any substantial new or more severe impacts relative to what was identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there are no circumstances peculiar to the Project site and there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2013 General Plan EIR. The environmental conditions of approval that implement the 2013 General Plan EIR mitigating policies are listed in section 7 including the following:

MF-1: The applicant shall coordinate the project’s construction activities and construction schedule with the City to coordinate the concurrent construction of projects immediately adjacent to the project 410 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 146 of 158 CEQA Analysis
site and ensure that overlapping lane closures, periods of increased noise and dust generation are minimized to the extent practicable.
411 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 147 of 158 CEQA Analysis

6. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The following reference documents are hereby incorporated by reference and are available for review during normal business hours at Cotati City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue in Cotati, CA.

6.1. TECHNICAL APPENDICES
A. Redwood Row Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment from Illingworth and Rodkin on December 20, 2024.

B. Biological Resources Analysis for Redwood Row Project prepared by Monk and Associates on September 24, 2024.

C. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Redwood Drive Project prepared by Archaeological Resource Management on October 10, 2024. – NO PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION D. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Quantum Geotechnical Inc on May 6, 2022.

E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. on February 22, 2022.

F. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study for Redwood Row prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. in November of 2023 and revised in October of 2024.

G. Stormwater Control Plan for Redwood Row prepared by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. on September 27, 2024.

H. Redwood Row Project Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on December 20, 2024.

I. Transportation Impact Study for the Cotati Village Project prepared by W-Trans on April 4, 2025.

J. Redwood Row Water and Wastewater Assessment Report prepared by Carollo on February 13, 2025.

6.2. OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

1. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), Effective January 1, 2023.

2. Archaeological Study for the Gravenstein Highway (SR-116)/West Cotati Avenue Realignment Project, Evans & De Shazo, September 28, 2023.

3. BAAQMD 2022 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2022.

4. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2022.

5. BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, prepared by the BAAQMD, May 2011.

6. California Code, Government Code Section 66477.

7. California Code, Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1). 412 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 148 of 158 CEQA Analysis

8. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Scenic Highway System Lists, Cal Trans. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-livi-scenic-highways, accessed December 15, 2023.

9. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website accessed on December 26, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/

10. City of Cotati Municipal Code. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati

11. Climate Action 2020 and Beyond: Sonoma County Regional Climate Action Plan, prepared by Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, July 2016.

12. Cotati Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, prepared by Sonoma County Transportation Authority for the City of Cotati, adopted December 2008, updated April 22, 2014.

13. Cotati Villages Project 15183 Consistency Analysis, prepared by M-Group and approved by the Cotati City Council on February 27, 2024. (SCH: 2024030070)

14. Cotati Villages 2 Project 15183 Consistency Analysis, prepared by M-Group and approved by the Cotati City Council on August 27, 2024. (SCH: 2024081410)

15. EnviroStor, managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessed September 2023.

16. GeoTracker, managed by the State Water Resources Control Board, accessed September 2023.

17. Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin prepared by Sonoma Water, December 2021.

18. Guidelines for Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled, adopted by City of Cotati September 22, 2020.

19. Highway 116/West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project 15183 Consistency Analysis, prepared by M-Group and approved by the Cotati City Council on September 10, 2025. (SCH# 2024090793)

20. Local Responsibility Area Fire Severity Zone Map, Office of the State Fire Marshal, November 2007.

21. MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, December 5, 2024.

22. National Flood Hazard Layer. FEMA. September 2023. https://www.fema.gov/floodmaps/national-flood-hazard-layer

23. Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016.

24. Public Works Draft Conditions of Approval Memo prepared on March 11, 2025.

25. Redwood Row Project – Permit PA #22-07 Memorandum from Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District prepared on October 29, 2024.
413 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 149 of 158 CEQA Analysis

26. Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on Issuance of Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on the Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California, prepared by USFWS, 2020.

27. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, prepared by USFWS, 2005.

28. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Map, prepared by USFWS, 2007.

29. Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021, prepared by Tetra Tech Consultants for Permit Sonoma, October 2021.

30. Sonoma County Permit Sonoma GIS, Williamson Act Contracts, Sonoma County, 2019.

31. Sonoma County Water Agency 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Brown and Caldwell, June 2021.

32. State Responsibility Area Fire Severity Zone Map, Office of the State Fire Marshal, June 15, 2023.

33. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA, prepared by the California Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.

34. USGS Land Cover Classification System.
414 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 150 of 158 CEQA Analysis

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions of approval have been identified through this analysis and ensure implementation of applicable mitigation measures and policies set forth in the 2013 General Plan EIR.

AES-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final lighting plan and the City shall verify that the final lighting plan complies with applicable requirements set forth in Section

17.30.060 of the Cotati Municipal Code, in accordance with General Plan Action OS1f to minimize offsite and night sky impacts of outdoor lighting.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

8. Unpaved roads providing access to or on the site located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the construction project, a qualified biologist shall establish a temporary protective buffer around the nest(s). The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting 415 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 151 of 158 CEQA Analysis
birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing or orange lath staking.

BIO-2: To ensure there are no direct impacts to American badger, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction den survey no more than 14 days prior to site grading. If a potential den is located, infrared camera stations will be set up and maintained for three (3) consecutive nights at the potential den openings prior to initiation of grading/work activities to determine the status of the potential dens. If American badger is not found to be using the den, the burrow (den) will be filled, and site grading may proceed in the vicinity of this burrow(s) unhindered.

CUL-1: Full-time archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted for all Project-related ground-disturbing activities within 200 feet of the canine alert locations and the area where the current mound of imported soil is located.
416 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 152 of 158 CEQA Analysis
• Prior to the start of the Project, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring Plan (ATMP) in consultation with FIGR. The ATMP should provide a provision for a pre-construction Cultural Resources Awareness Training (CRAT) and details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be found within the Project Area, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered, including proper notification to Tribes, agencies, and stakeholders; and an assessment of the significance of any archaeological resources encountered during construction.
• The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the finding is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until the Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist in consultation with FIGR, determines that full time monitoring can be reduced to spot check monitoring or that monitoring is no longer warranted. A report shall also be prepared to document findings after the ground disturbance is complete.

CUL-2: If a precontact or historic period archaeological resource is encountered by equipment operators during Project-related ground-disturbing activities and an archaeologist is not present, that work be halted within 100 feet of the discovery area until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the resource. • If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or as a unique archaeological resource. • If the resource is determined to be eligible for the CRHR or is a unique archaeological resource, adverse impacts shall be mitigated.
• If the resource is a Native American resource, the assessment, evaluation, and treatment recommendations shall be made in consultation with FIGR. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures, laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials, preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials, and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.
• Any report produced as a result of a discovery shall be submitted to the City of Cotati and the NWIC/CHRIS upon completion of the resource assessment. Precontact period archaeological resources commonly encountered in the area may include obsidian (shiny, black, glass-like stone) and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, charcoal, ash, artifacts, animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and features such as hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal remains. Historic period archaeological resources include 417 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 153 of 158 CEQA Analysis
backfilled privies, wells, and refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal glass, and ceramic refuse.

GEO-1: The Project shall implement recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Quantum Geotechnical Inc. on May 6, 2022 (Appendix D).

All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design, construction documents and improvement plans, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official.

The Project’s geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, 418 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 154 of 158 CEQA Analysis
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical analyses.

GHG-1: The Project shall comply with CalGreen Tier 2 Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure requirements.

HAZ-1: Prior to commencing work within Caltrans Right of Way, the Applicant shall prepare a Lead Compliance Plan and a Soil Management Plan in compliance with current Caltrans guidelines, and a worker Health and Safety Plan for review and acceptance by the City of Cotati. The plans shall be implemented during frontage improvements on SR-116 and shall address:
• Sampling and analysis of soils prior to earth-moving work • transportation and disposal of any contaminated soil in compliance with state and federal law
• worker health and safety during the handling of potentially hazardous soils HYD-1: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Prevention and Pollution Plan (SWPPP) and erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices for construction activities as well as accounting for any BMPs required for operational activities. The SWPPP shall incorporate the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Submitted plans shall also demonstrate compliance with City of Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 13.68 Storm Water Ordinance and Chapter 14.36 Erosion and Sediment Control.

NOI-1: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final design plans and an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer demonstrating that the design incorporates adequate controls to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower within residential units. The acoustical engineer shall verify that appropriate building construction techniques required to meet the interior noise standard, which may include sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, and acoustical caulking are installed in a manner that achieves 45 dBA Ldn.

10. Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays.

11. All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

12. The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

13. At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.

14. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

15. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

16. Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

17. The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

18. The contractor shall construct a solid plywood fence along the western and northwestern property lines to shield the adjoining future (if applicable) and existing residential receptors from construction work. A temporary 8-foot-tall noise barrier would be tall enough to block direct line-of-sight with ground-level receptors and reduce noise levels generated by large earthwork equipment by a minimum of 4 dBA.

REC-1: The applicant shall provide the remaining balance of parkland in compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C) or pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section

17.76.030(D) and as approved by the Planning Director.

TRA-3: Final design and landscaping plans shall be submitted and show compliance with Municipal 420 of 539
City of Cotati
Redwood Row Project Page 156 of 158 CEQA Analysis
Code Section 17.30.040(c)(2). Final landscaping plans shall include the specific plants that will be placed in the traffic safety visibility area and their maximum projected height which shall be no taller than 36 inches except for trees with their canopy trimmed to a minimum of eight feet above grade.

These standards shall be applied to intersections between the multi-use path and any intersecting streets or driveways.

UTI-2: The final Project plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval to confirm water demand and wastewater generation can be met by utilities prior to permit issuance.

MF-1: The applicant shall coordinate the project’s construction activities and construction schedule with the City to coordinate the concurrent construction of projects immediately adjacent to the project site and ensure that overlapping lane closures, periods of increased noise and dust generation are minimized to the extent practicable.
421 of 539
April 30, 2025
RE: Project Endorsement - Redwood Row
Generation Housing is proud to endorse the Redwood Row project proposed by City Ventures at the intersection of Highway 116 and Redwood Drive in Cotati. This thoughtfully designed, mixed-income development reflects the values of sustainable growth, affordability, and community connection that are central to our mission.

Redwood Row will deliver 134 for-sale townhomes, 33 optional attached ADUs, and 44 deed-restricted affordable rental units, serving very low, low, and moderate-income households. The project also includes a new public park, three new bike path connections, and over 10,000 square feet of commercial space, features that enhance walkability, support small businesses, and contribute to community well-being.

The project earned Generation Housing’s highest level of support based on our endorsement criteria, reflecting:
➢ A mix of affordability levels and housing types, including deed-restricted rentals and for-sale homes
➢ All-electric, solar-powered design with CalGreen Tier 1 standards, EV charging infrastructure, low-carbon concrete, and energy-efficient appliances ➢ Infill location within a Priority Development Area and identified Housing Element site
➢ New public park and three bike path connections, including one that supports Cotati’s Highway 116 corridor improvements
➢ Walkable access to multiple bus stops, nearby retail, a full-service grocery store, and proximity to regional job centers
Redwood Row demonstrates how local infill development can help meet housing needs while enhancing community connectivity, sustainability, and quality of life. We encourage community leaders, agencies, and residents to support this important project.

In partnership,
Omar Lopez
Senior Program Associate
422 of 539
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, PARKLAND

DEDICATION, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 178-UNIT MULTIFAMILY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON A 10.62-ACRE

PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF REDWOOD DRIVE AND STATE ROUTE (SR) 116 AND FINDING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT

WITH THE COTATI GENERAL PLAN AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
(PA# 22-07 / APNS 046-286-017, -018, -019, AND -020)
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 implementation and developed measures and policies to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2022, the City received from City Ventures (“Applicant”) an application for Design Review and a Tentative Map, and a Preliminary Application (in conformance with SB 330) to allow construction of a 170-unit multifamily mixed-use development and vest their rights to have the application reviewed under the City regulations and development fees in place on the date the SB 330 Preliminary Application was accepted by the City; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the City Council adopted an addendum to the City of Cotati General Plan EIR (“Addendum”) and approved the City of Cotati 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (“Housing Element”); and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2024, the Applicant submitted a new SB330 Preliminary Application for approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space, 134 townhome-styled condominiums with up to 33 optional ADUs, and 44 apartment rental units (“Project”) to replace the previous SB330 application that had expired due to a period of inactivity exceeding six months, and as part of the Project would construct and maintain new public parks consistent with Chapter 17.76 of the Cotati Municipal Code (“CMC”); and WHEREAS, the Project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus Law, which allows for increased density, reduced parking ratios, and concessions and waivers from certain City development standards, by right, when particular amounts of affordable housing units are included in the Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2025, the City hosted a noticed neighborhood meeting to gather feedback on the proposed Project; and
423 of 539
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider public testimony on the proposed Project, received the staff report and reviewed presentations from the Planning Division and Applicant, and considered all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the Project prior to taking action, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend City Council approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, Public Notices of the May 13, 2025, City Council hearing for consideration of this Project were sent to all neighboring property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site, and all parties having requested notice, and a hearing notice was posted on the project site and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City in accordance with law; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider public testimony on the proposed Project, received the staff report and reviewed a presentation from the Planning Division, and considered all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the item prior to taking its action on the item; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Cotati General Plan and all applicable, objective City standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Project will not have an specific, adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Cotati; and WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings ("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), adopted on March 24, 2015; (4) the City of Cotati 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and its related Addendum to the City of Cotati General Plan EIR, adopted by the City Council on March 28, 2023; (5) all staff reports, city files, records, and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City Council related to the Project; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at the public hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period on the Project; and (7) 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 above recitals are true and correct and constitute a part of the findings in support of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati does hereby, based on substantial evidence and in view of the whole Record, recommend that the findings to approve the Project can be made for the following reasons:

Design Review Findings (CMC Chapter 17.62)

1. Complies with Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.62.040 (Design Review); 424 of 539

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff Response - The proposed Project, as conditioned, complies with the General Plan and provisions of CMC Section 17.62.040 (Design Review). The Project application provides the required information to approve Preliminary Design Review and is conditioned to provide the necessary materials to evaluate and approve Final Design Review.

As proposed, and conditioned, the Project addresses and conforms with the City’s General Plan and Land Use Code provisions for site planning and design, building architecture, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicle access and circulation, energy and resource conservation, and the use of utilities, except where concessions or waivers from City development standards are granted pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (i.e., consolidated inclusionary units, reduced commercial floor area, reduced woonerf standards, increased building height, placement of structures in the setbacks, and accessibility requirements for multifamily projects).

The architectural design for the Project’s buildings incorporates contemporary craftsman style elements. The buildings would feature gabled roofs with corbels and kickers, overhanging roof eaves, divided light windows, and 4-inch wood trim around windows and doors, consistent with the City’s objective design standards for multifamily buildings.

Dwelling units would feature entry porches and balconies at the upper levels. The rectangular building form is articulated with recessed and projecting building frontages, awnings, and variations in exterior materials and colors. The commercial spaces in buildings A and B that front SR-116 include a brick/stone veneer (distinguishing the commercial spaces from the residential units) and provide additional transparency through the use of large, glazed shopfront windows and entry doors on the southern elevation. 425 of 539
The Project will have access from SR-116 at two locations: a 26-foot-wide driveway that will enter the development between buildings A and B and an additional public access will be located west of Building B adjacent to the property line. This later access point is proposed to be a portion of the northern leg of a new signalized intersection of SR-116 and a realigned West Cotati Avenue. Two additional Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points are proposed:
one from the Lowe’s parking lot and one located at the property’s southeastern corner from SR-116. The Project would have a network of roads and driveways which will provide for internal circulation and access to 268 parking spaces for the condominiums (located within individual garages), 57 parking spaces for the apartments, 34 guest parking spaces, and 41 commercial parking spaces. Pedestrian access would be accommodated throughout the site via a new shared pedestrian and bicycle path proposed along the SR-116 frontage and proposed internal walkways along the roadways within the site, and around the residential buildings and community spaces.

The Landscape Site Plan proposes a mix of trees, shrubs, groundcover, grasses, and vines.

Trees and other landscaping are proposed along the perimeter of the Project site, throughout the parking lot, between buildings, and within public open spaces. The public park and related improvements meet, in part, the dedication requirements under CMC Section

17.76.030. The landscaping plan includes the preservation of existing oak trees located in the center and on the southeast corner of the site. Landscaping would feature drought tolerant plants and a high efficiency irrigation system, including weather-based controllers.

Landscape areas would establish buffers, provide shading, and serve as biofiltration and stormwater detention facilities. A landscaping strip would provide for tree planting along the southern property line fronting SR-116.

The Project has been reviewed by the Community Development Department, Department of Public Works/Engineering, Police Department, Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, and relevant outside agencies. No issues have been identified that would prevent the Project’s development or the provision of services to the residents. Final Design Review will be required to ensure the Project incorporates remaining design elements required for full compliance with the City’s Objective Design Standards.

Tree Removal Findings (CMC Chapter 17.54)

1. The approval of the tree permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and approval of the tree permit is consistent with the provisions of this chapter;

2. Measures have been incorporated into the Project or permit to mitigate impacts to remaining trees or to replace the trees removed in compliance with this chapter;

3. The removal of a healthy tree cannot be avoided by:
a. Reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to construction, or b. Trimming, thinning, tree surgery, or other reasonable treatment, as determined by the director;

4. Adequate provisions for drainage, erosion control, land stability, windscreen, buffers 426 of 539
along the road and between neighbors have been made where these problems are anticipated as a result of the removal; and

5. The tree to be removed does not contain an active nest that has been identified through the environmental process or is otherwise known to the review authority as the nest of a migratory bird, except where a qualified professional has determined that the nest can be relocated without damage to the nestlings.

Staff Response - The Project site features a prominent oak tree in the center of property and several oak trees located along the southeast property line adjacent to the China Village parking lot. There is also a small eucalyptus near the center oak and two oak trees located off site adjacent to SR-116.

Presently, only the eucalyptus tree is proposed to be removed. The prominent oak tree in the center of the property will be preserved as a focal point of the Project design and layout, and the oak trees along the southeast property line will also be preserved. Two oak trees along SR-116 are not currently proposed to be removed but could be removed pending the final civil engineering designs and potential changes to SR-116.

Per the replacement criteria set forth in CMC Section 17.54.050, two trees are required to be planted to mitigate the loss of the eucalyptus tree. These trees will be integrated into the final landscape plan or an in-lieu fee of $256 will be paid into the City’s tree mitigation fund.

The Project is conditioned to have an arborist prepare an oak preservation and monitoring plan to ensure the protected oaks will survive, and requires modification of the Project to ensure survival. Where it is found the trees cannot be preserved, the applicant will be required to mitigate the loss pursuant to the replacement criteria.

The tree proposed for removal does not act as privacy buffer, provide wind screening, or affect on-site drainage, erosion, or land stability, and there are no expected adverse impacts resulting from its removal.

The Project is conditioned to protect nesting birds. If construction begins between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be performed within seven days of grading. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required, and grading must occur within one week of the survey to prevent “take” of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey. A follow-up survey is required if a stoppage in work occurs for longer than 7 days. If active bird nests (passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the pre‐construction survey, a disturbance‐free buffer zone shall be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged or the nest has naturally failed or been predated, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Subdivision Findings (CMC Chapter 17.71)

1. The proposed map, and/or subdivision design or improvements are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan;
427 of 539

2. The site is physically suitable for the type or proposed density of development;

3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;

4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems;

5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and

6. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Staff Response – The project proposes to merge four lots and subdivide the property into two lots. The subdivision is consistent with the direction provided by the General Plan and the standards of the Cotati Land Use Code. The site of the proposed subdivision has a General Plan designation of General Commercial (GC) which provides for “the basic business and service needs of the local community, including shopping centers, neighborhood-oriented retail, and highway oriented commercial uses. Office and multi-family residential land uses which are easily integrated into the adjacent districts are also appropriate in the General Commercial district.”
Densities of up to 15 dwelling units per acre are allowed within the LMDR designation with site coverage of up to 80%. Consistent with the General Plan designation, the City’s zoning map and Land Use Code include the subject parcel within the CG (Commercial, Gravenstein Highway) zoning district, which prescribes a density of 15 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet. Given the density bonus granted by State Density Bonus law, the proposed project conforms to these provisions.

The project site is within the scope of development envisioned by the General Plan and its accompanying EIR. The project, as conditioned, does not introduce potential environmental impacts that were not identified in the General Plan EIR and there are no circumstances peculiar to the project site that would result in new or unforeseen significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated as prescribed in the General Plan EIR.

The project has been reviewed by the Community Development Department, Department of Public Works/Engineering, Police Department, Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, and relevant outside agencies. No issues or project circumstances have been identified that would cause public health or safety problems or prevent provision of services for the residents.

There are no easements of record burdening the property that provide for public access through or use of the project site that would be adversely affected by the subdivision. 428 of 539
The businesses and residences included in the proposed subdivision will be required to hook up to the City’s sewer system, which conforms to the requirements of the local North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. An analysis of the project’s potential impact to the City’s water and sewer system was completed by the City’s utility consultant, Carollo, and the analysis concluded that the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s projected sewer discharge and that there are no deficiencies in the system that would prevent servicing the proposed subdivision.

Park Dedication Findings (CMC Chapter 17.76)
The recommendation by the Director and the action of the review authority shall consider the following factors:

1. The amount of land required;

2. Whether a fee shall be charged in lieu of land;

3. Whether land and a fee shall be required;

4. The location and stability of the park land to be dedicated or use of in-lieu fees; and

5. The approximate time when development of the park or recreation facility shall commence.

Staff Response - The Project is required to dedicate 1.88 acres of parkland pursuant to CMC Chapter 17.76.030.C (Amount of Parkland Required). As proposed, the Project will dedicate and improve approximately 47,210 square feet (1.08 acres) of parkland that includes a public dog park, a children’s play area and community park. These dedications will contribute to the amount required by the CMC section 17.76.030.C. Additionally, CMC Section 17.76.030.F.5 (Credit for Improvements) states that if the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements on dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any installed equipment shall be a credit against the required fees or land. In conformance with CMC Section 17.76.030.F (Criteria for Requiring Dedication and Fees), the project shall pay an in-lieu fee for any parkland obligation not satisfied by the dedication and installed improvements. The project’s final in-lieu fee, if any after consideration of the cost of improvements, will be determined by the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter 17.76.030.

General Plan Goal OS 2 calls for a high-quality park and recreation network that serves all segments of Cotati’s population. No parks currently exist in the City north of State Route 116 and west of Highway 101. The project park dedication would further General Plan Policies OS

2.2, 2.4, and 2.7 by creating new parkland west of Highway 101 (an area identified as lacking facilities [OS 2.7]) and establishing the second dog park in the City. The dedication of parkland is offered as a public access easement. Adding further value to the dedication, improvements will be constructed by the project proponent and ongoing private maintenance of the parkland will be conducted by the project’s Homeowners’ Association. The land proposed for dedication has suitable topography, geology, access, size, shape, and location in the subdivision for a public 429 of 539
park. The proposed parkland is relatively flat, has no geological constraints, is readily accessible to the public via streets with a public access easement, and is of sufficient size and shape to support recreational activities. In addition, dedication is appropriate because there is no previously acquired park property in the immediate vicinity of the Project where fees could be used for maintenance or improvement.

As discussed above, the proposed parkland is in an area where parks are needed and helps to fulfill General Plan goals. The proposed parklands are well designed and would meet the recreational needs of the Project and the surrounding community.

The parks would be constructed as part of the Project and would be available for Project residents and the public, consistent with City requirements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati finds that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis for the Project conforms 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 in its certified EIR, as revised by the Addendum prepared for the Housing Element. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects which are determined to be consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site. All adopted mitigating General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified in the 2013 General Plan EIR and Housing Element Addendum that apply to the Project are identified in the analysis and imposed as environmental conditions of approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati does hereby approve Preliminary Design Review, a Tree Removal Permit, Parkland Dedication, and a Vesting Tentative Map, to allow construction of approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space, 134 townhome-styled condominiums with up to 33 optional ADUs, and 44 rental units in a mixed-use development on a 10.62-acre property located northwest of the intersection of Redwood Drive and SR-116 based on the foregoing findings and subject to compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval identified below:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

GENERAL

1. The Project is subject to all development standards and payment of all impact fees identified in the City’s adopted Fee Schedule, including Traffic Impact Fees, Park InLieu Fees, and Bed Tax at the rates in place on October 30, 2024, the date when the Preliminary SB 330 vesting application was accepted by the City.

2. All work shall be done according to the final approved plans dated March 17, 2025, and as approved by the City Council.
430 of 539

3. All plan sets submitted for building permits and/or improvement plans shall have a sheet printed with all conditions of approval written herein.

PLANNING DIVISION

4. The building materials, elevations, and appearance of this Project, when presented for the issuance of a building permit, shall be substantially the same as that approved by the City Council, as determined by the Community Development Director or his designee. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., will be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division.

5. The Project design shall be amended and the plan set updated to address the following items submitted for Final Design Review and approval:

A. Provide elevation drawings, floor and roof plans, and exterior materials for the proposed pool building.

B. Clarify pedestrian circulation throughout the Project by indicating pedestrian pathways across streets and connections to amenities.

C. Provide a sheet showing all exterior materials and colors along with a sample of the proposed brick/stone veneer; brick veneer over a cultured stone veneer is recommended.

D. Provide complete design details of the proposed woonerfs in compliance with CMC Section 17.36.100.F., unless it was otherwise provided in the project’s Density Bonus waivers, including:
1) A ramp-up, elevated crosswalk, or other acceptable traffic calming measure at the woonerf entrances in compliance with CMC Section 17.36.100.F.2.c. 2) Pavement treatment within the woonerf in compliance with CMC Section

17.36.100.F.2.c.
3) Protection of any seating areas from auto traffic by bollards, planters, or other means in compliance with CMC Section 17.36.100.F.2.f.
4) Pedestrian scale lighting within the woonerf in compliance with CMC Section

17.36.100.F.2.k.
5) Confirmation by the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District that the woonerfs will meet their standards for fire apparatus access.

E. Provide design details and specifications of bicycle parking spaces, including compliance with CMC Section 17.36.070.A.3. In addition to the proposed bicycle parking for the condominium units, the Project shall provide at least eleven (11) spaces near the entrance to the apartment building, four (4) spaces near the commercial unit entrances, four (4) spaces at the private park and pool, and four (4) spaces at the public park. Bicycle racks shall be near building or park entrances, visible, and shaded if possible.
431 of 539
F. Inclusion of at least six (6) motorcycle parking spaces, in compliance with CMC Section 17.36.070.B. The spaces shall be distributed throughout the Project’s outdoor surface parking areas.

G. Provide number, design, and specifications of exterior site furniture proposed for the common areas in the Project.

H. Provide a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in conformance with CMC Chapter

17.34 (Water Efficient Landscape Standards) including the following items. The plan shall be coordinated with all other architectural and civil plans and conflicts with all light standards and utilities shall be avoided.
1) Required replacement trees and parking lot trees shall not be reduced in number to avoid conflicts but shall be relocated instead.
2) The plan shall provide a calculation of shade on the parking lot areas that meets or exceeds the parking lot shade requirements set forth in CMC Section

17.34.050.D.4.a. At a minimum, the parking areas shall have shade trees every twenty-five linear feet per CMC Section 17.34.050.D.3.a.v. 3) Applicant shall retain an arborist to prepare an oak preservation and monitoring plan demonstrating that the oaks to be retained on the Project site are being preserved to the extent feasible and that measures are included in the design and construction of the Project, including grading and utilities, to ensure the longterm preservation of the oaks. 4) Tree protective measures shall be shown on final grading, improvement, and building plans. The tree driplines shall also be shown on each drawing with the attendance protection instructions. If the trees are threatened, the Project shall be modified to ensure the trees remain or they shall be mitigated in conformance with CMC Section 17.54.050. City approval is required prior to the removal of any tree targeted for preservation.
5) Provide adequate separation between utilities and trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and City Engineer.
6) Provide vegetative screening of all above ground utilities (i.e., backflow prevention device, transformers, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.

I. Provide a Final Outdoor Lighting Plan that demonstrates compliance with the following:
1) All outdoor lighting shall be dark sky compliant, shielded and directed downward onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties to eliminate glare and minimize light trespass. 2) Lighting of at least one foot-candle shall also be installed and maintained within all covered and enclosed parking areas and shall be screened with full cutoff luminaires to minimize sky glow and glare onto public sidewalks and adjacent residences.
3) An all-night light shall not exceed 3000K (Kelvin Color Temperature Scale) and lights with an on/off timer shall not exceed 4000K, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director.
432 of 539
J. Provide details of all proposed perimeter and interior fencing and masonry walls.

K. Locate all fire hydrants within the Project area.

6. The Project may be required to pay Park In-Lieu Fees. The Project is required to dedicate

1.88 acres of parkland pursuant to CMC Chapter 17.76.030.C. As proposed, the Project will dedicate and improve approximately 47,210 square feet (1.08 acres) of parkland.

These dedications will contribute to the amount required by the City Municipal Code sections 17.76.030.C. Additionally, CMC Section 17.76.030.F.5 states that if the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements on dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any installed equipment shall be a credit against the required fees or land. In conformance with CMC Chapter 17.76.030.F, the project shall pay an in-lieu fee for any parkland obligation not satisfied by the dedication and installed improvements. The project’s final in-lieu fee, if any after consideration of the improvements installed, will be determined in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter 17.76.030.

7. City Council approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement in conformance with CMC Section 17.31.070 is required. This Agreement shall implement the Affordable Housing Plan, as approved by the City Council, and outline how the applicant or their affordable housing development partner will begin constructing the inclusionary units before the Project receives its final certificate of occupancy and complete construction before the release of improvement bonds. The inclusionary units shall be allocated as follows: 8 units for very low-income households, 8 units for low-income households, and 28 units for moderate-income households. The Project’s affordable housing requirements, demonstrating compliance with State Density Bonus Law and the City of Cotati’s Inclusionary Housing mandates, will be considered fulfilled only upon issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the Project’s last below-market unit, which must occur no later than 5 years after the start of Project construction.

8. Pursuant to Cotati’s Local Preference Policy, and in accordance with Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) laws, preference for tenants of the inclusionary housing units shall be given to people that: 1. Live or work in the City of Cotati; 2. Have children who attend a school within the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified 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.

9. Prior to the issuance of the Project’s final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall execute required regulatory agreements to ensure continued affordability of the inclusionary units. The agreement shall include all requirements of CMC Section

17.32.100, except as may be otherwise approved by the City Council, and Conditions #7 and #8 above, and shall be in effect for a period of 55 years.

10. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for any clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, a protection zone shall be established to protect 433 of 539
existing trees proposed to remain onsite from construction activities. The protection zone must be in compliance with the oak preservation and monitoring plan called for by Condition 5.H.3 above, and the following conditions and restrictions shall apply:

A. The zone shall encompass the "protected perimeter" which shall be either the tree dripline, root zone or as dictated by the Project arborist subject to the City’s approval. 1) The zone shall be delineated with a brightly colored construction fence. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of all work undertaken on the site.
2) No storage or construction activities (including trenching, grading or filling) shall be permitted within the protected zone.
3) All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner which prevents injury to the protected trees and/or shrubs.

B. The protection zone delineated with the brightly colored construction fence shall be posted with signs which state "Tree Protection Zone -- No Construction or Storage Permitted."
C. Irrigation systems, and plant varieties which require regular watering shall not be permitted within the dripline of an oak tree which is to be preserved.

D. No concrete or asphalt paving or compaction of soil shall be permitted within the root zones of protected trees.

E. Any work, including protection, within the "Protection Zone" must be done as directed by a certified arborist.

11. The applicant shall record easements with the Final Map granting public access and use to the Project site and proposed public parks and the Class I paths and committing to property owner maintenance of the on-site public roadways, parking areas, paths, and park. The City of Cotati shall be made a party to the easements with City approval required for any changes to the easement boundaries or terms. Any additional requirements governing maintenance of the parkland shall be contained in the Homeowners Association’s CC&Rs which shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to recordation.

12. The Project shall install and maintain signage clearly indicating that the proposed public parks are open to the public and that the designated parking spaces are available for public use.

13. The applicant shall provide a copy of the proposed condominium plans and recorded condominium plans to the City of Cotati Community Development Department. The initial condominium plans shall be provided within five days of this plan being submitted to the California Department of Real Estate. The recorded condominium plans shall be provided within 10 days after recording.
434 of 539

14. A separate sign permit will be required for any proposed entry signage on the property and building signage. All signs shall comply with Chapter 17.38 of the Cotati Municipal Code.

15. All required landscaping and irrigation for each building must be installed per the approved final Landscape Plans prior to occupancy of that building.

16. All landscaping must be continuously maintained in a healthy and attractive condition, free of weeds and debris, in accordance with the approved plans. Dead and dying plant materials shall be replaced with healthy specimens as necessary.

17. During construction applicant shall designate a Disturbance Coordinator and post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of the Disturbance Coordinator to contact regarding construction complaints. The Disturbance Coordinator shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
Unless otherwise stated, conditions in this section shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Real Property
The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied prior to Final Map Approval:

18. A Final Map, as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act and prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer, showing all parcels, rights-of-way, and easements shall be submitted to the City Engineer’s Office for review and approval. Upon recording of the map, the subdivision is valid.

19. Submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for review and approval, shall include:

A. A recent (within 3 months) Preliminary Subdivision Title Report.

B. Closure calculations.

C. Documentation of existing easements and property encumbrances within the Project.

D. Improvement Plans and associated back-up reports.

E. Current submittal check list provided by the City.

F. Article of Incorporation for the proposed Homeowners’ Association with draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
435 of 539
G. Current Plan and Map check fee/deposit.

H. Current Inspection fee/deposit.

20. The developer shall present to the City of Cotati, free of encumbrances, the following:

A. The developer shall show evidence of all necessary rights-of-way and easements for both onsite and offsite road, utility, and drainage facilities. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated on the map or, if applicable, provided by grant deed, when off-site. The developer shall prepare all necessary legal descriptions and deeds.

B. The applicant will be required to make an irrevocable offer of dedication for property along the Highway 116 frontage, record a public access easement for use of the Class 1 Pathway, and enter into a maintenance agreement for the frontage improvements to meet the Highway 116 Corridor Improvement Project. The current 35% Design Document calls for a 25-foot frontage dedication from the existing Caltrans ROW.

C. Proposed Public Access Easements, Public Utility Easements, Public Water Main Easement, and Emergency Vehicle Access Easements.

Proposed dedications and easements shall be finalized and presented to the City for review prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map.

D. The abandonment of any existing easements shall be referenced on the final map.

Final Map – Local Agency Sheet

21. NOTE ON FINAL MAP: “Prior to the issuance of building permits, all applicable development impact fees shall be paid to the satisfaction of the Building Official and in accordance with City and local district ordinances and state laws.”

22. Limit of the 100-year flood elevation, as shown on the latest FEMA FIRM maps & Flood Insurance Study and determined by the City, shall be shown on the final map and labeled as “Subject to Inundation” (if applicable) or a note stating “No 100-Year FEMA areas of Inundation including in the boundary of this map”, whichever is applicable to the subdivision.

Subdivision Agreement

23. Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall either complete required construction as shown on the signed improvement plans or enter into an improvement agreement and post security with the City of Cotati, agreeing to complete the required construction within 24 months of grading permit issuance and complete the required 436 of 539
construction associated with each building prior to a request for occupancy of that building, or as otherwise established by the City Engineer.

24. The property owner shall execute an agreement to annex into the City’s Community Facility District (“CFD”). CFD 2017-01.

Improvement Plans
The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied prior to Improvement Plan Approval.

General Requirements

25. The developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for the construction of all public improvements including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, detached sidewalks, parkway strips, signing, striping, streetlights and demolition showing all items to be removed such as buildings, well system, septic system, etc. All easements shall be clearly indicated and described. An erosion control plan shall be included.

26. All plan sets submitted for building permits and improvement plans shall have a sheet printed with all conditions of approval written herein.

27. The Improvement Plans shall include an approval line for the Geotechnical Engineer to sign off on the plans based on their Geotechnical Investigation Report.

28. The Improvement Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer, Community Development Director, Police Chief, and Rancho Adobe Fire District prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, Grading Permit, or Building Permit.

29. The applicant shall enter into a deposit agreement with the City to assure all City project review and inspection costs are reimbursed by the Project proponent. A plan check and inspection fee deposit shall be paid prior to the signature of the Improvement Plans.

30. A Construction General Permit is required from the State Water Board if construction activity results in a land disturbance of one acre or more. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).

31. Mailbox plans and locations shall meet the requirements of the Cotati Postmaster prior to Improvement Plan approval. The developer shall provide an exhibit showing mailbox locations consistent with the Cotati Postmaster requirements.

32. Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Project frontages that are in disrepair shall be removed and replaced as part of the improvements for this Project. All nonconforming 437 of 539
pedestrian ramps and driveway approaches shall also be brought up to current accessibility standards. All as determined by the City Engineer.

33. Deviations from City Standards shall require the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant’s engineer shall request all design exceptions in writing.

34. Project benchmark shall be based on a City approved USGS benchmark.

35. A “dry” Utility Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to Improvement Plans approval.

36. Submit a Storm Water Determination Worksheet, and assuming Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are triggered, prepare and submit an Initial SWLIDS along with a Completeness Checklist, pursuant to the City of Santa Rosa LID Manual, 2017 Storm Water Technical Design Manual Narrative. These resources can be found at the following link: https://srcity.org/1255/Low-Impact-Development.

37. Developer shall follow the recommendations provided in Geotechnical Investigation Report.

38. An Encroachment Permit is required for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right-of-way subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works / City Engineer. Information on the City of Cotati Encroachment Permit process can be found at:
http://www.cotaticity.org/city_hall/departments/public_works_and_engineering/encroach ments.

39. If the Project involves movement of greater than 50CY or disturbance of more than one acre, a Grading Permit is required prior to commencement of earthwork. Information on the Grading Permit application can be found at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!lCotati14/Cotati1434.html#_14.34. 050.

40. Required Improvement Plan Notes:

A. "Any excess materials shall be considered the property of the contractor and shall be disposed of away from the job site in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations."
B. "All existing overhead utilities (of 26,000 volts or less) and proposed electric and communication utilities, both on-site and along Project frontages, shall be placed underground. This does not include surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, which are required to be screened by means acceptable to the City."
438 of 539
C. "If hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the contractor will halt construction immediately, notify the City of Cotati, and implement remediation (as directed by the City or its agent) in accordance with any requirements of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board."
D. "The contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction.

The contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the Cal Trans “Manual of Traffic Safety Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.” The City of Cotati emergency service providers shall be notified of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s). The Project specifications shall require that the contractor(s) notify emergency service providers in writing at least 24 hours in advance of its proposed schedule of work. A Traffic Handling Plan shall be provided to the City for City Engineer approval prior to any work occurring within the public right of way."
E. The following notes shall be added to the cover of the plans in bold.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO DEVELOPER AND ALL CONTRACTORS:

Utility joint trench location shall be field staked and approved by the City PRIOR TO INITIATION OF ANY TRENCHING. This required approval by the City is independent of any authorization granted by the Utility Company, the Developer and/or Contractor. Trench locations within the tree protection zones of any protected trees may not be approved by the City. The City's inspector may require consultation by the City's arborist prior to approval of trench location. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an immediate order to stop work, as well as incurrence of civil penalties as provided by City Ordinance.

NOTE: Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the City Engineer.

Frontage & Roadway Improvements

41. The Project shall install frontage improvements adjacent to SR 116, including installation of the eastern portion of the northern leg and the northern portion of the eastern leg northeastern leg of the City’s “Highway 116 Corridor Improvement Project.” Frontage improvements shall be consistent with the frontage improvement designs developed by the City of Cotati, including landscaping, curb and gutter placement, sidewalk placement and design, the Class I multiuse path, vehicle access points, improvements to SR-116 (including the Class II bike lane), and lighting. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of the frontage improvements with the City of Cotati’s Highway 116 Corridor Improvement Project to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer and Director of Community Development.

42. If the Highway Corridor Improvement Project has not been completed prior to occupancy, or as determined by the Director of Community Development and City Engineer, the Applicant shall install an eastbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 50 feet of storage on SR-116. The turn lane shall be located at the western property line 439 of 539
entrance. Any interim or alternative measures shall be consistent with the Design Documents for the Highway 116 Corridor Improvement Project and shall be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development.

43. The emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Hwy 116 into the Project must conform with the Ranco Adobe Fire District requirements for EVA access.

44. The Improvement Plans shall include street profiles, typical street sections and calculations for the street design. Said plan shall incorporate the findings and recommendations from the approved Soils Report for the pavement design and the approved Traffic Study. The proposed T.I. shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

45. The structural section of all road improvements shall be designed using a soil investigation which provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. If no R-value tests are supplied, roadway structural sections shall be designed using an R-value of 5.0. A copy of a soils report and structural section calculations shall also be submitted with the first Improvement Plan check.

46. Ramps for disabled persons shall be provided at all intersections and crosswalks where sidewalks are proposed.

47. Public sidewalk widths within the right-of-way or public easements shall allow a clear five-foot walkway at all locations, including but not limited to areas where mailboxes, streetlights, street signs and fire hydrants are to be installed. All private sidewalks shall conform to widths required by ADA accessibility guidelines.

48. One-inch chases shall be installed to all parkway strips from adjacent parcels to allow for the installation of irrigation lines.

Lighting, Signing and Striping Plan

49. Streetlights shall be City Standard Decorative type or approved equal. Developer shall provide additional streetlights for replacement purposes (5% of total or as otherwise approved).

50. Lighting Plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Police Chief. A photometric plan for the Project site shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

51. Striping, pavement markings, and traffic signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the City Engineer. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Speed limit signs shall be installed at locations determined by the City Engineer.
440 of 539
Drainage Improvements

52. If applicable, all Project-related flooding impacts shall be addressed by the Project developer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage improvements shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Flood Control Design Criteria. Public and private drainage improvements (including Storm Water Management Plans) shall be shown on the improvement plans and shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Cotati and/or Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) prior to approval by the City Engineer.

53. Plans and engineer of record certifications shall be provided by the developer to demonstrate compliance of all improvements, including building pads and finished floor elevations, with the City’s Flood Plain Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer. Pad elevations shall be constructed at a minimum of 1 foot above the 100-year Floodplain / Hydraulic Grade Line as determined by the City and certified by the Project engineer.

54. All design and construction shall meet the requirements of the most recent editions of City of Cotati, Phase I MS4 permit and the City of Santa Rosa Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a Final Storm Water Low Impact Development Plan (FSWLID) subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include postconstruction storm water treatment and peak reduction measures and shall address maintenance of private and/or public storm water facilities. The FSWLID shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.

Also include a three-part program designed to limit direct disposal of contaminants into streets and storm drains: labeling all catch basins - "No Dumping - Drains to Creek"; strictly limiting the use of non-biodegradable fertilizers or pesticides; prohibit the regular washing or maintenance of vehicles in paved areas that drain directly into the storm drain system.

55. Prior to approval of improvement plans and issuance of any Permits the applicant/developer shall submit a Declaration of Covenants Regarding Maintenance of Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP) Facilities. The applicant/developer shall obtain the City’s review and approval of the said Declaration and record with the Sonoma County Recorder against the parcel prior to approval of the Grading/Building permit or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy permit, timing subject to the discretion of the City Engineer. The planter and landscape strips adjacent to public streets shall be included in the Declaration and be maintained by the private property owner(s), subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
441 of 539
Grading Permit and Improvements

56. The developer’s engineer shall include a site-grading plan prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California as part of the required improvement drawings.

Lots/site shall be generally designed to drain to the street, unless otherwise approved in the interest of tree preservation or other unusual circumstances.

57. The grading plan shall clearly show all survey monuments and property corners and shall state that they shall be protected and preserved. Should monuments be damaged or destroyed during construction, they shall be replaced by the developer.

58. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, a detailed Soils Report/Geotechnical Investigation prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California and qualified to perform soils work. The grading plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the approved Soils Report and be signed by the Project’s Geotechnical Engineer.

59. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered during grading operations that are different from those anticipated in the Soils Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.

60. All existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks shall be abandoned under permit and inspection of Sonoma County Environmental Health or other designated agency. If there are none, the Project engineer shall provide a letter describing the scope of the search done to make this determination.

61. Improvements plans shall include an erosion control (winterization) plan. The plan must include an order of work and staging/scheduling component indicating when facilities must be installed and when they may be removed. A separate Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be required and prepared as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the REAP shall be kept on-site throughout the duration of construction activities.

62. A haul route shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval for the required import/export of material and for all demolition debris or unsuitable material disposal.

Utility Improvements

63. Except as approved by the City Engineer, all proposed utilities, both on-site and along Project frontages, shall be placed underground per CMC Section 17.30.100. 442 of 539
Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements

64. The applicant shall submit for City review and approval the domestic water use calculations and meter sizing. Water use calculations shall compare the estimated water use to the water use attributed to the area by the Water Master Plan (latest edition).

65. The applicant submitted the Water and Wastewater Analysis completed by Carollo in February, 2025, which was based on 178 residential units, 33 optional ground-floor ADUs, and 16 shopkeeper spaces. Any changes to the unit count may require a revised study as determined by the City Engineer.

66. Verify water pressure at highest point of Project is sufficient.

67. Prior to issuance of a building permit, developer shall obtain a letter from the City of Santa Rosa stating their requirements for a sewer use permit have been satisfied.

68. All private storm drain, potable water, fire service and sanitary sewer mains, laterals, and appurtenances, must be located within the private property and clearly identified as private on the design drawings.

69. All irrigation water mains, service laterals, plumbing, valves, pipes, appurtenances, irrigation parts, vaults and boxes must be purple.

Permit Requirements

70. Provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Two copies of the Project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, encroachment permit or building permit.

71. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to obtain and provide proof of all permits necessary from other local, state and federal agencies. Applicant shall provide evidence of these permits at the time of grading plan submittal.

Landscape Plans

72. Landscape and irrigation plans for plantings shall be submitted at the time of the Improvement Plan submittal package. All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the City Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Said plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

73. The landscape plans shall show underground utilities and no trees shall be planted over any existing or proposed underground utilities, and no trenching shall occur within the driplines of the trees proposed to be preserved.
443 of 539

74. The landscape plans shall include planting details for BMPs.

Grading Permit
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the following conditions shall apply:

75. The Improvement Plans shall be approved by the City Engineer.

76. Submittal of copies of required permits and/or agreements from resource agencies is required.

Encroachment Permit
Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the following Conditions shall apply:

77. A Traffic Control and Construction Work Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. At a minimum, the Traffic Control Plan shall address ingress and egress, haul route, flagging, and maintenance of the road and identifies a staging area.

The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief of Police, and the Planning Division prior to the start of any sitework.

78. An Encroachment Permit shall be required prior to performing work on public utilities or work within public rights-of-way or public easements.

During Construction Operations the Following Conditions Shall Apply

79. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the City for removal of any existing structures or facilities that may exist on the site.

80. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of Project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as found necessary by the City Engineer.

81. The developer shall be responsible for all damages caused by the Project during construction to existing City streets and facilities, and shall repair all damaged facilities at no cost to the City.

82. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this Project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department, the Fire District, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.

83. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for controlling noise, odors, dust and debris to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and roadways. Contractor shall be responsible that all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturers approved muffler’s baffles in compliance with all City codes relating to noise and idling 444 of 539
equipment. City Code includes but is not limited to section 17.30.050. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.

84. If grading is to take place between October 15 and April 15, both temporary and permanent erosion control measures, conforming to the Project’s erosion control plans shall be in place before October 1st. Erosion control measures shall be monitored and maintained continuously throughout the storm season.

85. The following minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be required during construction:

A. Construction crews shall be instructed in preventing and minimizing pollution on the job.

B. Stabilize construction entrance/exit to prevent tracking onto roadway. Only one stabilized construction entrance/exit will be allowed per site. Vehicles entering and leaving construction sites spread pollutants such as sediment, gravel, and other loose particles onto adjacent roads. Pollutants are washed into roadside ditches and are a nuisance to drivers and may cause damage to vehicles.

C. Protect exposed slopes from erosion through preventative measures. Cover slopes to avoid contact with storm water by hydro-seeding, mulch, use of plastic sheeting or other approved means.

D. Use brooms and shovels, when possible, to maintain a clean site. Use of a hose is not recommended. Introducing water as a cleanup method adds to water pollution.

E. Designate a concrete washout area, if needed, to avoid wash water from concrete tools or trucks from entering storm drain systems. Maintain washout area and dispose of concrete waste on a regular basis.

F. Establish a vehicle storage, maintenance, and refueling area, if needed, to minimize the spread of oil, gas, and engine fluids. Use of oil pans under stationary vehicles is strongly recommended.

G. Protect drain inlets from receiving polluted storm water through the use of filters such as fabrics, gravel bags or straw wattles.

H. Be prepared for rain and have the necessary materials onsite before the rainy season.

I. Inspect all BMPs before and after each storm event. Maintain BMPs on a regular basis and replace them as necessary, through the entire course of construction. 445 of 539
Prior to Acceptance of Public Improvements and Bond Exoneration, the Following Conditions of Approval Shall Be Satisfied

86. All improvements shown on the Improvement Plans shall be completed and accepted by the City.

87. Prior to acceptance of improvements or occupancy of buildings, existing curb, gutter and sidewalk to remain shall be inspected by the City. Any curb, gutter and sidewalk which is not in accord with City standards or is damaged before or during construction, shall be replaced.

88. The developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her engineer verifying that the grading and/or drainage improvements are completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official.

89. A complete set of As-Built or Record improvement plans showing all constructive changes from the original plans, shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final acceptance of the public improvements.

BUILDING DIVISION

90. The proposed buildings are considered R-2 (three-story townhome-styled condominiums) and ground floor shopkeeper commercial M/B occupancies. Include in the construction drawings a code analysis to confirm the occupancy, type of construction allowable area and building height are in conformance with requirements of CBC Chapters 3,4 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10.

91. Plans will be required to comply with the currently adopted Disabled Access requirements of CBC Chapter 11A and 11B.

92. Provide Exit plans showing path of exits to the public way. Detail and show exit widths and overall length. [CBC §1014.2 & Table 1016.2]

93. Provide complete dimensioned floor plans for all rooms, spaces, hallways, passages, clearances, etc. [107.2 CBC]

94. The Project requires a Geotechnical Report. The report shall provide design recommendations based upon the engineer’s findings and shall comply with CBC Chapter 18.

95. Provide Electrical plans and Load Calculations to address the proposed electrical demand.
446 of 539

96. Provide Title 24 Energy Documentation for lighting, building envelopes, heating, and cooling.

97. Disabled parking, entrances and all features within the building are required to be disabled compliant. [CBC Chapter 11]

98. Provide water supply and building drain sizing calculations for the building in accordance with the California Plumbing code. Show all connections to the Utility Provider on a site plan.

99. Residential and commercial units shall be provided with fire-rated construction separating unit to unit for vertical and horizontal conditions. Sound transmission ratings of not less than 50 are required between units. All assemblies are required to be approved by a recognized testing agency. Provide construction details and rated assembly source and reference number. [CBC 1206]
100. The Project is required to comply with current CALGreen requirements, Mandatory Measures level and tier 1 and amended by the City of Cotati. The worksheets are to be printed on plan sheets in the plan set.
101. Before approval of the foundation inspection: A licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer with proper certification shall conduct a survey of the (front, sides, rear, all) property lines and install property line markers that can be readily verified by Building Inspection staff to verify setbacks and submit a written (stamped) confirmation to the Building Department that the staking of the property lines has been completed. 102. The Project is required to conform to current building codes. The current California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Electrical Code (CEC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Energy Efficiency Standards Code (CEES), California Fire Code (CFC), California Green Building Standards Code (CGBS or CALGreen).
103. The Project requires a grading permit. Provide complete grading plans for the site and each parcel. Provide cut and fill calculations.
104. The Project Soils Engineer shall confirm that the grading plans, foundation plans, and associated details and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated in the plans. [1803.6 CBC]
105. The landscape plans show general use areas for tenants and guests. These spaces are required to be accessible to serve persons with disabilities. 447 of 539
106. Submit a complete site plan including the following or modify site plan to include all of the following:

A. Show dimensioned property lines, public streets, and dimensions of yards and setbacks.

B. If lot or building area is sloped greater than 10%, show grade contour lines with elevations. Where earth grading, filling and/or cutting is to be done, show original and final contours.

C. At building locations, indicate finish slab elevation and/or finish floor elevation for all new buildings.
107. Provide complete Title 24 Energy Documentation.
108. Include in the plan set on a plan sheet all conditions of approval from all departments.

RANCHO ADOBE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (RAFPD)
109. To improve maneuverability for all RAFPD apparatus, increase the speed of apparatus navigation through tight turns, and reduce the potential for property damage and resulting delays to emergency response, projections such as light poles, sign posts, mailboxes, planter walls, and vegetation shall not be placed near the edge of the fire lane where they can obstruct or be struck by portions of the RAFPD apparatus that may overhang the curb.
110. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection where construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. No combustible construction shall begin until fire department access roads and fire hydrants are in service, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal or their designee. [CFC 501.4]
111. Pursuant to California Fire Code Appendix D105.3, plans submitted for purposes of construction shall relocate streetlights and obstructive landscaping adjacent to aerial apparatus access areas identified on the proposed plans, subject to Fire Marshal review and approval.
112. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders. [CFC D103.1] 448 of 539
113. Consistent with the plans dated March 17, 2025, approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC 503.1.1]
114. Consistent with the plans dated March 17, 2025, multiple-family residential projects having three or more stories or thirty (30) ft in height dwelling units shall have not fewer than two (2) separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. [CFC D1045] 115. Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. [CFC 503.2.4]
116. Consistent with the plans dated March 17, 2025, where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. [CFC D105.1]
117. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. [CFC C105.2]
118. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed and maintained in all newly constructed buildings with Group R occupancy. [CFC 903.2.8] 119. The fire sprinkler system requires approved plans and permit from the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to work commencing. The owner/contractor shall submit a permit application with plans, cuts sheets and calculations. This system shall comply with NFPA-13D, NFPA-13R, or NFPA-13 as appropriate.
120. An approved fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in all new constructed R-2 occupancies. Installation of the fire alarm system requires plans and permit from the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to work commencing. The owner/contractor shall submit a permit application with plans, cut sheets and calculations. This system shall comply with NFPA-72. [CFC 907.2.9 and 907.2.10]
449 of 539
121. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved illuminated address numbers or letters. They shall be contrasting with the background and be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetic letters. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall comply with the City of Cotati Standards. [CFC 505.1]
122. Numbers for Other Than One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Each address identification character shall not be less than twelve inches (12") high with a minimum stroke width of one inch (1"). Suite and unit directional numbers shall be not less than six inches (6") in height with a minimum stroke width of three-quarter inch (0.75”). Individual unit numbers shall not be less than four inches (4") in height with a minimum stroke width of one-half inch (1/2"). [CFC 505.1.20]
123. Complex Directory. Where two (2) or more buildings cannot be viewed from the public way or when determined by the Fire Code Official, an approved illuminated complex directory, monument pole, or other approved. [CFC 505.1.3] 124. A fire flow analysis is required to be submitted for review and approval at the time of Building Permit Application. Fire Department approval will not be granted without a fire flow analysis.
125. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured opening or where immediate access is necessary for life saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL-1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Installation of the key boxes requires approved plans and permit from the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to work commencing. The owner/contractor shall submit a permit application with three (3) sets of plans, cuts sheets and calculations. This system shall comply with CFC Section 506. 126. All newbuilding shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based on the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication system of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. The owner/Project shall conduct appropriate testing and/or provide emergency responder radio coverage approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Installation of the emergency responder radio coverage system requires approved plans and permit from the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to work 450 of 539
commencing. The owner/contractor shall submit a permit application with three (3) sets of plans, cuts sheets and calculations. This system shall comply with CFC Section 510. 127. All Photo-Voltaic installations shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Official for review and permitting prior to installation. Al required clearances per CFC Chapter 12 shall be provided.
128. The applicant shall coordinate with RAFPD for the proposed location of trees along all aerial apparatus roads for size and height in order to not obstruct aerial apparatus operations now and into the future.

CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL
The environmental review concludes that the Project, through the implementation of mitigating policies and actions in the Cotati General Plan and the uniformly applied regulations of Federal, State, and Local governments, will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. To support this conclusion, the following conditions of approval are required to ensure implementation of applicable mitigation measures and policies set forth in the Cotati General Plan EIR, as amended. Some of the following mitigation measures may be the same as, or similar to, other conditions of approval listed above but are cited here again to conform to the environmental analysis document.
129. AES-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final lighting plan and the City shall verify that the final lighting plan complies with applicable requirements set forth in CMC Section 17.30.060, in accordance with General Plan Action OS1f to minimize off-site and night sky impacts of outdoor lighting. 130. AQ-1: During any construction period ground disturbance, the Project will ensure that the Project contractor(s) implement the following measures to control dust and exhaust that are recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and listed below:

A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

C. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

F. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

G. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
451 of 539
H. Unpaved roads providing access to or on the site located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
131. BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting raptors and passerines, a nesting bird survey should be conducted within 7 days prior to commencing with construction work if this work would begin between February 1 and August 31. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where raptors could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. The nesting bird survey should include examination of all suitable nesting habitats within 300 feet of the entire project site. A nesting bird survey report should be prepared upon completion of the survey and provided to the City of Cotati with any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers as necessary to protect nesting birds.

Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing or orange lath staking.

No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1 unless it is determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. In the region of the project site, most species complete nesting by mid-July. This date can be significantly earlier or later and would have to be determined by the qualified biologist. At the end of the nesting cycle, or abandonment of the nest by its occupants, as determined by a qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffer areas without further regard for the nest site.
132. BIO-2: To ensure there are no direct impacts to American badger, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction den survey no more than 14 days prior to site grading. If a potential den is located, infrared camera stations will be set up and maintained for three (3) consecutive nights at the potential den openings prior to initiation of grading/work activities to determine the status of the potential dens. If American badger is not found to be using the den, the burrow (den) will be filled, and site grading may proceed in the vicinity of this burrow(s) unhindered.

If American badger is found to be using a den within the area of proposed ground disturbance, provided it is not a natal den, the badger will be passively and humanely 452 of 539
evicted from its den if it could be impacted by grading or other ground disturbing activities; a one-way eviction door placed at the den opening is the least invasive option.

If a natal den is found, eviction will not take place until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow. The project proponent will consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the natal den and to discuss a suitable eviction plan. The final eviction plan will be submitted to the City of Cotati prior to implementation. Any American badger found onsite will be reported to CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
133. BIO-3: Prior to site preparation or grading, the applicant shall secure wetland mitigation credits for impacted waters of the State at a 1:1 ratio (or at the ratio required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) from an approved bank within the same conservation area or in proximity as feasible and provide evidence of procurement to the City. During all frontage work and construction activities occurring within 25 feet of wetlands as mapped by the “Draft Aquatic Resources Delineation Map for SR-116 and West Cotati Ave Project” prepared by Monk and Associates on August 23, 2023, the applicant/contractor shall install and maintain exclusion fencing precluding inadvertent access to wetlands to be preserved.
134. BIO-4: Tree removal shall be done in compliance with CMC Chapter 17.54. All project contractors shall implement all applicable tree protection requirements as determined by the tree permit.
135. CUL-1: Full-time archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted for all Projectrelated ground-disturbing activities within 200 feet of the canine alert locations and the area where the current mound of imported soil is located. • Prior to the start of the Project, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring Plan (ATMP) in consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). The ATMP should provide a provision for a pre-construction Cultural Resources Awareness Training (CRAT) and details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be found within the Project Area, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered, including proper notification to Tribes, agencies, and stakeholders; and an assessment of the significance of any archaeological resources encountered during construction. • The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the finding is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until the Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist, in consultation with FIGR, determines that full time monitoring can be reduced to spot check monitoring or that monitoring is no longer warranted. A report shall also be prepared to document findings after the ground disturbance is complete. 453 of 539
136. CUL-2: If a precontact or historic period archaeological resource is encountered by equipment operators during Project-related ground-disturbing activities and an archaeologist is not present, that work be halted within 100 feet of the discovery area until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the resource.
• If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or as a unique archaeological resource. • If the resource is determined to be eligible for the CRHR or is a unique archaeological resource, adverse impacts shall be mitigated. • If the resource is a Native American resource, the assessment, evaluation, and treatment recommendations shall be made in consultation with FIGR. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures, laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials, preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials, and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.
• Any report produced as a result of a discovery shall be submitted to the City of Cotati and the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NWIC/CHRIS) upon completion of the resource assessment. Precontact period archaeological resources commonly encountered in the area may include obsidian (shiny, black, glass-like stone) and chert flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, charcoal, ash, artifacts, animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and features such as hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal remains. Historic period archaeological resources include backfilled privies, wells, and refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal glass, and ceramic refuse.
137. CUL-3: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the Sonoma County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are 454 of 539
Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. The soil excavated from the discovery location shall also be secured. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American.

The most likely descendant may make recommendations for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
• Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
o The NAHC is unable to identify the most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site.
o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
138. GEO-1: The Project shall implement recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Quantum Geotechnical Inc. on May 6, 2022.

All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design, construction documents and improvement plans, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official. The Project’s geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical analyses.
139. GEO-2: If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and 455 of 539
preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Department. 140. GHG-1: The Project shall comply with CalGreen Tier 2 Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure requirements.
141. HAZ-1: Prior to commencing work in Caltrans right-of-way, the Applicant shall prepare a Lead Compliance Plan and a Soil Management Plan in compliance with current Caltrans guidelines, and a worker Health and Safety Plan for review and acceptance by the City of Cotati. The plans shall be implemented during construction of frontage improvements and shall address:
• Sampling and analysis of soils prior to earth-moving work • transportation and disposal of any contaminated soil in compliance with state and federal law
• worker health and safety during the handling of potentially hazardous soils 142. HYD-1: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Prevention and Pollution Plan (SWPPP) and erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as well as accounting for any BMPs required for operational activities. The SWPPP shall incorporate the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Submitted plans shall also demonstrate compliance with City of Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 13.68 Storm Water Ordinance and Chapter 14.36 Erosion and Sediment Control. 143. HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage plans including a final Stormwater Low Impact Development and Stormwater Control Plan that implements the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. 144. NOI-1: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final design plans and an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer demonstrating that the design incorporates adequate controls to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower within residential units. The acoustical engineer shall verify that appropriate building construction techniques required to meet the interior noise standard, which may include sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, and acoustical caulking are installed in a manner that achieves 45 dBA Ldn.
145. NOI-2: The Project shall implement best management practices to minimize construction-related noise impacts as set forth in Action N1h of the General Plan, as listed below, and shall meet all applicable noise standards as set forth in Section

17.30.050 of the Cotati Municipal Code:
456 of 539
A. Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays.

B. All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

C. The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

D. At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.

E. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

F. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

G. Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

H. The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

I. The contractor shall construct a solid plywood fence along the western and northwestern property lines to shield the adjoining future (if applicable) and existing residential receptors from construction work. A temporary 8-foot-tall noise barrier would be tall enough to block direct line-of-sight with ground-level receptors and reduce noise levels generated by large earthwork equipment by a minimum of 4 dBA.
146. REC-1: The applicant shall provide the remaining balance of parkland in compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C) or pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(D) and as approved by the Planning Director. 147. TRA-1: Final Project plans shall show the location and details of proposed bicycle parking on site based on final vehicular parking space counts and consistent with the requirements of Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.36.070. 148. TRA-2: Prior to commencing public improvements or construction of frontage improvement and access point along SR-116, the applicant shall secure an encroachment permit from Caltrans and provide a copy of the permit to the Community Development Department.
149. TRA-3: Final design and landscaping plans shall be submitted and show compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.30.040(c)(2). Final landscaping plans shall include the specific plants that will be placed in the traffic safety visibility area and their maximum 457 of 539
projected height which shall be no taller than 36 inches except for trees with their canopy trimmed to a minimum of eight feet above grade. These standards shall be applied to intersections between the multi-use path and any intersecting streets or driveways. 150. TRA-4: If Project occupancy occurs prior to the realignment of W. Cotati/SR-116 project, an eastbound left-turn lane on SR-116 with a minimum of 50 feet of storage shall be provided at the eastern project driveway, subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer.
151. UTI-1:The applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for plantings at the time of the Improvement Plan submittal package. All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the City Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all plantings and irrigation systems in the approved final landscaping plan shall be completed.
152. UTI-2:The final Project plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval to confirm water demand and wastewater generation can be met by utilities prior to permit issuance.
153. UTI-3: The applicant shall execute a City standard Public Improvement Agreement to address the proposed public improvements. The agreement shall address design, construction, dedication of and City acceptance of the public improvements. The agreement shall include an engineer’s cost estimate for the public improvements, security for the completion of these improvements, an initial deposit and execution of the City’s deposit account agreement for City inspection of the construction of the public improvements. The agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City.

The agreement shall also address the ownership, maintenance, lighting, parking, and access and shall be recorded against the lands of the project. 154. MF-1: The applicant shall coordinate the project’s construction activities and construction schedule with the City to coordinate the concurrent construction of projects immediately adjacent to the project site and ensure that overlapping lane closures, periods of increased noise and dust generation are minimized to the extent practicable.

ADDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 21, 2025
155. In the Final Landscape Plan, designate a space for public art within the central public park or another highly visible location approved by the Community Development Department.
156. Applicant shall contribute to the City’s bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding program or install wayfinding signage along the project frontage to identify the onsite public park locations and access points.
458 of 539
157. Create a stronger pedestrian link between the apartment building and the rest of the development to better integrate it with the condominium units and central open space. To improve pedestrian connectivity, explore alternative paving options for the portion of Street C in front of the apartment building, such as woonerf-style designs, and incorporate pedestrian-focused lighting.
158. The proposed optional 33 ADUs shall be included in the Project and offered as an option for prospective buyers.
159. All on-site amenities, including the swimming pool and pool house, must be accessible to all Project residents, including those in the apartment building. The Homeowners Association's CC&Rs shall clearly outline the process or method for granting access to Project residents who are not HOA members but wish to use the facilities. Any fees for access must be proportional to the costs of maintaining and operating these amenities. [End of Conditions of Approval]
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 May 13, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
City Attorney
459 of 539
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CITY FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Date: May 13, 2025
Written by: Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution updating the Master Fee Schedule and charges for City services and repealing previously adopted or conflicting fees and charges for such services.

Background
The City of Cotati has historically maintained a policy of recovering the cost of providing miscellaneous City services and regulatory activities so that the costs are borne by the direct beneficiaries of the services and regulatory activities, rather than by the City’s General Fund.

Annually, City staff are directed to update the Fees in accordance with Cotati Municipal Code

3.42. Notice of the Council‘s consideration of the updated Master Fee Schedule and fee changes has been provided in compliance with applicable law. As also required by the Mitigation Fee Act, the City’s information and cost data supporting the fee increases has been made available to the public at the City Clerk‘s office ten days in advance of the meeting.

Analysis/Discussion
Following the update to the fee schedule in 2024, in practice, staff have found some areas of the fee schedule need updates beyond simple inflationary adjustments. However, most of the fees in the schedule have only been adjusted based on the San Francisco Bay Area CPI February index, in accordance with Cotati Municipal Code 3.42, which for 2025 was 2.7%. For development impact fees, the construction cost index (CCI) was used. Some fees, typically concerning document production and copying (public record requests), are set by statute and cannot be adjusted to recover actual costs.
460 of 539
To facilitate understanding of the changes made to the previous fee schedule, a tracked changes version of the schedule is attached. When the updated fee schedule goes into effect 60 days from adoption, the changes to the document will be accepted and formatting cleaned up.

Financial Considerations
The fiscal impact from the proposed fee schedules is difficult to determine and will be driven by utilization of the related services. However, the proposed fee schedule is intended to improve overall the City’s recovery of costs incurred, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public-at-large.

Environmental Issues
Adoption of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of the Resolution is intended to recover costs necessary to maintain such services within the City within existing service areas and is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") section 15378(b)(4) (the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any specific commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment); and/or CEQA Guidelines section 15273 (statutory exemption for rates, tolls, fares and charges within an existing service area); and/or CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (“common sense” general exemption where there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment). 461 of 539
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI UPDATING THE

MASTER SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES AND

REPEALING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND CONFLICTING FEES AND CHARGES FOR SUCH SERVICES.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cotati (“City”) has maintained a policy of recovering up to the full cost of providing miscellaneous voluntary City services and regulatory activities from those persons utilizing them, so that such costs are borne by the direct beneficiaries of such services and regulatory activities rather than by the City General Fund, pursuant to applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City’s schedule of such services and regulatory activities by Resolution No. 2024-58 on the 28th day of May 2024; and
WHEREAS, annually, City staff are directed to update the Fees contained in Exhibit “A” in accordance with Cotati Municipal Code 3.42; and
WHEREAS, in adopting the fees and charges for City services as set forth in this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, Section 66014 of the California Government Code, and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, none of the fees and charges set forth in the Fee Schedule adopted by this Resolution is a “tax” as defined in Section 1, paragraph (e) of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution because such fees and charges are imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the local government of providing the service or product; such fees and charges are imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the local government of providing the service or product; and/or such fees and charges are imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof; and/or such fees and charges are imposed as a condition of property development; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 50076, fees and charges that do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or regulatory activity for which the fees are charged and which are not levied for general revenue purposes are not special taxes as defined in Article 3.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65909.5, reasonable city fees for the processing of use permits, zone variances, or zone changes shall not exceed the amount 462 of 539
reasonably required to administer the processing of such permits, zone variances or changes; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code Section 66016, the fees contained in the Fee Schedule and the basis for calculating such fees constitute cost data supporting the fee increases and new fees and charges, and such cost data was available for public review and comment for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted; and WHEREAS, 10 days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to adopt a schedule of fees and charges, which updates certain existing fees and charges, and/or establishes certain new fees and charges based on the City's budgeted and projected costs of providing such services; and WHEREAS, the schedule of fees and the total amounts thereof, described in Exhibit "A," which is attached to and made a part of this Resolution, are hereby determined to be reasonable in that the amounts thereof do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services for which the charges and fees are made.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cotati as follows:

Section 1. Findings. The following findings are true and correct and adopted as the findings of the City Council:

A. The purpose of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution is to recover up to the full, lawfully recoverable costs incurred by the City in providing various City services, and such fees and charges are not levied for general revenue purposes.

B. After consideration of the data and information regarding the costs of providing services relating to all fees and charges subject to this Resolution, including the Fee Schedule, Staff Billing Rates, all testimony received orally or in writing at or before the noticed public hearing, the agenda report and the background documents to the agenda report and all correspondence received (together, “Record”), the City Council of the City of Cotati approves and adopts the methods and basis of calculations of the fees and charges identified in Exhibit “A” as establishing the reasonable estimated cost of providing such services or activities.

C. Adoption of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution is intended to recover costs necessary to maintain such services within the City within existing service areas and is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") section 15378(b)(4) (the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any specific commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment); and/or CEQA Guidelines section 15273 (statutory exemption for rates, tolls, fares and charges within an existing service area); and/or 463 of 539
CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (“common sense” general exemption where there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment).

D. The Record establishes that the costs listed in the Fee Schedule and the staff rates applicable to those fees and charges which are to be increased and/or established as costs incurred by the City in providing City services are reasonable estimates of the cost of providing such services, and that the revisions recommended to existing fees for such services are necessary to recover the reasonable, estimated cost of providing such services.

Section 2. Fee Schedule Adoption. The fee amounts that result from the application of the methods and basis of calculation of the Fees identified in Exhibit “A” to current staff billing rates specified for services and activities subject to such fees are hereby imposed on the services or activities subject to such Fees at the time such services or activities are sought and/or performed by the City or its designated contractors.

Section 3. Separate Fee for Each Process. All fees set by this Resolution are for each identified process or service; additional fees shall be required for each additional process or service that is requested or required. Where fees are indicated on a per unit of measurement basis, the fee is for each identified unit or portion thereof within the indicated ranges of such units.

Section 4. Adoption of Fees.

A. Definitions.
(1) “Applicant” shall mean any person required by the Cotati Municipal Code or other applicable law to apply to the City seeking a permit or other approval or services or to file documents, including, but not limited to, maps, concerning proposed Development Projects within the City. “Applicant” shall also mean any person who: (i) is permitted by the Cotati Municipal Code or other applicable law to apply to the City seeking a permit or other approval or services or to file documents, including, but not limited to, maps, concerning proposed Development Projects within the City and who (ii) actually applies to the City seeking such permit or other approval or services or files such documents.
(2) “Development Projects” shall mean the construction, alteration or addition, other than by the City, of any building or structure within the City, and any use of land, other than by the City, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, within the City that is subject pursuant to the Cotati Municipal Code or other applicable law to first seeking and obtaining from the City a permit or other approval or services or to first filing documents, including, but not limited to, maps with the City.
(3) “Fees” shall mean the charge or charges imposed on members of the public or Applicants to recover the costs incurred by the City in providing City services to any member of the public and development related services to Applicants.

B. Services Fees Imposed.

Fees shall be imposed on and paid by members of the public and Applicants at the times, and in the amounts, and otherwise apply and be administered as prescribed in this Resolution. The City shall accept for processing no applications or other filings that are subject to payment of Fees without the fee required pursuant to this Resolution.
464 of 539
C. Time for Payment of Fees.

The estimated Fees applicable to members of the public and Applicants subject to payment of Fees shall be deposited and/or be paid, upon a member of the public or an Applicant seeking or being required to seek a permit or other approval or services or filing documents, including, but not limited to, maps, concerning or related to City services and/or proposed Development Projects within the City, and upon notice from the City that a deposit for future processing is required.

D. Fee Amounts.

The fee amounts shall be as specified in the Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The total Fees applicable to any City services or Development Projects that require payment of multiple Fees shall be the sum of all such Fees.

E. Use of Fee Revenue.

The revenues raised by payment of the Fees shall be used to fund the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which the Fees are charged, and the fee revenues shall not be used for general revenue purposes. Fees shall be applied against the cost of providing the services for which the fees are charged. The City shall maintain a record of direct and indirect costs of providing services for City services and Development Projects subject to the deposit.

F. Deposit Maintenance.

Applicants subject to Fees in the form of a deposit must maintain minimum deposit balances in accordance with this resolution and any corresponding deposit agreement.

G. Refund of Unused Deposit Balances.

Fees other than deposit amounts are not subject to refund. If a fund balance remains in the deposit for a Development Project, and the City services for such Development Project are completed and all City service costs paid from such deposit, the remaining deposit balance shall be refunded, without interest, to the Applicant.

Section 5. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fees. The fees and charges set forth herein are adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the Record identified above.

The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the fees and charges for City services should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council may review the fees and charges to determine that the amounts do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which the fees and charges are charged.

Section 6. Adjustment. Annually, City staff are directed to update the Fees contained in Exhibit “A” in accordance with Cotati Municipal Code 3.42. If the fees are no longer adequate to recover the reasonable estimated cost of providing such services and regulatory activities, staff are directed to return to the City Council with a new staff analysis and proposed Fee calculations for consideration and possible adoption by the City Council. Staff are further authorized to make nonsubstantive administrative edits to Exhibit “A” for the purpose of clarifying fees. 465 of 539
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective 60 days following adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, all new and/or increased fees and charges upon a development project, as defined in Government Code Section 66000, which apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution.

Section 8. Repealed. These Fees and charges shall supersede the fees previously established and adopted by the City Council. All previously adopted and conflicting fees and charges and all resolutions, including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 2024-58 and other actions of the City Council are hereby repealed to the extent they conflict with the contents of this Resolution.

Section 9. Severability. The individual fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any of the fees or charges or any portion of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining fees, charges and/or Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those fees, charges, and/or Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Cotati hereby declares that it would have adopted each of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, and this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of the fees, charges, or sections, subsections, clauses, sentences, phrases or other portions of this Resolution may be held invalid or unconstitutional.

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 May 13th, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

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

Exhibit A Master Fee Schedule (DOCX)
466 of 539
July 2025August 2024
Master Fee Schedule
467 of 539
1 July 2025August 2024
Contents
Administrative Services Fees……………. 2
Building and Development Fees…………. 6
Cannabis Permit Fees……………………. 21
Public Safety Fees………………………... 23
Park, Recreation & Facilities Fees……….. 27
Business License Tax Rates……………… 33
468 of 539
2 July 2025August 2024
Administrative
Services Fees
469 of 539
3 July 2025August 2024

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Water Meter Test Charge
On-Site each $1096.00
3 rd party
City Administrative Fee each $1096.00
Consultant Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost
New Water Account
Owner & Renter Deposit $200.00
Backflow Device
Annual Administration
Annual Monitoring Administrative Fee Per Year $831.00
City-Tested Devices
City Staff Testing Administration Per Year $831.00
3 rd Party Provider/Contractor Actual Cost Actual Cost
Water Test Fee
City Administrative Fee Each $22519.00
Consultant Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost
Bill Delinquency Charge Per Bill $232.00
Delinquent Account Reconnection Charge Each $532.00
Inspection of Modification of Service
City Administrative Fee Per Service $3754655.00
Consultant Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost
Fire Hydrant Meter/Water ATM/Temporary Meter
Deposit Deposit $1250.00
Usage Deposit Deposit
Est. Cost of
Temp Service
in Advance
City Administrative Fee Per Month $532.00
Water Usage Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Charges at Tier
3 Rates
After-Hours Service Fee Each $16056.00
470 of 539
4 July 2025August 2024

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Return Check Fee (CA Civil Code §1719(a))
First Returned Check Per Check $25.00
Each Additional Check Per Check $35.00
Void and Reissue Vendor Checks Per Check $25.00
Penalties
Greater of $15
or Current
LAIF Interest
for
Penalization
Period
Tampering Fee
First Occurrence Each $1640.00
Each Subsequent Occurrence Each $65740.00
For services requested of Administrative Services City
Staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager’s Designee shall
determine the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the Applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service
providers if required to process the specific application.

Hourly $1684.00
1 When water service is discontinued for non-payment of bills, the City will apply the non-refundable Delinquent Account Reconnection Charge (above) to the delinquent account. The City may demand that the full amount of the delinquent bill, any subsequent bills, as well as any applied fees, be paid in full before service is restored. Additionally, a non-refundable After-Hours Service Fee is payable for service requests outside City Hall business hours as stated in footnote 2. 2 For after-hours water service (turn-on service), the After-Hours Service Fee (non-refundable), plus any account balance due, as noted in footnote 1 above, is to be paid at the Cotat Police Department before the Public Works Department will be called out.
471 of 539
5 July 2025August 2024

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Copy Fees

8.5” x 14” or smaller Per Page $0.10
Oversize documents, or documents requiring
special processing Each Actual Cost
Electronic Copy (readily available) Each No Charge
Electronic Copy (requiring data compilation,
extraction, or programming to produce the
record)
Each Actual Cost
CD Copy Each Actual Cost
DVD Copy Each Actual Cost
USB Drive Copy Each Actual Cost
Solicitor Permit
501 (c) (3) Each $343.00
All Others – Blanket Permit Each $343.00
Identification Card Each $343.00
Subpoena
Deposition Subpoena Per Day
$275 per day
as deposit in
advance, plus
actual cost.

GC §6809.1;
§68097.2
Records Subpoena Per Request $15.00
For services requested of General Administrative City
Staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager’s Designee shall
determine the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service
providers if required to process the specific application.

Hourly $1351.00
472 of 539
6 July 2025August 2024
Building &
Development Fees
473 of 539
7 July 2025August 2024
Important Information on Fees
If you are submitting an application for building permit or review by Planning or Engineering, you will be required to pay various fees associated with review and processing of your application(s). The following information is provided as a guide, but the specific circumstances of your application may result in multiple fees being assessed. Please ensure that you have a complete understanding of the various fees that may apply to your application before you submit. Most building permit costs are onetime fees, while Planning and Engineering reviews are completed on a full cost recovery basis with initial deposits. The time to review, and therefore the cost, varies by the complexity of the project, completeness of the information provided, and applicant responsiveness. Building fees based on the valuation and details of your project are due at time of permit issuance, with some deposits due at application if outside plan check or inspection services are required. The vast majority of amounts listed in the Planning and Engineering sections are deposits unless otherwise noted as a fee, and are due at time of application. Applicants are responsible for actual costs incurred, including consultant costs and staff costs at fully burdened rates. For requested services of City Staff for which no fee is listed in the Fee Schedule, the Director or Directors of the department or departments whose services are requested shall determine the appropriate fee based on current hourly rates of staff.

Please also note that the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District may also levy fees on your project. Those fees are not included here. You should contact those agencies directly to determine if additional fees apply.

If you have questions about fees that my apply to your project, please feel free to contact the Community Development Department at (707) 665-3637.

Adopting Ordinances / Resolutions
Fees for Services, Ord. 692
Master Fee Schedule, eff. 7/28/2024 (Reso. 2024-28)
Traffic Impact Fees, eff. 10/27/2025 (Ord. 858, Reso. 2015-71) Water & Sewer Connection Fees, eff. 9/27/2016 (Reso. 2016-68) Water Conservation Fee – Reso. 93-83
Annual Impact Fee Inflationary Adjustments – CMC 4.20 (when adopted to supersede other inflationary indices) Affordable Housing In-Lieu (Ord. 782, Reso. 88-33A)
Commercial Linkage Fee, eff. 4/12/2006 (Ord. 782, Reso. 06-21 Growth Management, eff. 4/24/1991 (Ord. 548)
Penalties for Unpermitted Construction, eff. 11/9/2016 (Ord. 864) Park In-Lieu, eff. 2004 (Ord. 766)
Bed Tax, eff. 6/11/1974 (Ord. 204)
474 of 539
8 July 2025August 2024

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee Annual $1230.00
Annexation Deposit $8,420199.00
Appeals Flat $54834.00
Commercial Cannabis Permit
Application New
Application $7,609409.00
Renewal (Refer to cannabis permit section
for detail)
Every Two
Years $3,0142,935.00
Design Review
Administrative Review Flat $2,18427.00
Preliminary Review Deposit $6,575402.00
Final Review Deposit $2,39431.00
Environmental Review
CEQA Exemption Determination Hourly $201196
Initial Study / Negative Declaration /
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City Administrative Fee Deposit $8,3057,824.00
Consultant Costs Actual Cost Actual Cost
Initial Study / Environmental Impact
Report
City Administrative Fee Deposit $8,3057,824.00
Consultant Costs Actual Cost Actual Cost
General Plan Amendment Deposit $17,610147.00
Hillside Development Permit Deposit $2,39431.00
Limited Term Permits Deposit $1,09667.00
Planning Plan Check (of Building Plans /
Permits) Hourly $201196.00
Pre-Application Reviews
Single Family Home (Owner Occupied) Flat Actual Cost
Formal Conceptual Plan Review or
Preliminary (with written comments) Flat $2,636567.00
475 of 539
9 July 2025August 2024
Public Noticing / Re-Noticing Flat Actual Cost
476 of 539
10 July 2025August 2024

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Signs
New Sign Flat $27467.00
Replacement Flat $1086.00
Master Sign Program / Planning
Commission Review Deposit $2,410347.00
Subdivisions
Parcel Map Deposit $9,574322.00
Tentative Subdivision Map Deposit $17,610147.00
Time Extension Deposit $5,0224,890.00
Tree Removal
Standard Tree Removal Application Fee
First 5 Trees Each $543.00
Each Additional Each $10198.00
Removal Requiring Arborist
City Staff Review Flat $803782.00
Consultant Review Actual Cost Actual Cost
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee Each $13128.00
Penalty for Removal Without Permit 2x Removal Application Fee + 2x In-Lieu Fee Use Determination Hourly $201196.00
Use Permit
Minor Use Permit Deposit $1,99139.00
Modification to Previously Approved Use
Permit Deposit $3,59904.00
Major Use Permit Deposit $4,787661.00
Variance
Minor Flat $1,608566.00
Major Deposit $4,0083,913.00
Zoning Code / Zoning Map / PUD Amendment Deposit $12,05411,737.0 0 Zoning Clearance or Research Actual Cost Actual Cost
Zoning Compliance Review – Business License Flat (New
Businesses) $10.00
477 of 539
11 July 2025August 2024

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
For services requested of Building and Planning City
Staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager’s Designee shall
determine the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service
providers if required to process the specific application.

Hourly
*1/2 hour
minimum
$196.00
478 of 539
12 July 2025August 2024

BUILDING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEES
Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Fee
Building Permit / Inspection – Single Famil Residential $500 Base fee up to $500 $109.586.70
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof Each additional $100 $5.5036 $2,001 Base fee @ $2,000 $191.7786.73
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $36.865.89 $25,001 Base fee @ $25,000 $1,039.9312.59
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $17.7831 $50,001 Base fee @ $50,000 $1,483.7444.73
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $9.8054 $100,001 Base fee @ $100,000 $1,973.5721.68
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $3.9585 $500,001 Base fee @ $500,000 $3,555.93462.44
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $5.9175 $1,000,001 Base fee @
$1,000,000 $6,508.06336.96
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $6.5134 Building Permit / Inspection – Commercial / Multi-Family / Industrial $500 Base fee up to $500 $109.586.70
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof Each additional $100 $5.4836 $2,001 Base fee @ $2,000 $191.7786.73
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $28.367.61 $25,001 Base fee @ $25,000 $843.7821.60
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $15.9654 $50,001 Base fee @ $50,000 $1,242.6509.98
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $13.7135 $100,001 Base fee @ $100,000 $1,928.63877.93
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $6.7860 $500,001 Base fee @ $500,000 $4,640.79518.78
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $11.8150 $1,000,001 Base fee @
$1,000,000 $10,546.15268.89
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $1.2118 $5,000,001 Base fee @ 5,000,000 $15,336.9314,933.72
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $1.4137 $10,000,001 Base fee @
10,000,000 $22,448.911,858.72
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $2.2519 Building Plan Check
In-House Plan Check Percentage 65% of Building
Permit Fee
Third-Party Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
479 of 539
13 July 2025August 2024
480 of 539
14 July 2025August 2024
MISCELLANEOUS FEES – FLAT RATE PERMITS
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Photovoltaic Systems (Solar Systems)1
Residential Roof Mount (Up to 15 kW) Flat $450.00
Per kW over 15 kW Flat $15.00
Commercial (Up to 50 kW) Flat $1,000.00
Per kW between 51 kW – 250 kW Flat $7.00
Per kW above 250 kW Flat $5.00
Energy (T24 / CALGREEN) Each $131.00
Each $128.00
Re-roof
Residential Each $49380.00
Commercial Each $1,010983.00
Minor Repair Each $57055.00
1 Fees in this section are set by Government Code § 66015 481 of 539
15 July 2025August 2024

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING PERMIT (MEP) AND PLAN

CHECK FEES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Single Item Permit – Single Family Residential
Water Heater Base* $1983.00
HVAC Base* $1983.00
Panel Upgrade Base* $27467.00
*Does not include required state fees
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Residential – Up to 50 Amps Flat $2193.00
Commercial – Up to 50 Amps Flat $54228.00
Commercial – Over 50 Amps Flat $73819.00
Stand Alone MEP Permit – Single Family Residential
$500 Base fee up to $500 $98.626.03
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof Each additional $100 $23.042.43 $2,001 Base fee @ $2,000 $444.9033.20
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $7.5333 $25,001 Base fee @ $25,000 $618.0401.79
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $3.02294.00 $50,001 Base fee @ $50,000 $692.5574.34
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $5.4228 $100,001 Base fee @ $100,000 $964.3238.97
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $1.3027 $500,001 Base fee @ $500,000 $1,483.7444.73
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $1.285 $1,000,001 Base fee @ $1,000,000 $2,124.79068.93
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $2.1307 For MEP work as part of larger Building Permit Percentage of Permit 25% of Building Permit Fee
482 of 539
16 July 2025August 2024

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING PERMIT (MEP) AND PLAN

CHECK FEES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Stand Alone MEP Permit – Commercial / Multi-Family /Industrial (Includes T24 Energy /

CALGREEN
$500 Base fee up to $500 $98.626.03
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof Each additional $100 $23.052.44 $2,001 Base fee @ $2,000 $444.9033.20
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $8.5129 $25,001 Base fee @ $25,000 $639.9523.13
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $6.9375 $50,001 Base fee @ $50,000 $813.10791.72
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $5.4228 $100,001 Base fee @ $100,000 $1,084.8656.34
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $2.7063 $500,001 Base fee @ $500,000 $2,169.72112.68
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $2.460 $1,000,001 Base fee @ $1,000,000 $3,404.70315.19
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $0.7169 $5,000,001 Base fee @ 5,000,000 $6,207.80044.60
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $0.8179 $10,000,001 Base fee @ 10,000,000 $10,244.809,975.46
Each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Each additional $1000 $1.020.99 For MEP work as part of larger Building
Permit Percentage of Permit 25% of Building Permit Fee
483 of 539
17 July 2025August 2024

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours Hourly (2 hr. min.) $31305.00 CASP Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
City Processing Hourly $31305.00
Re-Inspection Hourly (1 hr. min.) $31305.00
Growth Management Review Per Unit $15046.00
Additional plan review required by changes,
additions, or revisions to plans Hourly (1 hr. min.) $31305 Technology Fee
$500 to $100,000 Valuation Each 0.001 x Value
(min. $6.00)
$100,001 to $500,000 Valuation Each 0.0008 x Value
(min. $80.00)
$500,001 and Above Valuation Each

0.0006 x Value
(min. $300, max.
$500)
California Building Standards
$1 - $25,000 Each $1.00
$25,001 - $50,000 Each $2.00
$50,001 - $75,000 Each $3.00
$75,001 - $100,000 Each $4.00
Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above
$100,000 Each $1.00
SMIP Fee
Single-Family Residential / ADU Each 0.00013% of
Valuation
Commercial / Multi-Family / Industrial Each 0.00028% of Valuation
Penalty Fee – Working without a Permit Each 2 x Building Permit Fee
Permit Renewal Hourly (1/2 hr. min.) $31305.00
484 of 539
18 July 2025August 2024

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
Fee Name Fee / Deposit Amount
Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Based on sales price of unit, calculated as
follows:
$2,532465 first $125,000 of sales price + $21105
for each $5000 increment thereafter
Bed Tax (all new residential construction)
2 Bedrooms $36959.00
ADU – 2 Bedrooms 4 $1850.00
3 Bedrooms $42211.00
4 or more Bedrooms $47362.00
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Recovery $7870 per acre of property developed within DSP Plan
Linkage
Commercial $2.557 per sq. ft.

Industrial $2.746 per sq. ft.

Retail $4.404 per sq. ft.

Park In-Lieu
Calculated according to the following formula:
(DUs x Population/DU) x (5 acres/1000
population) x (Fair Market Value/Total acres of
project site) = Subtotal x 6/5 = In Lieu Fee
Traffic1
Residential $8,415178.00 / unit
1 Bedroom ADU 4 $1,58338.00 / unit
2 Bedroom ADU 4 $3,166077.00 / unit
Commercial $8,881631.00 / 1000 sq. ft.

Restaurant $13,507126.00 / 1000 sq. ft.

Industrial $4,886748.00 / 1000 sq. ft.

Office $5,991822.00 / 1000 sq. ft.

Sewer Connections (Based on Meter Size)2
¾-inch $19,003.00
1-inch $31,737.00

1.5-inch $63,282.00
2-inch $101,291.00
3-inch $169,155.00
4-inch $323,064.00
485 of 539
19 July 2025August 2024

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
Fee Name Fee/Deposit Amount
Water Connections (Based on Meter Size)3
¾-inch $10,617.00
1-inch $17,764.00

1.5-inch $35,354.00
2-inch $56,588.00
3-inch $106,165.00
4-inch $180,483.00
6-inch $350,349.00
Water Conservation (Resolution 93-83)
New Residential $1,750.00 / unit
Industrial / Commercial / Mixed-Use $1,500.00 / acre
Fire System Connection Per Resolution 2016-68, this fee is included in the water connection fee
1 For land use decisions not specifically included in the Traffic Impact Fee table above, the fee shall be calculated at a rate of $5,425.51 per p.m. peak hour trip as established by the project’s traffic impact analysis. For land use designations of Specific Plan, the fee shall be calculated by aggregating the proposed individual use types and paid in accordance with the adopting resolution 2 Applicable to all customer classes. Fees for multi-family projects will be charged based on the size of the water meter
3 All customer classes based on meter size
4 Development Impact Fees only apply to ADUs over 750 square feet 486 of 539
20 July 2025August 2024

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Certificate of Compliance Each $54834.00
Encroachment Permits
Minor (No Construction / No Inspection) Each $2891.00
Major (Short Duration / Inspection
Required) Each $1,15323.00
Major (Long Duration / Inspection
Required)
City Staff Deposit $6,1535,991.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Engineering Review of Planning Application
Simple Each $57661.00
Complex
City Staff Hourly $19186.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Engineering Review of Building Application
Simple Each $57661.00
Complex
City Staff Hourly $19186.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Flood Plain Certificate Review Each $19186.00
Flood Plain Review Deposit $76949.00
Grading Plan Check, Permit & Inspection
Plan Check
< 50 CY Flat $76949.00
> 50 CY
City Staff Flat $1,538498.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Permit & Inspection
< 50 CY Flat $1,538498.00
> 50 CY
City Staff Flat $3,0762,995.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Improvement Plan Review
4 Lots or Less
City Staff Deposit $3,845744.00
487 of 539
21 July 2025August 2024
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Improvement Plan Review
5 Lots or More
City Staff Deposit $7,650449.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Real Property Document Review
City Staff Deposit $6,1535,991.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Maps
Parcel Map – 4 Lots or Less
City Staff Deposit $6,1535,991.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Final Map – 5 Lots or More
City Staff Deposit $7,650449.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger
City Staff Deposit $3,845744.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Public Improvement Inspections
4 Lots or Less
City Staff Deposit $6,1535,991.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
5 Lots or More Fee Specified
by Agreement
Street or Right-of-Way Vacation
City Staff Each $7,650449.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Certificate of Correction Per
Application $76949.00
488 of 539
22 July 2025August 2024

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Water Meter Installation / Charge
Turn-On Service
(City Administrative Processing) Each $387.00
Installation
2-inch or less Each $28174.00
3-inch or more Each $36656.00
Meter Charge
¾-inch Each Actual Cost
1-inch Each Actual Cost

1.5-inch Each Actual Cost
2-inch Each Actual Cost
3-inch Each Actual Cost
4-inch Each Actual Cost
Downsizing Meter Size Each Actual Cost
Outside Utility Service Agreement
City Staff Deposit $7,650449.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Condominium Plats
City Staff Deposit $7,650449.00
Consultant Actual Cost Actual Cost
Reconciliation of Deposit Billing Annual $39,3138,279.00 For services requested of Engineering and Public
Works City Staff which have no fee listed in this
fee schedule, the City Manager or the City
Manager’s designee shall determine the
appropriate fee based on the established hourly
rates for this department/division. Additionally,
the City will pass-through to the applicant any
discrete costs incurred from the use of external
service providers if required to process the specific
application.

Hourly $19186.00
489 of 539
23 July 2025August 2024
Cannabis Permit Fees
490 of 539
24 July 2025August 2024

CANNABIS PERMIT SERVICES
Fee Name Fee Authority Fee
Annual Registration Fee CMC § 5.30.060.C $100.00
New Cannabis Permit Fee CMC § 5.30.320 $7,609409.00
Cannabis Permit Administrative CMC § 5.30.320 $3,0142,935.00 Cannabis Permit Non-Administrative CMC § 5.30.320 $7,609409.00 Cash Business Tax Payment Surcharge (per
payment) CMC 5.30.320 $54834.00
Annual Financial Audit CMC § 5.30.190.B Actual Cost + 10% Delinquency and Appeals – Delinquent
Registration2
CMC § 5.30.110 Registration Due +
25% (+25% each
additional month)
Delinquent Business Tax Payment CMC § 5.30.110 Tax Due + 25% (+25% each
additional month)
Business Tax Appeal CMC § 5.30.260 $5,479335.00
Footnotes
CMC = City of Cotati Municipal Code
1 Permit application fees do not include the cost of any required entitlement processes or building permitting.
2 See CMC § 5.04.200 for additional details
491 of 539
25 July 2025August 2024
Public Safety Fees
492 of 539
26 July 2025August 2024

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Animal Control Recovery
1 st Incident Per Animal $287.00
2 nd Incident Per Animal $543.00
3 rd Incident Per Animal $1096.00
Animal Trap Rental Deposit $543.00
Animal Control Registration
Altered Dog Per Animal $20.00
Senior Owner Discounted Altered Dogs Per Animal $6.00
Unaltered Dog Per Animal $40.00
Unlicensed Dog Found Per Animal $53.00
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual (3 years) $50.00
Dangerous Dog Annual (Life) $150.00
Voluntary Feline Registration (Altered) Per Animal $27.00 Voluntary Feline Registration (Unaltered) Per Animal $37.00 Replacement Animal Tags Each $10.00
Animal Impounding or Quarantine Fee (Dogs
& Cats)
On City Property Per Day $15.00
At Animal Shelter Per Animal Actual Cost
Disposal of Deceased Animals Per Animal Actual Cost
Annual Taxi Permit
Initial Deposit for Application Each $54834.00
Initial Owner or Driver Each $6,302136.00
Annual Owner Renewal Yearly $54834.00
Driver Renewal Yearly $1096.00
Department of Justice Fee (Payable to DOJ) Each Actual Cost Bicycle Registration Each No Charge
Citation Sign-Off (Citation Not Issued by Cotati
Police) Each No Charge
Concealed Weapon Permit
Department of Justice Fee (Payable to DOJ) Each Actual Cost New Permit Each $39484.00
Renewal Annual $1983.00
ID Cards
Identification Card Each $5.00
Proximity Card Each $15.00
493 of 539
27 July 2025August 2024

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Impounded Vehicle Storage Fee No Charge
Impound / Abandonment / Abatement Vehicle
Release
72-Hour Impound Per Incident $21105.00
Felony Offense Per Incident $21105.00
Misdemeanor Offense Per Incident $21105.00
Non-Criminal Based Per Incident $1096.00
LiveScan Fee
City Processing Fee Each $964.00
Department of Justice Fee – Payable to DOJ Actual Cost Actual Cost Mandated Firearm Storage
Intake, Recordation, Return/Disposal – First 5
Firearms Per Request $21105.00
Intake, Recordation, Return/Disposal –
Additional Firearms Per Firearm $1052.00
Storage Per Month $21105.00
Noise Disturbance Response
1 st Response Flat No Charge
2 nd Response Flat $720.00
3 rd Response Flat $14238.00
4 th Response and Thereafter Flat $203198.00
Party Ordinance Response
1 st Violation Flat $1096.00
2 nd Violation Flat $2193.00
Each Additional Violation Flat $54834.00
Posting on Premises Flat $1096.00
Photo Reproduction Per Request $543.00
Police Crime Verification Letter Per Request $287.00
Police False Alarm Response
1 st Response (per year) Flat No Charge
2 nd Response (per year) Flat $543.00
3 rd Response (per year) Flat $820.00
4 th Response and Thereafter (per year) Flat $11209.00
494 of 539
28 July 2025August 2024

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Fee Name Fee Unit/Type Fee
Police Report Copy*
Police Crime Report Each $232.00
Incident Report / CAD Printout Each $232.00
Vehicle Accident Investigation Report Each $232.00
*Report Fee waived for a “Victim of Violent Crime” as defined in the State of CA Victim Compensation Website Police Special Services
Sworn Hourly $22317.00
Non-Sworn Hourly $1983.00
Private Alarm Permit
Residential Annual $17.00
Commercial / Industrial Annual $287.00
Records Check / Clearance Letter Each $276.00
Staff Time Charges
Sworn Hourly $22317.00
Non-Sworn Hourly $1983.00
Subpoena Witness - Police
Per Day as Deposit in
Advance plus Actual
Cost
$275.00
Transportation Permit Per Application $21408.00
Vehicle Equipment Correction Inspection No Charge
Vehicle Repossession Receipt Each $498.00
Video / Audio Tape Reproduction
Dispatch Recording Per Request $498.00
Body Worn Camera Video Per Request $498.00
VIN Verification Per Verification $21408.00
495 of 539
29 July 2025August 2024
Park, Recreation &
Facilities Fees
496 of 539
30 July 2025August 2024

RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Room Rentals
Classrooms
Non-Profit/Community Service
Org/Gov’t Agency Hourly $17.00
Private (Resident) Hourly $232.00
Private (Non-Resident) Hourly $287.00
Cotati Room
Non-Profit/Community Service
Org/Gov’t Agency Hourly $543.00
Private (Resident) Hourly $775.00
Private (Non-Resident) Hourly $875.00
Room Security Deposits
Classrooms Deposit $50.00
Cotati Room Deposit $500.00
Miscellaneous Room/Park Fees
Portable Stereo Rental (Room Rentals Only) Each $287.00 Cleaning Fee (Contractor) Each Actual Cost
Cleaning (City Staff Provided) Hourly $19186.00
Damage to Facility Flat Actual Cost
Lost Key Each $1340.00
Recycle Contamination Fee Flat Actual Cost
Early Entry or Late Exit Fee Hourly
$1.5x
Current
Rental
Hourly Rate
Cancelation/Reschedule Fees
Cotati Room / Train Depot / Large Events
31 days or more prior to reservation Each $50.00
8-30 days prior to reservation Each 50% of Fee
7 days or less prior to reservation
Each
Actual
Facility
Rental Fee
Classrooms / Small / Medium Events
31 days or more prior to reservation Each $15.00
8-30 days prior to reservation Each 50% of Fee
7 days or less prior to reservation
Each
Actual
Facility
Rental Fee
497 of 539
31 July 2025August 2024

RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Late Booking Fees
Cotati Room / Train Depot / Large Events (less
than 30 days to reservation / event) Each $50.00
Classrooms / Small / Medium Events (less than
30 days to reservation / event) Each $10.00
Late Payment Fees
Cotati Room / Train Depot / Large Events (less
than 30 days to reservation / event) Each $50.00
Classrooms / Small / Medium Events (less than
30 days to reservation / event) Each $10.00
Cotati Train Depot
Hourly Rates
Government Agency Hourly $40.00
Non-Profit Hourly $50.00
Business Hourly $60.00
Private (Resident) Hourly $80.00
Private (Non-Resident) Hourly $90.00
Daily Rates
Government Agency Daily $400.00
Non-Profit Daily $500.00
Business Daily $600.00
Private (Resident) Daily $800.00
Private (Non-Resident) Daily $900.00
Weekly Rates (7 Consecutive Days)
Government Agency Weekly $1200.00
Non-Profit Weekly $1500.00
Business Weekly $1800.00
Monthly Rates (Per Calendar Month)
Government Agency Monthly $1600.00
Non-Profit Monthly $1800.00
Business Monthly $2000.00
Train Depot Security Deposits
Hourly or Daily Deposit $500.00
Weekly Deposit $750.00
Monthly Deposit $1500.00
Miscellaneous Train Depot Fees
Cleaning Fee (Contractor) Each Actual Cost
Cleaning Fee (City Staff Provided) Hourly $19186.00
498 of 539
32 July 2025August 2024

RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Non-City Sponsored Events
Fees for Outdoor Public Space Events, If
Applicable
Application Fee – Public Large Events Each $543.00
Special Event Business License Fee As Applicable $17.00 Street Closure Fee (Small) Each $76949.00
Street Closure with Traffic Re-routing Each $1,924873.00 Restroom Cleaning (Contractor) Each Actual Cost
Restroom Cleaning (City Staff) Hourly $19186.00
Event-Related Damage Each Actual Cost
Special Events Not in Parks
Approved Permit Fee Daily $1373.00
Security Deposit
Small Event (1-49 Patrons) Deposit $100.00
Medium Event (50-249 Patrons) Deposit $250.00
Large Event (250+ Patrons) Deposit $500.00
Free Events in City Parks
Permit Fees
Small Event (1-49 Patrons)
Resident Permit Fee Each $675.00
Non-Resident Permit Fee Each $920.00
Medium Event (50-249 Patrons)
Resident Permit Fee Each $1640.00
Non-Resident Permit Fee Each $2193.00
Large Event (250+ Patrons)
Resident Permit Fee Each $38474.00
Non-Resident Permit Fee Each $54834.00
Security Deposits
Small Event (1-49 Patrons) Deposit $100.00
Medium Event (50-249 Patrons) Deposit $250.00
Large Event (250+ Patrons) Deposit $500.00
499 of 539
33 July 2025August 2024

RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
City-Hosted Space Rental Fees
Vendor Fees - Small Event (<250 Patrons)
10x10 Space – No Sales – Gov’t Agency Each No Charge
10x10 Space – No Sales – Non-Profit Each $276.00
10x10 Space – W/ Sales – Non-Profit Each $410.00
10x20 Space – No Sales – Gov’t Agency Each No Charge
10x20 Space – No Sales – Non-Profit Each $510.00
10x20 Space – W/ Sales – Non-Profit Each $775.00
10x10 Space – Other Each $543.00
10x20 Space – Other Each $1030.00
Electricity Each $17.00
Vendor Fees - Large Event (>250 Patrons)
10x10 Space – No Sales – Gov’t Agency Each No Charge
10x10 Space – No Sales – Non-Profit Each $276.00
10x10 Space – W/ Sales – Non-Profit Each $532.00
10x20 Space – No Sales – Gov’t Agency Each No Charge
10x20 Space – No Sales – Non-Profit Each $532.00
10x20 Space – W/ Sales – Non-Profit Each $875.00
10x10 Space – Other Each $820.00
10x20 Space – Other Each $1540.00
Electricity Each $17.00
Contract Classes*
Contracted Classes in City Facilities
Instructor Uses City Registration System Per Person 30% of Fees Instructor Manages Registration Per Person 20% of Fees
Contracted Classes for Licensees at Farm
Instructor Uses City Registration System Per Person 10% of Fees Instructor Manages Registration Per Person 10% of Fees
Cancelation Fees Each
Per
Instructor
Policy
Fee for Non-Contract Classes, Programs, Field, or
Court Use Held in City Parks
Resident Hourly $265.00
Non-Resident Hourly $310.00
500 of 539
34 July 2025August 2024

RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Fee Name Fee
Unit/Type Fee Deposit
Camps*
One-Day Drop-In Per Person $46.00
Single Day Program / Class Per Person $46.00
Camp Registration by Week Per
Day/Person $42.00
Late Pickup Fee Per Minute $1.00
Other*
Cancelation Fees (All City Hosted Programs) Each See Note For services requested of Recreation City Staff, or
other programing of events, which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City
Manager’s Designee shall determine the appropriate
fee based on the established hourly rates for this
department/division. Additionally, the City will passthrough to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Full Time Hourly $19186.00
Part Time Hourly $410.00
*City Program Cancelation Policy: The City will issue a refund (less a 10% administration fee) up to 10 calendar days prior to the start of the program. Between 4 and 9 calendar days before the start of the program, the City will refund 50% of the registration fee. The City will not issue a refund with less than 4 calendar days to the start of the program. Contracted programs may have a different cancelation policy. Please contact the Recreation Department for more details.
501 of 539
35 July 2025August 2024
Business License Tax
Rates
502 of 539
36 July 2025August 2024
Important Information on Tax
A Business Tax Certificate, also known as a Business License, is proof of payment of the City’s business tax indicating tax period covered, and applies to businesses that operate in the City limits. This includes all contractors who perform work in the City. Business Tax Certificates are charged based on the calendar year. These taxes are established based on voter approval, and adjusted according to City Code 5.04.440.

BUSINESS TAX LICENSE
Business Type and Related Tax-Rate Basis Tax Amount
General in City (Base Rate) $91.810.18
FT Employee $13.132.90
FT Employee > 10 $6.5644
PT Employee $6.5644
Non-Profit Waiver $0.00
Military Waiver $0.00
In-Home Occupation
Annual Gross Receipts < $3000 $19.6833
Annual Gross Receipts < $6000 $39.358.65
Annual Gross Receipts > $6000 $78.697.30
Delivery of Goods $82.160.70
Vending Machine Operator (Per Dollar of Gross Revenues) 1.5% Part Time Occupation $19.6833
Landscaping Services $19.6833
Cannabis $100.00
Outside City Businesses $118.045.95
Solicitor – Door to Door $131.1528.83
Advertising Solicitor $77.165.79
General Contractor
Gen. Contractor Full Year $131.1528.83
Gen. Contractor Half Year $78.697.30
503 of 539
37 July 2025August 2024

BUSINESS TAX LICENSE
Business Type and Related Tax-Rate Basis Tax Amount
Sub Contractor
Sub Contractor Full Year $65.584.42
Sub Contractor Half Year $45.9110
Special Event $19.6833
Rental Properties $13.132.90
Add-On Taxes
Vending Machines (Each) $19.6833
Billiard / Gaming Tables
First Table $39.358.65
Each Additional Table $13.132.90
Delivery of Goods $82.160.70
Storage Facilities (Per Unit) $2.6257
Entertainment +Tax
Beer & Wine Sales > 5 Events $0.26
Beer, Wine & Spirits Sales > 5 Events $0.587
< 5 Events $0.16
Initial License for Space with Bar $210.9307.20
Under Federal and State law, compliance with disability access laws is a serious and significant responsibility that applies to all California building owners and tenants with buildings open to the public. You may obtain information about your legal obligations and how to comply with disability access laws at the following agencies:

The Division of the State Architect: www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Home.aspx The Department of Rehabilitation: www.rehab.cahwnet.gov The California Commission on Disability Access: www.ccda.ca.gov 504 of 539
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 - THIRD QUARTER - FINANCIAL UPDATE
Date: May 13, 2025
Written by: Angela Courter, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive the presentation on the un-audited financial position for the City as of the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2024/25 and receive the investment report for the quarter ended March 31, 2025.

Background
The quarterly financial updates are an opportunity for staff to update the City Council on current year budget performance based on actual operating results through March 30, 2025. This report's intent is to update the Council on how major revenue sources and operating expenditures are trending compared to the approved budget and propose any amendments to the budget if needed. Emphasis is placed on an analysis of the City’s major General Fund revenues, as the overall health of those revenues is instrumental to the City’s ability to help, and potentially enhance, services in the future. In addition to the General Fund revenues, we will also evaluate the General Fund expenditures and the Water Fund, Sewer Fund, and Cash and Investments.

The City hired Optimized Investment Partners (OIP) in May 2023 to help improve the investment returns for the city and to ensure compliance with California Government Code by ensuring safety of principal and sufficient liquidity for operations. The independently generated investment report for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, is attached along with the Quarterly Financial Report and Fiscal Resilience Report for consistency with prior quarters and compliance. This report is provided to meet the reporting requirements in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and the City of Cotati Investment Policy and Guidelines.
505 of 539
Analysis/Discussion
The City of Cotati’s main revenue sources as a percentage of total General Fund Sources are Bradley Burns sales taxes at 26.6%, voter approved local revenue (Measure S) at 27.75%, property taxes at 17% then other Taxes, Charges for Services, Permits and Licenses for a combined 29.2%.

Overall Revenues for the General Fund are $309,051 or 4.7% above the same period in Fiscal year 2023/24. There are additional accrued payments still pending and will be adjusted within the annual audited financial statements. Significant changes to the total revenues for the General Fund were:
• Other Taxes, primarily made up of cannabis business taxes, had increases of approximately 13.3% over prior year due to additional businesses operations. • Licenses, Permit & Franchises increased 20.0% primarily due to corrections in franchise fees - primarily cable franchise fees compared to the prior fiscal year. • Community Development changes have increased by approximately 31.6% primarily driven from permit fees and other charges for services. • Transfers in have increased by $284K or 526% primarily related to transfers back to the general fund from grants that were refunded back from the matching grants.

Expenditures:

Overall, cumulative General Fund expenditures decreased from the previous year by approximately 0.2% or $20K. This change was due to decreased transfers for capital projects offset by increases in other types of expenses, primarily insurance, utilities and repairs and maintenance.

By department, total dollar increases were noted in City Council, City Manager, Public Works, and Recreation Department. For City Council the primary increase was due to the timing of the contributions made as $15K has been made in the current fiscal year and $0 had been processed as of the prior year. For the City Managers Department, the primary increase pertains to Contract Service for the Council Workshops and Legal Services related to ongoing litigation. Public Works has increased primarily related to staffing changes and contract services related to parks, of which $35K is to be reclassed to the annual landscaping capital project. The Recreation increased other expenses pertaining to the purchase of a complete set of replacement tables for the Cotati Room for approximately $14K. Each department is anticipated to complete the fiscal year within the adopted budget.

Enterprise Funds:

The revenues for the Water Funds and Wastewater have continued to increase primarily related to the move to monthly billing and approved water rates. For Fiscal Year 2024/25, most of the expenses are in line with the budget at year-end. Overall expenses are expected to be in line with the budget at the end of the fiscal year.
506 of 539
City-Wide Cash and Investments:

Cash and Investments remain stable at $15.0M, where most of the funds are held in California Asset Management Program [CAMP] (59%) . Followed by liquid pooled investment funds at US Bank Trust laddered investments (38%), Operating Cash held in Exchange Bank at 3%, Local Agency Investment Funds (LAIF) and Sonoma County Investment Pool (SCIP), and accrued Investments with less than 1%. The balances within the checking accounts are managed very closely to match availability of funding requirements while optimizing investments to earn higher returns.

Fiscal Resilience:

Staff reviewed the financial status of the City funds and all criteria are alighted with our expectations with the outlying yellow ratios identified consistent with the mid-year report as the General fund and Sewer Fund current Fiscal Year Revenues to Operating Expenses goal of Greater than 110% to accrue reserves, where it is currently only 99% (General Fund) and 97% (Sewer). Additionally, the Water Operating Fund Supporting Agency Rates are above the budgeted 6% change, as Sonoma Water’s rate change was actually 9.98%. While this doesn’t make up all expenses in the Water Enterprise, if not corrected over time, it will gradually erode the operational and capital resources in the Water Fund.

Financial Considerations
There is no immediate fiscal impact or budget action necessary. City Staff will continue to report to Council and the community quarterly.

Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
507 of 539

UN-AUDITED

THIRD QUARTER

BUDGET & ACTUALS REVIEW
Fiscal Year 2024/25
City of Cotati
508 of 539

FINANCIAL

REPORTING
• Citywide Overview
• General Fund
• Enterprise Funds
• Cash & Investments
509 of 539

CITY WIDE
510 of 539

CITYWIDE REVENUES &

EXPENSES
511 of 539

CITYWIDE OVERVIEW
Revenues & Expenses On Target
Revenues are at 63.6% of Budget
• General Fund Revenues Sales tax and Other Tax are collected 1-2 months after relevant taxing period.
• Capital Projects –Due to the timing of transferring of funding and receipting for grant funds for capital projects
Expenses are at 64.6% of Budget
• Capital Projects Funds– are subject to timing of the projects in place and related activity incurred during the fiscal year.
512 of 539

GENERAL
FUND
Third Quarter
Budget Analysis
513 of 539

COMPARATIVE

REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
514 of 539
Proportion of General Fund Revenues
Property Tax, $1,198,222
Sales Tax, $3,323,909
Other Taxes, $529,159
Licenses, Permits & Franchises,
$414,084
Rent, $98,471
Other
Agencies,
$184,766
Other Revenues,
$192,508
Community Development
Charges, $313,101
Public
Works
Charges
, …
Public
Safety
Charg
es, …
Investment
Earnings,
Transfers In, $338,448 $170,693
515 of 539

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

SUMMARY OF WATER & WASTEWATER
FUNDS 516 of 539

ENTERPRISE FUNDS ANALYSIS
WATER
• Revenues are at

88.4% of budget
• Expenses are at

58.6% of budget

WASTEWATER
• Revenues are at

75.4% of budget
• Expenses are at

77.1% of budget 517 of 539

CASH & INVESTMENTS
518 of 539

SUMMARY OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS AT
MARCH 31, 2025
• Total Exceeds
$15.0M
• In line with the
City adopted
investment policy.
• Enough to meet
operational needs
for next 6 months
in fiscal year.
• City Utilizes
Pooled Cash and
Investments.
519 of 539
520 of 539

CONCLUSION
Fiscal Year was primarily on track with Budget and
improved over fiscal year 2024/25
City staff will continue to update the Council with
quarterly financial reports as well as the audited
financial for Fiscal Year 2024/25
City staff are committed to exercising prudence and
integrity in the management of public funds and provide transparent accountability for its use.
521 of 539
P a g e 0 | 7
Third Quarter Financial Report
Fiscal Year to Date: July 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025
Administrative Services 4/15/25 Q1-Q3 2024/25
522 of 539
P a g e 1 | 7
Introduction
This financial report provides an overview of where we are within the budget cycle, then a summary of the City’s financial position through the third quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 (July 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025) for (1) Citywide Revenues and Expenses, (2) the General Fund, (3) Enterprise Funds, and (4) Summary of Cash and Investments. Notable cumulative prior year for the same 9 months to current year actuals as well as preliminary amended budget to current year actuals comparisons are included in this report.

The following factors should be taken into consideration when analyzing mid-year data:
 Revenues reported herein are calculated based on actual receipts through March 31, 2025. Some revenues are received later in the year, and as such can appear to be low with variances smoothing out over the Fiscal Year.
 Some costs, such as subscription services and other dues, are typically incurred at the beginning of the Fiscal Year, so they appear high but are on-budget for the fiscal year, with variances smoothing out over the Fiscal Year.
 Construction projects, specifically street improvements, have a different project cycle which is offset from the Fiscal Year. As such, major projects are typically funded across two or more Fiscal Years.

Standard Budget Process Cycle - Where We Are Now & Next Steps:

Tentative Schedule for Budget Year 2025/26 – 2026/27 Budget Workshops:
 Tuesday - February 20th - Strategic Planning Session - Completed  Tuesday - April 1st - General Fund Budget Study Session - Completed  Monday – April 15th - Enterprise Funds, Special Revenues and Capital Budget Study Session  Tuesday – June 10th – Budget Adoption
January
Mid-Year & Financial
Performance Review
February-March
Internal Budget Review,
Strategic/Long-Term and
Capital Planning
NOW* April - May
Draft Budget
Workshops
June
Budget Adoption
Salary Schedule
Adoption
Fiscal Policies
July - December
Financial Evaluations
Budget Adjustments as
Approved by Council
November-December
City Manager and Admin.

Services Budget Planning
Meetings
523 of 539
P a g e 2 | 7
Citywide Revenues and Expenses
*Other Special Revenues consists of the following funds: Grants, CDBG Grants, Gas Tax, MTC Streets, RMRA, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Park-In-Lieu, PEG, Public Safety, K9 Program, Inclusionary Housing, Linkage Affordable Housing, Community Facilities Districts, Measure M Parks, PEG, Bed Tax, and all Local Landscaping and Maintenance Districts.

City-wide Significant Variances
Fund type variances where revenues were less than 65 percent or expenditures are greater than 85 percent of budget as of this third quarter were evaluated as follows:
 General Fund Revenues – The difference is primarily due to pending receipts for sales tax, property tax, and other taxes. See further discussion on pages 3-4 herein.  Capital Projects are subject to construction timing of the projects. The City has programed over $12 million in capital projects, utilizing funding from a combination of funding sources including the Streets Improvement Lease Revenue Bond, State and Local Grants, Special Revenue Funds, and General Fund Contributions. Capital Projects timeframes vary due to design and review processes before construction as well as the time to be constructed. For more information on the City projects they are displayed online both on the City budget at https://city-cotati-ca-budgetbook.cleargov.com/4249 on the City’s transparency portal at www.tinyurl.com/CotatiProjects.  Internal Service revenues and expenditures are reflective of the timing of transferred funds required for the purchase of replacement fleet vehicles or to cover employee payouts. This transfer is expected to be complete by the end of the fiscal year. 524 of 539
P a g e 3 | 7
General Fund: Operating Revenues
The following table includes cumulative revenue comparisons through the three quarters of the Fiscal Year 2023/24 and a revenue budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25.

General Fund operating revenues for the fiscal year through the third quarter are approximately $310,000, or 4.7% above the same period in FY 2023/24. Overall revenues are at 63.6% of the budget.

The percentage throughout the year is typically less than the percentage of the fiscal year completed, or 75% for the third quarter, due to the timing associated with receiving some of the larger revenue sources. For instance, sales tax is the largest General Fund revenue source, but the receipts are received two months after the period paid by the consumers. The following is an explanation of other variations in revenues:
- Property Taxes received to date have increased over the prior year by approximately 3.2% which is primarily due to increased valuations of properties. We anticipate meeting the total annual budget for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 with the remaining receipts for this fiscal year to be received in April and again in July.
- Sales Tax revenues decreased by $152K and or 4.4% from the prior year. Compared to budget, these revenues are in line with expectations as we have received seven out of the twelve annual payments from the state due to the two month lag as mentioned above.

As of mid-year, staff proposed an adjustment to the budget for fiscal year 2024/25 to reduce the projected sales tax receipts by $50K. Staff continued to review the revenue by annualizing the total receipts to date which are at 71.5% instead of the anticipated 75%.

This revenue stream will continue to be
monitored, and staff will provide the City
Council with updated information during
development of the FY 2024/25 budget.
- Other Taxes are primarily made up of Cannabis Business Tax. Last year had a decrease in taxes received which seems to have improved in the current fiscal year. Financial and compliance reviews of each cannabis businesses was concluding during this quarter, and no significant items were noted. - Licenses, Permits and Franchises are subject to timing as most franchise payments are due annually near the end of the fiscal year.
- Rents are primarily related to revenue from renting community facilities and park space. These revenues are also subject to variation based on whether conditions for events and time available to rent space.
- Other Agencies decreased from the previous year due to the timing of receipts for the State Mandated Cost reimbursements from the State and the timing of receipts from SSU for the negotiated SALES TAX BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Actual Months FY 2023/24 Actual Months FY 2024/25 Annualized 9 Months FY 2024/25 % Variance Annualized to Budget Sales Tax $ 5,977,000 $ 3,323,909 $ 4,273,598 71.5%
Bradley Burns $ 2,892,000 1,563,776 2,010,569 69.5%
Measure S $ 3,085,000 1,760,133 2,263,029 73.4%
525 of 539
P a g e 4 | 7
Dispatching Contract.
- Charges for Services have increased over the last year for Community Development and Public Works primarily for permit fees and development projects charges reimbursable activities. Charges for Services for Public Safety have slightly declined from the same period last year due to the timing of activities. Staff will continue to monitor these activities for possible adjustment to the proposed budget.
- Investment Earnings have increased due to active investment management and increased interest rate earnings. The Council adopted a mid-year adjustment to the budget, increasing the expected income from earnings to an annual budget amount of just over $25,000. - Other revenues are misc. other receipts received by the City for general purposes. These are from one-time unbudgeted receipts.

General Fund: Department Operating Expenditures
The following table includes cumulative mid-year actual expenditure comparisons by department and again by expenditure type for Fiscal Year 2023/24 and Fiscal Year 2024/25 and an expenditure budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25.

Expenditures by Type
Overall, cumulative third quarter General Fund expenditures decreased from the previous year by approximately 0.2% or approximately $20K. This decrease is due to capital outlay for vehicle replacement costs which were incurred in the prior year of approximately $275K. Major changes in the vehicle replacements in the current year have been delayed due to evaluation of vehicles in place and the best replacement. These decreases were offset by increases in all other categories including increased repair and maintenance driven by repairs for damage to City Property which is covered by other income from insurance claims. There has also been more work on repairs and maintenance of the existing fleet as they are upfit for alternative best fit options. The increased insurance, contract services, and utilities were all accounted for as a part of the adopted budget and a known trend in increased costs for the City. The increase in other expenses pertains mostly to increases in Bank and Merchant Fees assessed by our merchant services.

Expenditures by Department
526 of 539
P a g e 5 | 7
Spending by General Fund Departments is consistent with the prior year with noted increases in City Council, City Manager, Public Works, and Recreation Department. For City council the primary increase was due to the timing of the contributions made as $15K has been made in the current fiscal year and $0 had been processed as of the prior year. For the City Managers Department the primary increase pertains to Contract Service for the Council Workshops and Legal Services related to ongoing litigation.

Public Works has increased primarily related to staffing changes and contract services related to parks, of which $35K is to be reclassed to the annual landscaping capital project. The Recreation increased other expenses pertaining to the purchase or replacement tables for the Cotati Room for approximately $14K.

Each department is anticipated to complete the fiscal year within the adopted budget.

The first nine months, as compared to budget, General Fund expenditures are mostly tracking as expected with all operating departments (all departments except transfers out) averaging 64.6% of the budget. Overall expenditure is in line with staff expectations.

Enterprise Funds: Operating Revenues and Expenses
The following table includes cumulative revenue and expenses comparisons through the first three quarters of the Fiscal Year 2023/24 and 2024/25 and a revenue budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25 for the Enterprise Funds.

The Water and Wastewater Fund revenues are made up of charges for services, connection fees other revenues, and development fees. The operating revenues for the Water and Wastewater Funds (removing one-time interfund debt service and investment earnings) have increased compared to the prior year primarily due to applied rates. For Fiscal Year 2024/25, most expenses are in line with the budget as of the third quarter. 527 of 539
P a g e 6 | 7
Water Funds – Revenues for the water funds charges for services are tracking at 13.4% above budget (75%) and 18.5% greater than the same period in the last year. This increase is primarily related to moving to monthly billing where revenues are more closely correlated with the reporting period compared to the previous year. Other factors for the increase include the adopted rate increases. Expenses as of the third quarter are below budget but in line with expectations Aqueduct water usage continues to be the main operating expense for the fund at approximately $566,000 or 28.8% of all water expenses for the period. We are expecting this cost to increase into the fourth quarter as rain slows and the community goes back to more normalized water use and irrigation during the summer. Overall, the expenses are in line with the budget and no adjustments were deemed needed at this time.

Sewer Funds – Revenues are currently tracking at budget at 75.4% are aligned with expectations and a 7.8% above the prior year. This increase from prior year is due to the move to monthly billing as well as the increased rates. Operating Expenses at the third quarter have increased by 22.5% or $565K over the prior year. The most significant cost for the fund is the Wastewater treatment charges paid to Santa Rosa which are 61.2% of the expenses to date for this fund. Overall, the expenses are in line with the budget and no adjustments were deemed needed at this time.

These funds will continue to be monitored and staff will provide the City Council with updated information during development of the FY 2025/26 and 2026/27 budgets.

Cash and Investments
The tables below show the cash and investments held by the City as of March 31, 2025. The current cash and investment balances are in line with the City adopted investment policy and as budgeted are enough to meet the City’s expenditure requirements for the remainder of the fiscal year. 528 of 539
P a g e 7 | 7
Cash and Investment Detail by Composition

Conclusion
Except for identified variances, expenditures and revenues are tracking as expected. Staff will continue to monitor these variances and provide updated information to the City Council during budget development for Fiscal Years 2025/26 – 2026/27.
529 of 539

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: April 21, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Damien O’Bid, City Manager
FROM: Angela Courter, Administrator Services Director
SUBJECT: INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 2025
Attached for your information is the quarterly report of investments as of March 31, 2025.

The total cash and investment portfolio book value (cost) held by the City as of March 31, 2025 was $15,002,682.

The cash and investments held by the City include the following components:

Managed Investment Portfolio ($5,601,610), State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund ($6,437), California Asset Management Program (CAMP) Pooled Investment Fund ($8,921,136), Sonoma County Investment Pool ($33,362), Cash/Time Deposits ($415,818), and accrued interest on investments ($24,319). (Earned interest is the interest earned on investments over a specific time period, accrued interest is the interest that an investment has earned, but hasn’t yet been received, and paid interest is the interest that has already been received as payment).

Cash and investments held by the City and the trustees continue to be invested in accordance with the Government Code and the Council Investment Policy as adopted on May 9, 2023.
530 of 539
Council Information
FY 2024-25 3rd Quarter Investment Report
March 31, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Cotati City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Cotati City Council
May 13, 2025