Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, August 12, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 3 of 17 210 of 387
54303073
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 4 of 17 211 of 387
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
10-02-2461 (Ed. 7-15)
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. 10-02-2461 (Ed. 7-15) Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.

Page 1 of 1 ends

PRIMARY INSURANCE FOR

SCHEDULED ADDITIONAL INSURED
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Additional Insured: Location Of Covered Operations:
(If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.)
With respect only to the Additional Insured and at the
Location Of Covered Operations shown in the
Schedule, the following is added to SECTION IV –

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS,
Paragraph 4. Other Insurance and supersedes any
provision to the contrary:

Primary And Noncontributory Insurance
This insurance is primary to and will not seek
contribution from any other insurance available to
the Additional Insured with respect to the Location
Of Covered Operations shown in the Schedule
under this policy provided that:
(1) The Additional Insured is a named insured
under such other insurance; and
(2) You have agreed in writing in a contract or
agreement that this insurance would be
primary and would not seek contribution from
any other insurance available to the
Additional Insured.
54303073
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 5 of 17

WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT ALL LOCATIONS
212 of 387
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 25 03 05 09
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

CG 25 03 05 09 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2008 Page 1 of 2

DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT(S)

GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Designated Construction Project(s):

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

A. For all sums which the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under
Section I – Coverage C, which can be attributed
only to ongoing operations at a single designated
construction project shown in the Schedule
above:

1. A separate Designated Construction Project
General Aggregate Limit applies to each designated construction project, and that limit is equal to the amount of the General Aggregate
Limit shown in the Declarations.

2. The Designated Construction Project General
Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay for the
sum of all damages under Coverage A, except damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "productscompleted operations hazard", and for medical expenses under Coverage C regardless of the number of:
a. Insureds;
b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or
c. Persons or organizations making claims or
bringing "suits".

3. Any payments made under Coverage A for
damages or under Coverage C for medical
expenses shall reduce the Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit for that designated construction project. Such
payments shall not reduce the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations nor shall they reduce any other Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit for any other designated construction project
shown in the Schedule above.

4. The limits shown in the Declarations for Each
Occurrence, Damage To Premises Rented To
You and Medical Expense continue to apply.

However, instead of being subject to the
General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations, such limits will be subject to the applicable Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit. 54303073
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 6 of 17 ALL OF YOUR DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WHERE REQUIRED BY CONTRACT. 213 of 387

Page 2 of 2 ends

B. For all sums which the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under
Section I – Coverage C, which cannot be attributed only to ongoing operations at a single designated construction project shown in the Schedule above:

1. Any payments made under Coverage A for
damages or under Coverage C for medical
expenses shall reduce the amount available
under the General Aggregate Limit or the
Products-completed Operations Aggregate
Limit, whichever is applicable; and

2. Such payments shall not reduce any Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit.

C. When coverage for liability arising out of the
"products-completed operations hazard" is provided, any payments for damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in
the "products-completed operations hazard" will
reduce the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, and not reduce the General Aggregate Limit nor the Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit.

D. If the applicable designated construction project
has been abandoned, delayed, or abandoned
and then restarted, or if the authorized contracting parties deviate from plans, blueprints, designs, specifications or timetables, the project will still be deemed to be the same construction project.

COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE BROAD FORM ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM
This endorsement modifies the Business Auto Coverage Form.

1. EXTENDED CANCELLATION CONDITION
Paragraph A.2.b. – CANCELLATION - of the
COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS form IL 00 17 is
deleted and replaced with the following:
b. 60 days before the effective date of cancellation if we cancel for any other reason.

2. BROAD FORM INSURED
A. Subsidiaries and Newly Acquired or Formed
Organizations As Insureds
The Named Insured shown in the Declarations is
amended to include:

1. Any legally incorporated subsidiary in which
you own more than 50% of the voting stock on
the effective date of the Coverage Form.

However, the Named Insured does not include
any subsidiary that is an “insured” under any
other automobile policy or would be an
“insured” under such a policy but for its
termination or the exhaustion of its Limit of
Insurance.

2. Any organization that is acquired or formed by
you and over which you maintain majority
ownership. However, the Named Insured
does not include any newly formed or acquired
organization:
(a) That is an “insured” under any other
automobile policy;
(b) That has exhausted its Limit of Insurance
under any other policy; or
(c) 180 days or more after its acquisition or
formation by you, unless you have given
us written notice of the acquisition or
formation.

Coverage does not apply to “bodily injury” or
“property damage” that results from an “accident”
that occurred before you formed or acquired the
organization.

B. Employees as Insureds
Paragraph A.1. – WHO IS AN INSURED – of
SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE is amended to
add the following:
d. Any “employee” of yours while using a
covered “auto” you don’t own, hire or
borrow in your business or your personal
affairs.

C. Lessors as Insureds
Paragraph A.1. – WHO IS AN INSURED – of
SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE is
amended to add the following:
e. The lessor of a covered “auto” while the
“auto” is leased to you under a written
agreement if:
(1) The agreement requires you to
provide direct primary insurance for
the lessor; and
(2) The “auto” is leased without a driver.

Such leased “auto” will be considered a
covered “auto” you own and not a covered
“auto” you hire.

However, the lessor is an “insured” only
for “bodily injury” or “property damage”
resulting from the acts or omissions by:

1. You;

2. Any of your “employees” or agents;
or

3. Any person, except the lessor or
any “employee” or agent of the
lessor, operating an “auto” with the
permission of any of 1. and/or 2.
above.

D. Persons And Organizations As Insureds
Under A Written Insured Contract
Paragraph A.1 – WHO IS AN INSURED – of
SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE is
amended to add the following:
f. Any person or organization with respect to
the operation, maintenance or use of a
covered “auto”, provided that you and
such person or organization have agreed
under an express provision in a written
“insured contract”, written agreement or a
written permit issued to you by a
governmental or public authority to add
such person or organization to this policy
as an “insured”.

However, such person or organization is
an “insured” only:

Form: 16-02-0292 (Rev. 4-11) Page 1 of 3
"Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission" 54303072
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 9 of 17 216 of 387
(1) with respect to the operation,
maintenance or use of a covered
“auto”; and
(2) for “bodily injury” or “property damage”
caused by an “accident” which takes
place after:
(a) You executed the “insured
contract” or written agreement; or
(b) The permit has been issued to
you.

3. FELLOW EMPLOYEE COVERAGE
EXCLUSION B.5. - FELLOW EMPLOYEE – of
SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE does not apply.

4. PHYSICAL DAMAGE – ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY

TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE COVERAGE
Paragraph A.4.a. – TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES
– of SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE
COVERAGE is amended to provide a limit of $50 per
day for temporary transportation expense, subject to a
maximum limit of $1,000.

5. AUTO LOAN/LEASE GAP COVERAGE
Paragraph A. 4. – COVERAGE EXTENSIONS - of
SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is
amended to add the following:
c. Unpaid Loan or Lease Amounts
In the event of a total “loss” to a covered “auto”, we will pay any unpaid amount due on the loan or lease for a
covered “auto” minus:

1. The amount paid under the Physical Damage
Coverage Section of the policy; and

2. Any:
a. Overdue loan/lease payments at the time of
the “loss”;
b. Financial penalties imposed under a lease for
excessive use, abnormal wear and tear or
high mileage;
c. Security deposits not returned by the lessor:
d. Costs for extended warranties, Credit Life
Insurance, Health, Accident or Disability
Insurance purchased with the loan or lease;
and
e. Carry-over balances from previous loans or
leases.

We will pay for any unpaid amount due on the loan or
lease if caused by:

1. Other than Collision Coverage only if the
Declarations indicate that Comprehensive
Coverage is provided for any covered “auto”;

2. Specified Causes of Loss Coverage only if the
Declarations indicate that Specified Causes of
Loss Coverage is provided for any covered “auto”;
or

3. Collision Coverage only if the Declarations indicate that Collision Coverage is provided for any
covered “auto.

6. RENTAL AGENCY EXPENSE
Paragraph A. 4. – COVERAGE EXTENSIONS – of
SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE
is amended to add the following:
d. Rental Expense
We will pay the following expenses that you or
any of your “employees” are legally obligated
to pay because of a written contract or
agreement entered into for use of a rental
vehicle in the conduct of your business:

MAXIMUM WE WILL PAY FOR ANY ONE
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT:

1. $2,500 for loss of income incurred by the
rental agency during the period of time that
vehicle is out of use because of actual
damage to, or “loss” of, that vehicle, including
income lost due to absence of that vehicle for
use as a replacement;

2. $2,500 for decrease in trade-in value of the
rental vehicle because of actual damage to
that vehicle arising out of a covered “loss”; and

3. $2,500 for administrative expenses incurred
by the rental agency, as stated in the contract
or agreement.

4. $7,500 maximum total amount for paragraphs

1., 2. and 3. combined.

7. EXTRA EXPENSE – BROADENED COVERAGE
Paragraph A.4. – COVERAGE EXTENSIONS – of
SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE
is amended to add the following:
e. Recovery Expense
We will pay for the expense of returning a
stolen covered “auto” to you.

8. AIRBAG COVERAGE
Paragraph B.3.a. - EXCLUSIONS – of SECTION
III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE does not
apply to the accidental or unintended discharge of
an airbag. Coverage is excess over any other
collectible insurance or warranty specifically
designed to provide this coverage.

9. AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC

EQUIPMENT - BROADENED COVERAGE
Paragraph C.2. – LIMIT OF INSURACE - of
SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE is deleted
and replaced with the following:

2. $2,000 is the most we will pay for "loss" in any
one "accident" to all electronic equipment that
reproduces, receives or transmits audio, visual
or data signals which, at the time of "loss", is:
a. Permanently installed in or upon the
covered "auto" in a housing, opening or
other location that is not normally used by
the "auto" manufacturer for the installation
of such equipment;
b. Removable from a permanently installed
housing unit as described in Paragraph

2.a. above or is an integral part of that
equipment; or
c. An integral part of such equipment.

Form: 16-02-0292 (Rev. 4-11) Page 2 of 3
"Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission" 54303072
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 10 of 17 217 of 387
Form: 16-02-0292 (Rev. 4-11) Page 3 of 3
"Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission"

10. GLASS REPAIR – WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE
Under Paragraph D. - DEDUCTIBLE – of
SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE
the following is added:

No deductible applies to glass damage if the glass
is repaired rather than replaced.

11. TWO OR MORE DEDUCTIBLES
Paragraph D.- DEDUCTIBLE – of SECTION III –
PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended to
add the following:

If this Coverage Form and any other Coverage
Form or policy issued to you by us that is not an
automobile policy or Coverage Form applies to the
same “accident”, the following applies:

1. If the deductible under this Business Auto
Coverage Form is the smaller (or smallest)
deductible, it will be waived; or

2. If the deductible under this Business Auto
Coverage Form is not the smaller (or smallest)
deductible, it will be reduced by the amount of
the smaller (or smallest) deductible.

12. AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF

ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS
Paragraph A.2.a. - DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF
AN ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS of
SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is
deleted and replaced with the following:
a. In the event of “accident”, claim, “suit” or
“loss”, you must promptly notify us when the
“accident” is known to:
(1) You or your authorized representative, if
you are an individual;
(2) A partner, or any authorized
representative, if you are a partnership;
(3) A member, if you are a limited liability
company; or
(4) An executive officer, insurance manager,
or authorized representative, if you are an
organization other than a partnership or
limited liability company.

Knowledge of an “accident”, claim, “suit” or
“loss” by other persons does not imply that the
persons listed above have such knowledge.

Notice to us should include:
(1) How, when and where the “accident” or
“loss” occurred;
(2) The “insured’s” name and address; and
(3) To the extent possible, the names and
addresses of any injured persons or
witnesses.

13. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Paragraph A.5. - TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF
RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US of
SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is
deleted and replaced with the following:

5. We will waive the right of recovery we would
otherwise have against another person or
organization for “loss” to which this insurance
applies, provided the “insured” has waived
their rights of recovery against such person or
organization under a contract or agreement
that is entered into before such “loss”.

To the extent that the “insured’s” rights to
recover damages for all or part of any
payment made under this insurance has not
been waived, those rights are transferred to
us. That person or organization must do
everything necessary to secure our rights and
must do nothing after “accident” or “loss” to
impair them. At our request, the insured will
bring suit or transfer those rights to us and
help us enforce them.

14. UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

HAZARDS
Paragraph B.2. – CONCEALMENT,
MISREPRESENTATION or FRAUD of SECTION
IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS - is deleted
and replaced with the following:

If you unintentionally fail to disclose any hazards
existing at the inception date of your policy, we will
not void coverage under this Coverage Form
because of such failure.

15. AUTOS RENTED BY EMPLOYEES
Paragraph B.5. - OTHER INSURANCE of
SECTION IV – BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS -
is amended to add the following:
e. Any “auto” hired or rented by your “employee”
on your behalf and at your direction will be
considered an “auto” you hire. If an
“employee’s” personal insurance also applies
on an excess basis to a covered “auto” hired
or rented by your “employee” on your behalf
and at your direction, this insurance will be
primary to the “employee’s” personal
insurance.

16. HIRED AUTO – COVERAGE TERRITORY
Paragraph B.7.b.(5).(a) - POLICY PERIOD,
COVERAGE TERRITORY of SECTION IV –
BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is deleted and
replaced with the following:
(a) A covered “auto” of the private passenger
type is leased, hired, rented or borrowed
without a driver for a period of 45 days or
less; and

17. RESULTANT MENTAL ANGUISH COVERAGE
Paragraph C. of - SECTION V – DEFINITIONS is
deleted and replaced by the following:
“Bodily injury” means bodily injury, sickness or
disease sustained by any person, including
mental anguish or death as a result of the “bodily
injury” sustained by that person.

54303072
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 11 of 17 218 of 387
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL AUTO
16-02-0316 Ed. 10 14
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. 16-02-0316 Ed. 10 14 Page 1 of 1

PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY LIABILITY

INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM
With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by the endorsement.

This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below.

Named Insured:

Endorsement Effective Date:

SCHEDULE
Name(s) Of Person(s) Or Organization(s):

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

The following is added to Item 5. – “Other
Insurance” of Item B. – “General Conditions” under
Section IV – “Business Auto Conditions”:
e. Regardless of the provisions of Paragraph 5.a.
through d. above, for any liability arising out of the
ownership, maintenance, use, rental, lease, loan, hire
or borrowing by an ”insured” of a covered “auto” for
which an “insured” is contractually obligated to
provide primary insurance coverage to a client, this
Coverage Form will be primary and non-contributory
with respect to the Persons or Organizations in the
schedule, regardless of the availability or existence of other collectible insurance under any other Coverage
Form or policy that applies on a primary basis.
54303072
Argonaut Constructor's, Inc.
01/01/2025
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 12 of 17 As required by written contract.
219 of 387
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL AUTO
16-02-0322 (Ed. 11-15)
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. 16-02-0322 (Ed. 11-15) Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.

Page 1 of 1 ends

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OR NON-RENEWAL TO

SPECIFIED PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS
This endorsement modifies the following:

COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS

SCHEDULE
Name(s) and Address(es):

The following Condition is added:

Notice Of Cancellation Or Non-Renewal To Specified Persons Or Organizations

1. If we cancel or non-renew this policy for any reason other than non-payment, we will deliver notice of the cancellation or non-renewal to any Person(s) or Organization(s) shown in the Schedule __ days prior to the effective date of cancellation or non-renewal.

2. If we cancel this policy for non-payment, we will deliver notice of the cancellation to any Person(s) or Organization(s) shown in the Schedule __ days prior to the effective date of cancellation.

3. If notice is mailed, proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice.

4. Any failure by us to notify such person(s) or organization(s) will not invalidate such cancellation or non-renewal with respect to any other person(s) or organization(s). 54303072
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 13 of 17 30 10 ALL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS AS ON FILE WITH US.
220 of 387
WC 90 03 75 (05/18)
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Policy
Named Insured Endorsement Number
Policy Number
Symbol: Number:

Policy Period
TO
Effective Date of Endorsement
Issued By (Name of Insurance Company)
Insert the policy number. The remainder of the information is to be completed only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to the preparation of the policy.

CALIFORNIA WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT This endorsement applies only to the insurance provided by the policy because California is shown in Item 3.A. of the Information Page.

We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule, but this waiver applies only with respect to bodily injury arising out of the operations described in the Schedule, where you are required by a written contract to obtain this waiver from us.

You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule.

Schedule

1. ( ) Specific Waiver
Name of person or organization:
( ) Blanket Waiver
Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract to furnish this waiver.

2. Operations:

3. Premium:

The premium charge for this endorsement shall be percent of the California premium developed on payroll in connection with work performed for the above person(s) or organization(s) arising out of the operations described.

4. Minimum Premium:

Authorized Representative
Argonaut Constructor's, Inc.
54303074
01/01/2026 01/01/2025
Federal Insurance Company
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 14 of 17 X
WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT n/a Jennifer Knight n/a 221 of 387
54303074
01/01/2025
Argonaut Constructor's, Inc.

ALL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS AS ON FILE
WITH US.
222 of 387
PCM Manus (06 18)
(Page 5 of 23)
P. GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS mean any building products or construction materials that are recognized by The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) or Energy Star as: (i) being environmentally preferable or sustainable; or (ii) providing enhanced energy efficiency.

Q. INSURED means:

1. the FIRST NAMED INSURED;

2. any ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED; and

3. any present or former director, officer, partner, member, employee, leased or temporary worker of the FIRST NAMED INSURED or any ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED, while acting within the scope of his/her duties as such; and

4. any organization or entity, in existence at any time prior to the POLICY PERIOD, in which the FIRST NAMED INSURED has: (i) an ownership interest of fifty percent (50%) or more; or (ii) control over the management thereof; and

5. any joint venture in which the FIRST NAMED INSURED or any ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED is named as a coventurer, but solely to the extent such FIRST NAMED INSURED or ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED is liable because of its performance CONTRACTING SERVICES provided under such joint venture; and

6. solely with regard to Coverage B under this Policy and only when required by written contract, INSURED also includes:
(a) the client for whom the INSURED performs CONTRACTING SERVICES provided that such contract was signed by the INSURED and such client prior to the date the POLLUTION CONDITION first commenced.

However, the client is included as an INSURED under this Policy solely to the extent that the client is found liable based upon CONTRACTING SERVICES negligently performed by an INSURED other than the client.

No coverage will be provided for such entity’s own negligence or strict liability; and (b) any entity unrelated to the FIRST NAMED INSURED or any ADDITIONAL NAMED INSURED, provided that such contract was signed by the INSURED and the client for whom the INSURED performs CONTRACTING SERVICES prior to the date the POLLUTION CONDITION first commenced. However, such entity is included as an INSURED under this Policy solely to the extent that it is found liable based upon CONTRACTING SERVICES negligently performed by an INSURED other than such entity. No coverage will be provided for such entity’s own negligence or strict liability.

Coverage for such client or entity under this Policy shall not exceed the lesser of the following amounts:
(i) the Limit of Liability required under such written contract; or (ii) the applicable Coverage B Limit of Liability of this Policy.

However, INSURED does not include and DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Notwithstanding Section IX. CONDITIONS, Item N. OTHER INSURANCE, and only when required by such written contract, the coverage afforded under this Policy for any person or entity who is an INSURED solely by reason of subparagraph 6. of the Definition of INSURED will apply as primary as to any other valid and collectible insurance available to such INSURED.

R. JOB SITE means a location at which CONTRACTING SERVICES are performed. JOB SITE also includes real property rented or leased by the INSURED during the course of performing CONTRACTING SERVICES, but only if such real property is utilized in direct support of such CONTRACTING SERVICES. However, JOB SITE does not include any:

1. COVERED LOCATION; or
PCM E164754 08
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 16 of 17 223 of 387
ENDORSEMENT # 8
This endorsement, effective 12:01 a.m., , forms a part of Policy No. issued to By Great American E & S Insurance Company
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S CLIENT AND UNRELATED ENTITIES WHEN REQUIRED BY CONTRACT – COVERAGE B ONLY This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

PROFESSIONAL AND CONTRACTING SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY The INSURED and the Company agree to the following Policy change(s):

The last paragraph of Section II. DEFINITIONS, Item Q. INSURED, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Notwithstanding Section IX. CONDITIONS, Item N. OTHER INSURANCE, and only when required by such written contract, the coverage afforded under this Policy for any person or entity who is an INSURED solely by reason of subparagraph 6. of the Definition of INSURED will apply as primary and non-contributory as to any other valid and collectible insurance available to such INSURED.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

PCM MANUS (09 19)
Argonaut Constructor's, Inc.
01/01/2025 PCM E164754 08
86602709 | 00015967 | 25-26 GL,AL,WC,XS,POLL, 2nd/3rd Layer Excess | Excl:XS OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 | Jessica Flores | 8/5/2025 2:52:48 PM (PDT) | Page 17 of 17 224 of 387
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVE MINOR CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH

ENTERPRISE ROOFING FOR ROOF REPAIRS TO THE

POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND RE-ROOFING THE
SUNFLOWER PARK RESTROOM AND THE WELL 2 PUMP
HOUSE
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council approve by Motion a minor construction agreement with Enterprise Roofing for an amount not to exceed $51,471 for roof repairs to the Police Department building and re-roofing the Sunflower Park restroom and the Well 2 Pump House and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement.

Background
The City owns and maintains buildings at its sites and this includes those for the Police Department, Park Facilities, and buildings for its Water System well pump sites. Over the years, City Hall has been re-roofed and just a few years ago, the Community Center roof had reached its useful life and was re-roofed with a metal roof. As building roofs age, their roof materials degrade and the roofs began to develop areas of water intrusion and leaks. This has become the case for the Police Station, the Sunflower Park restroom, and the pump house for Well 2.

Analysis/Discussion
Over the past several winters, an increased number of leaks occurred within the Police Department building, the Sunflower Park restroom, and the Well 2 pump house. This past winter received above average rainfall, and the leak problem became acute at these three locations. To address this problem, staff included a Capital project in the City’s Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget to evaluate and replace these roofs.
225 of 387
In early 2025, the City hired a consultant, Integrated Resources, to perform these evaluations and summarize the results and recommendations in evaluation reports and to provide assistance during the installation of the roof repairs. The evaluations have been conducted and have concluded the following for each site:

Police Department Building. The roof is in “generally good condition” and with some needed repairs but is generally expected to perform well for another 10 years or more. Repairs are recommended at specific locations consisting of the hallway skylight, a smaller skylight at the end of the hallway, and along the roof slope transition. The skylights are typically prone to wearing resulting in leaking, but the slope transition was determined to not have been adequately installed thus causing the chronic leak problem.

Sunflower Park Restroom. Demolition and roof replacement is recommended. The age of the roof appears to be beyond its expected service life. Observed deficiencies consist of at least the following: loose and missing field and hip shakes, corroded gutters at isolated locations, and sheet metal flashings – including the roof cap – show indications of corrosion.

Well 2 Pump House. Recommendation is for a full roof replacement. The roof appears to be beyond the expected service life, metal flashings are corroded, and the wood fascia trim is badly weathered and possibly decayed.

Enterprise Roofing Service, Inc. was a subconsultant to Integrated Resources and led the roof evaluations. The City and Integrated Resources agreed to request proposals from Enterprise Roofing Services, Inc. to perform the recommended roof work at each of the sites. Enterprise Roofing Services, through referrals, has demonstrated a strong track record and is highly recommended by Integrated Resources. After reviewing the attached proposals, City staff have determined the costs to be well within industry standards and recommend them for approval.

Financial Considerations
The City’s first year of its Fiscal Year 2025/26 – 2026/27 Biannual Budget includes the Reroof Police Building Capital project for an amount of $693,000. The Enterprise Roofing Services, Inc. proposals are in the amounts not to exceed $13,935, $11,770, and $17,766, respectively for a total cost of $43,471. However, it is common in roofing projects to find isolated areas of wood rot, so it is recommended that contingency be included in the costs. For the two General Funded projects (Police and Sunflower roofs), it is recommended that they share a $5,000 contingency (total of $30,705). For the Water Enterprise funded roof, it is recommended that it includes a $3,000 contingency (total of $20,766). The combined contract total would be not to exceed $51,471 ($30,705 in General Fund and $20,766 in Water Enterprise Funds).

There are adequate funds in the current adopted budget for the General Fund expenses with unused funds from the Police Building Capital project. There are $27,712 in budgeted General Fund expenditures for the roofing evaluation, leaving approximately $634,583 to be returned to the unappropriated General Fund balance or, in part, redirected to the 116/West Cotati Avenue design amendment (separate August 12, 2025 agenda item). 226 of 387
There are also adequate funds in the current adopted budget for the Water Enterprise expenses, if the Water System Monitoring project ($130,000) is delayed. Utilizing funds from this project, the remaining $109,234 can be repurposed, in part, for proposed urgent water repairs (separate August 12, 2025 agenda item). The remaining unused balance would be returned to the Water Enterprise Fund.

Under the “Public Project Contracts” provision of the City’s Expenditure Planning and Procurement Policy, contracts of $75,000 or less can be performed by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. The proposed contract is $43,471 which is less than the $75,000 limitation.

Environmental Issues
This action is found to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 in that the project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use. 227 of 387
City of Cotati Public Works
Police Department Roof
Assessment and Recommendations
201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
Cotati Police Department
IR Project No. 2025-007-01
Report Date:

July 18, 2025
Prepared for:

Craig A. Scott
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Cotati
Prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Interactive Resources Inc.
117 Park Place
Richmond, California
94801
228 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 2
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Observations by: E. Anisman
and C. Young
Date: 07/10/2025
General Overview
Roof Condition Summary:

Existing condition and possible
life expectancy based on visual
observations and limited test
cuts. Summary at right in noted
in bold font.

In Failure 0 to 2 years – N/A at specific areas requiring immediate repair Poor 2 to 4 years – Low Slope (BUR) Built Up Roof
Fair 4 to 7 years – N/A
Good 7 to 10 years – N/A
More than 10-years 10+ years– N/A at typical roof

1. Scope of Work
This assessment is limited to an assessment of the steep asphalt shingle roof system at the Police Facility Roof with specific attention to determining the cause of the water penetration into the building as well as preparing bid document for the repair of the deficiencies.

The assessment was provided by Interactive Resources with technical support from Enterprise Roofing. In addition to visual observations, critical flashings at the Hallway skylight the roof slope transition where water tested .

2. Observations
Cotati Police Department Roof: General observations include the following:
• Overall Condition: The roof is in generally good condition for its age and – with the exceptions noted below – would be expected to perform well for another 10 years or more.
• Deficiencies: The following deficiencies were observed:
o Hallway Skylights: Deficiencies were observed at the curb flashings at the large skylight above the Hallway.
o Unit Skylight: Flashing deficiencies were observed at the small skylight at the east end of the Hallway, resulting in water entry to the rooms below, including the Interview and Records Rooms.
o Roof Slope Transition: The roof slope transition that occurs over several rooms, including the Exercise Room, was not properly installed. Deficiencies include exposed remedial nailing at the transition and damaged shingles due to wind uplift at this same area. Water testing this area resulted in an active leaks in the Exercise room in the location of a stained ceiling tile.

3. Water Penetration History
and Field Observations
Water penetration was reported by the client at the following locations:
• Exercise Room
• Above the juncture of the Hallway, Service Aid, Personnel Records and Interview Rooms (just below the easternmost unit skylight)
Note: Stains were observed on the suspended acoustical ceiling panels at both locations.

4. Roof Area (Approximate) ±15,000 sf

5. Roof Membrane
The building’s roof is consists of an asphalt shingle roof system, approximately 20 years old.

The overall general condition appears good; mineral surfacing is intact and fully covering the underlying asphalt impregnated glass fiber base. Additional service life for the system is estimated at ten years, consistent with what appear to be a 30-year warranted system.

6. Insulation Glass fiber batts under roof deck
229 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 3
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

7. Roof Slope The typical roof slope is 4:12, with a reduced stope of 2.5:12 to accommodate the architectural features on the West Sierra Avenue Elevation.

8. Drains and Overflows: Perimeter gutters and downspouts are provided.

9. Structural Deck Type Plywood sheathing over 16” TJI trusses at 24” on center

10. Parapet Walls Not Applicable

11. Copings Not Applicable

12. Wall Flashings Not Applicable

13. Penetrations Plumbing vent, exhaust fans, etc.

14. Skylights
Skylights have been provided for daylighting the Hallway and include the following types:
• Hallway Skylight: A long 6’x72’ is located at the roof ridge and centered over hallway • Unit Skylights: Three (3) total, each 4’0” square are provided at the ends of the main hallway and at the branch leading to the Break Room.

15. MEP systems Not Applicable

16. HazMat Report A HazMat report is not in the Scope of Work for this assessment. 230 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 4
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Executive Summary
General: The roof is in generally good condition for its age and – with the exceptions noted below – would be expected to perform well for another 10 years or more.

Deficiencies: The following deficiencies were observed:
• Hallway Skylight: Deficiencies were observed at the curb flashings at the large skylight above the Hallway. • Unit Skylight: Flashing deficiencies were observed at the small skylight at the east end of the Hallway, resulting in water entry to the rooms below, including the Interview and Records Rooms. • Roof Slope Transition: The roof slope transition that occurs over several rooms, including the Exercise Room, was not properly installed. Deficiencies include exposed remedial nailing at the transition and damaged shingles due to wind uplift at this same area. Water testing this area resulted in an active leaks in the Exercise room in the location of a stained ceiling tile
Repair Scope: Based upon our observations, a repair scope is recommended to address the specific deficiencies noted above; the balance of the roof should be retained for the remainder of its expected service life of approximately 30 years.

Analysis
Based upon our visual observations and testing, the overall condition of the roof was reviewed and found to be in good condition for its age – approximately 20 years old, dating from original construction – and expected to have an additional service life of ten additional years. Slope provided is consistent with that recommend for a steep asphalt shingle roof; condition of the mineral surfaced finish appeared in good condition, with no significant loss of minerals observed. The locations of observations and testing are shown in Exhibit A – Figures 1-3. Observed conditions are shown in Exhibit B – Photographs.

Deficiencies: Visual observations and water testing revealed the following deficiencies:
• Hallway Skylight: Deficiencies observed include the following; o Flashing and Perimeter Fastening: Deficiencies were observed at the curb flashings, specifically at the lengthy flashing at the long horizontal surface parallel to the ridge of the roof. installation did not provide a means of securing this flashing to properly resist wind uplift; as a result a series of roofing nails were used to secure the flashing. Not only are roofing nails inappropriate to resist wind uplift, but the wind uplift and expansion/contraction cycles of the metal have worked to loosen the nails (“popped nails”).

Mastic that has been applied over the nail heads is essentially a temporary fix and ineffective in the long run.
o Glazing System: There were no reported leaks due to water entry directly through the glazing system, i.e., the glass and the sealant systems surrounding the glass. The concealed sealant joints below aluminum trim (e.g., the “beauty caps” between pieces of glass) are protected from UV degradation and appear to be functioning adequately. The sealant ed at the lower horizontal edge of the glass appears somewhat weathered but performing adequately.
• East Skylights: Of the three unit skylights, only the unit at the east end of the Hallway, adjoining the small offices and interview room, appears to be a source of water penetration into the building. The glazing system appears to be weathertight. However, both the perimeter flashing and the inappropriate installation of the 231 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 5
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
unit immediately adjoining both a roof ridge and valley appears to have resulted in a non-performing installation. Remedial efforts to repair the flashing, particularly evident at the top of the valley, appear ineffective.
• Roof Slope Transition: The roof slope transition that occurs over the several rooms, including the Exercise Room, was not properly installed. Deficiencies include a lack of a sheet metal transition flashing, damaged shingles due to wind uplift and exposed remedial nailing at the transition. Water testing in this area resulted in water entry into the Exercise Room within approximately 10 minutes, occurring at the location of one of the stained ceiling panels. Exhibit A - Figure 3 shows a diagram of water entry.

Recommendations
Recommendations include the following:
• Hallway Skylight: Deficiencies observed include the following; o Flashing and Perimeter Fastening: Remove the perimeter metal flashings and adjoining ros of asphalt shingles. In weatherboard fashion, install a new self-adhering flashing membrane around the perimeter, approximately new rows of new asphalt shingles, and new metal perimeter flashing. Comply with skylight manufacturer’s installation instructions (if available ) and National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) recommendations. Select color of asphalt shingles that best match typical field of roof.

Note: Manufacture may be O’Keeffe since an O’Keeffe label was found on one of the unit skylights. o Glazing System: Although this system appears to be performing adequately, consider retaining a glazing contractor inspect the system and reseal where necessary. • East Skylights: Recommend removing the east unit skylight and reinstalling in compliance with skylight manufacturer’s installation instructions (if available ) and National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) recommendations. Scope of work will include new sheet metal flashings and asphalt shingles around the base of the unit.

Note: The remaining two skylights are most likely watertight as there were no reports of water entry in those areas and they were installed in the field of the roof, away for roof transitions such as valleys. However, it would be good to confirm.
• Roof Slope Transition: Recommend reconstruction of this transition to provide a functioning sheet metal flashed transition. To accomplish this:
o Demolition: Remove several rows of shingles as required to install a new continuous sheet metal transition.
o Self-Adhering Flashing: provide self-adhering flashing at the top of the 2.5:12 sloped roof. o Metal Flashing: Install metal flashing.
o Shingles: install new shoeing above the metal flashing, color to match field of roof. • Interior: Replace stained acoustical ceiling panels and repaint stained wall areas as required to match typical finishes.
232 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 6
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Bid Documents:

Unless otherwise directed by the City, we will prepare a base specification section for to repair the deficiencies observed at the skylights and roof slope transition – including supporting details – suitable for bidding purposes.

Alternate Approach: Given the limited scope of the repairs and the importance of retaining a roofing contractor skilled in correcting the deficiencies observed, the City may want to consider the following:
• Repair Bid Proposal from Enterprise Roofing:
• Cost Estimate: Request a cost estimate from enterprise Roofing:

Cost Estimate
A cost estimate was not included in the Scope of Work.

Limitations and Preparation
Limitations
The services of Interactive Resources are provided in a manner we believe to be consistent with the prevailing standard of care. This report is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive and is based on limited observations of the project, limited exploratory demolition, review of documents cited and discussions with individuals listed. The information is for the exclusive use of the client to whom this is addressed.

Interactive Resources does not warrant or guarantee the performance of any in-place or future construction on this project, whether or not it incorporates any of the recommendations contained herein.

Preparation
This report was prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Figures
Exhibit B – Photographs
233 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 7
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Exhibit A – Figures

ROOF PLAN KEY

1. Water Damage: Shaded area shows approximate location of stained suspended acoustical ceiling panels and reported water penetration.

2. Slope Transition: Slope transitions from typical 4:12 to 2.5:12 at this line.

3. Water Testing: Water penetration occurred when hose spray was directed at this location.

4. Hallway Skylight Deficiencies: Flashing irregularities – including popped nails – were observed at the base of this skylight.

5. Hallway Skylight Repair: Proposed area of repair shown hatched.

6. Unit Skylight: Improperly installed skylight to valley is questionable Figure 1 – Roof Key Plan
Note: The roof plan shows the location of field observations and water testing relative to areas of water entry into the building at the east end of the Hallway and the Exercise Room below. 234 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 8
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Figure 2 – Floor Plan
Note: The floor plan shows where water damage was observed within the building as well as the relative location of the skylights to the areas of water entry
235 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 9
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Figure 3 – Building Section at Exercise Room
Note: This building section shows the roof slope transition relative to the area where water entry was observed in the Exercise Room as a result of water testing.
236 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 10
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Exhibit B – Photographs
Photo Description

1. Police Department Roof – Overall View

2. Hallway Skylight – Overall View: The Hallway
skylight extends over most of the Hallway below.

Deficiencies observed primarily concern flashing
into the roof system.
237 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 11
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

3. Hallway Skylight - Ridge: Flashing detail at ridge
shows remedial work.

4. Hallway Skylight – Roof Head Flashing: Head
flashing was poorly installed and does not conform
with recommended roofing practices. Deficiencies
include:
1) Remedial Work: Remedial repair at edge.
2) Inappropriate Fasteners: Use of roofing
nails to secure the flashing instead of
threaded fasteners. Roofing nails were
observed to be backing out at various
locations since a roofing nail cannot
counteract the force of sheet metal
expansion and contraction cycles.

5. Hallway Skylight – Glazing Detail: A “beauty cap”
was removed to show what appears to be a
watertight glazing joint. The arrow indicates the
sealant at the drip edge of the system, that appears
moderately weathered, but overall serviceable.
238 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 12
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

6. Hallway Skylight – Interior View: No indication of
water damage to the interior walls of the Hallway
was reported by the client or observed at the site
visit.

7. Unit Skylight – Overall View: Location of this
skylight – at the east end of the Hallway – in the
immediate proximity of the convergence of both a
ridge and valley has created challenging flashing
conditions. Original installation did not properly
address these conditions, leading to water
penetration to the rooms directly below this
skylight. Arrow denotes condition at the top of the
valley.
239 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 13
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

8. Unit Skylight – Valley Detail: Photo shows
conditions at the top of the valley, including
remedial work.

9. Unit Skylight - Manufacturer: Label incinerates that the unit was manufactured by O’Keeffe, a reputable
Bay Area manufacturer.
240 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 14
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

10. Roof Slope Transition – Overall View: The
transition from the standard 4:12 roof slope to the

2.6:12 roof slope (encircled in yellow) for the accent
feature for the West Sierra Avenue Elevation
(outlined in blue) was poorly executed. Instead of
providing a sheet metal flashing for the transition,
the shingles run continuously from the less steep
slope of the roof at the right to the standard 4:12
slope at the left. Observed deficiencies are shown in
the photos below.

NOTE: Water penetration occurred in the Exercise
Room below when water was sprayed against this
transition

11. Roof Slope Transition – Wind Damage: Wind uplift
damage was observed along the transition.
241 of 387
Police Department Roof – Assessment and Recommendations 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 15
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Police Department Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

12. Roof Slope Transition – Remedial Repairs:

Numerous roofing nails have been installed along
the transition to secure thee shingles from wind
uplift. Use of exposed nails does not comply with
roofing industry standards.

13. Roof Slope Transition – Underlying Damage:

Fasteners at the recommended installation nail line
have failed due to wind uplift. Arrow denotes a hole
in the shingle where the nail was installed due to
uplift damage.

14. Roof Slope Transition – Exercise Room: Ceiling
stains observed in the Exercise Room. Water testing
the Transition above resulted in active water entry
in the area of the stain at right.
242 of 387
City of Cotati Public Works
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof
Assessment and Recommendations
East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
IR Project No. 2025-007-01
Report Date:

July 16, 2025
Prepared for:

Craig A. Scott
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Cotati
Prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Interactive Resources Inc.
117 Park Place
Richmond, California
94801
243 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 2
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Observations by: E. Anisman
and C. Young
Date: 07/10/2025
General Overview
Roof Condition Summary:

Existing condition and possible
life expectancy based on visual
observations and limited test
cuts. Summary at right in noted
in bold font.

In Failure 0 to 2 years – N/A
Poor 2 to 4 years – Low Slope (BUR) Built Up Roof
Fair 4 to 7 years – N/A
Good 7 to 10 years – N/A
More than 10-years 10+ years– N/A

1. Scope of Work Limitations: This assessment is limited to the steep roof system at the Sunflower Park Restroom.

2. General Observations
The existing roof is a wood shake roof over a plywood deck with gutters and downspouts.

No obvious decay was observed at the exposed edge of the roof deck over the entry elevation or in the exposed underside of the deck (including framing) within the restroom.

Age is unknown but appears to be beyond its expected service life. Observed deficiencies include – but are not limited to the following:
• Loose and missing field and hip shakes
• Gutters are corroded at isolated locations. The gutter over the entry elevation is missing.
• Sheet metal flashings – including the roof cap – show indications of corrosion.

Overall Condition: Poor

3. Water Penetration History
and Observations
General: Currently, there are no reported occurrences of water penetration.

4. Approximate Area
• Plan: ±625sf
• Actual: ±875sf actual roof area accounting for roof slope

5. Roofing Membrane Cedar shakes

6. Insulation None

7. Drainage/Slope Approximately 1:1

8. Drains and Overflows: Perimeter gutters and downspouts

9. Structural Deck Type Plywood sheathing over conventional 2x framing

10. Parapet Walls Not Applicable

11. Copings Not Applicable

12. Wall Flashings Not Applicable

13. Penetrations Plumbing vent

14. Skylight Not Applicable

15. MEP systems Not Applicable

16. HazMat Report A HazMat report is not in the Scope of Work for this assessment. 244 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 3
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Executive Summary
The existing roof is a wood shake roof over a plywood deck with gutters and downspouts. No obvious decay was observed at the exposed edge of the roof deck over the entry elevation or in the exposed underside of the deck (including framing) within the restroom. Age is unknown but appears to be beyond its expected service life. Observed deficiencies include – but are not limited to the following:
• Loose and missing field and hip shakes
• Gutters are corroded at isolated locations. The gutter over the entry elevation is missing. • Sheet metal flashings – including the roof cap – show indications of corrosion.

Recommendations
Based upon our observations, full roof replacement is recommended, as follows:
• Demolition: Remove the existing shakes as required to expose the plywood substrate; remove the existing gutters and downspouts.
• New Work: Replacement scope to include new Class A composition shingle roof over existing plywood deck.

Provide new prefinished gutters at all four sides with matching downspouts to replace existing downspouts.

Provide a minimum 30 year warranty.

Standing Seam Metal Roof Alternate A: Consider providing a prefinished standing seam metal roof to provide an aesthetically pleasing roof appearance, reduced maintenance and a longer service life.

Bid Documents: Unless otherwise directed by the City, we will prepare a base specification section for a new asphalt composition shingle roof as described above, suitable for bidding purposes.

Cost Estimate: Not included in Scope of Work.
245 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 4
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Limitations and Preparation
Limitations
The services of Interactive Resources are provided in a manner we believe to be consistent with the prevailing standard of care. This report is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive and is based on limited observations of the project, limited exploratory demolition, review of documents cited and discussions with individuals listed. The information is for the exclusive use of the client to whom this is addressed.

Interactive Resources does not warrant or guarantee the performance of any in-place or future construction on this project, whether or not it incorporates any of the recommendations contained herein.

Preparation
This report was prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Photographs
246 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 5
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03
Exhibit A – Photographs
Photo Description

1. South Elevation

2. Plumbing vent, loose hip shakes, metal cap.
247 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 6
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

3. Gutter condition at entry elevation, showing
corrosion and missing gutter.

4. Similar to previous photo, showing stains on
exposed rafter tail, damaged gutter and
downspout.
248 of 387
Sunflower Park Restroom Roof – Assessment and Recommendations East Cotati Ave at Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 7
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Sunflower Park Restroom Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2024-010-03

5. Typical interior view exposed deck and framing.
249 of 387
City of Cotati Public Works
Well 2 Roof
Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave , Cotati, CA 94931
Well 2 – North Elevation
IR Project No. 2025-007-01
Report Date:

July 16, 2025
Prepared for:

Craig A. Scott
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Cotati
Prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Interactive Resources Inc.
117 Park Place
Richmond, California
94801
250 of 387
Well 2 Roof – Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 2
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Well 2 Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2025-007-01
Observations by: E. Anisman
and C. Young
Date: 07/10/2025
General Overview
Roof Condition Summary:

Existing condition and possible
life expectancy based on visual
observations and limited test
cuts. Summary at right in noted
in bold font.

In Failure 0 to 2 years – N/A
Poor 2 to 4 years – Low Slope (BUR) Built Up Roof
Fair 4 to 7 years – N/A
Good 7 to 10 years – N/A
More than 10-years 10+ years– N/A

1. Scope of Work Limitations: This assessment is limited to the low slope and steep roof systems at the Well 2 pump structure.

2. General Observations
Observations: Observations were made on July 10, 2025. The existing roof consists of an upper low-slope roof of unconfirmed construction (with an access hatch for the pump) adjoined at both sides by lower, steep asphalt composition shingle roofs. The portion of the steep roof immediately adjoining the low-slope upper roof is nearly vertical. A gutter and downspout are provided at the north elevation, over the entry door. Observed deficiencies include – but are not limited to the following:
• Condition of the roof appears beyond the expected service life with overall wear indicated and uneven areas in the field of the roof.
• Metal flashings are corroded.
• Wood fascia trim is badly weathered and possibly decayed Overall Condition: Poor

3. Water Penetration History
and Observations
General: Currently, there are no reported occurrences of water penetration.

4. Approximate Area
• Low Slope Roof: ±150sf
• Steep Roofs: ±600sf

5. Roofing Membrane
• Low Slope Roof: Single-ply assumed but not verified
• Steep Roofs: Asphalt composition shingles

6. Insulation Not Applicable

7. Drainage/Slope Approximately 4:12 typical to 2:1 adjoining low-slope roof.

8. Drains and Overflows:
• Low Slope Roof: Scupper assumed but not verified
• Steep Roofs: Gutter and downspout at north elevation only

9. Structural Deck Type Plywood sheathing over conventional 2x framing assumed

10. Penetrations None

11. MEP systems Not Applicable

12. HazMat Report A HazMat report is not in the Scope of Work for this assessment. 251 of 387
Well 2 Roof – Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 3
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Well 2 Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2025-007-01
Executive Summary
Observations: Observations were made on July 10, 2025. The existing roof consists of an upper low-slope roof of unconfirmed construction (with an access hatch for the pump) adjoined at both sides by lower, steep asphalt composition shingle roofs. The portion of the steep roof immediately adjoining the low-slope upper roof is nearly vertical. A gutter and downspout are provided at the north elevation, over the entry door. Observed deficiencies include – but are not limited to the following:
• Condition of the roof appears beyond the expected service life with overall wear indicated and uneven areas in the field of the roof.
• Metal flashings are corroded.
• Wood fascia trim is badly weathered and possibly decayed Recommendations
Based upon our observations, full roof replacement is recommended, as follows:
• Demolition: Remove the existing roof systems as required to expose the plywood substrate; remove the existing gutter and downspout.
• New Work: Provide a new 60 mil PVC membrane at upper roof and Class A composition shingle roof to replace existing shingles, both over existing plywood deck. Replace decayed wood trim. Replace all metal perimeter flashings, gutter and downspout with prefinished metal. Provide a minimum 30 year warranty.

Paint repair wood trim.

Bid Documents: Unless otherwise directed by the City, we will prepare a base specification section for a new asphalt composition shingle roof as described above, suitable for bidding purposes.

Cost Estimate: Not included in Scope of Work.
252 of 387
Well 2 Roof – Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 4
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Well 2 Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2025-007-01
Limitations and Preparation
Limitations
The services of Interactive Resources are provided in a manner we believe to be consistent with the prevailing standard of care. This report is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive and is based on limited observations of the project, limited exploratory demolition, review of documents cited and discussions with individuals listed. The information is for the exclusive use of the client to whom this is addressed.

Interactive Resources does not warrant or guarantee the performance of any in-place or future construction on this project, whether or not it incorporates any of the recommendations contained herein.

Preparation
This report was prepared by:

Edward J. Anisman, AIA
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Photographs
253 of 387
Well 2 Roof – Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 5
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Well 2 Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2025-007-01
Exhibit A – Photographs
Photo Description

1. South and East Elevations

2. Steep roof detail showing pump access hatch at
low slope roof, corroded sheet metal flashings,
steep roof transition with uneven field of roof and
aged asphalt composition shingles.
254 of 387
Well 2 Roof – Assessment and Recommendations
Accessed from 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
P a g e | 6
117 Park Place
Richmond, California 94801
510.236.7435 | www.intres.com
City of Cotati – Well 2 Roof Assessment and Recommendations Interactive Resources Project No. 2025-007-01

3. Roof eave and rake details.
255 of 387

PROPOSAL AND CONTACT

Terms of Payment shall be as follows: NET UPON COMPLETION in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions.

This proposal is void after 30 days.

Respectfully submitted,
By ARMANDO D. GARCIA
All California, Nevada and Oregon Contractors must be licensed and are regulated by the Contractor’ s License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar of Contractors at this office.

ACCEPTANCE
You are hereby authorized to furnish all materials and labor required to complete the work mentioned in the above proposal for which I agree to pay the amount mentioned in said proposal and in accordance with the terms stated on the reverse side.

Date Signed
Title

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE 221274 NEVEDA CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE 12052 OREGON CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE 185389
MEMBER: NATIONAL ROOFING CONTACTORS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER: ASSOCIATED ROOFING CONTRACTOR’S OF THE BAY AREA COUNTIES, INC.

MEMBER: ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
MBE CERTIFICATION #: 15060364 (SUPPLIER CLEARING HOUSE) DIR# 1000000444 www.enterpriseroofing.com
PLEASE RESPOND TO:

P.O. BOX 5130 CONCORD, CA 94524
PHONE (925) 689-8100 FAX (925) 285-5027
2023
Name: Attn: Edward J. Anisman INTERACTIVE RESOURCES Date: 8/5/2025 Address: 117 Park Place, Richmond, CA 94801
Job Name and Address: Police Department Roof 201 West Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 Attachment “A” is part of this contract. The undersigned agrees to furnish and provide necessary labor, materials, tools, implements, and appliances to do, perform and complete in good workmanlike manner the following:

SCOPE OF WORK:

 SAFETY EQUIPMENT: Safety equipment will be set up to provide fall protection during the course of work. Safety equipment will be removed upon completion of the work, and any resulting repairs needed will be made at that time.  At the Hallway skylight perimeter flashing remove all roofing nails and reinstall new fasteners back into place.  Roof demo approximately 70’-line feet of shingles and install new sheet metal and shingles back into place.  New flashing around two (2) skylights.

INCLUSIONS:
 Two (2) years contractor warranty.
 GAF Standard Product Warranty.

EXCLUSIONS:
 All wood, all dry rot repairs, all new roof vents, all new gutters and downspouts.  Mechanical roof area.
 All sheet metal and the repair, replacement or installation of same.  Structural upgrades or repairs.
 Temporary roofing and/or emergency roofing, including emergency leak repair service.  Abatement of hazardous materials, such as asbestos or lead.  Overtime or stand-by time.
 Bonds and permits

QUALIFICATIONS
 Bid is based on all work occurring during normal working hours.  Bid is based on one (1) move-in. There is a $1,300 charge for additional move-ins.  CONDITION OF EXISTING ROOF OR DECK: In bidding the work, roofing (or waterproofing) contractor has assumed that the wood panel sheathing or substrate and/or the areas surrounding the work that is to be done, is/are structurally sound, capable of carrying Code required loads, and it is/are suitable to attach the roofing system. If the actual conditions turn out to be different than that, then the contractor shall be entitled to a Change Order for the additional cost to repair or replace the roof sheathing/decking to do the work that was bid.

TOTAL BASE BID: $13,935.00

PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
256 of 387

PROPOSAL AND CONTACT

Terms of Payment shall be as follows: NET UPON COMPLETION in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions.

This proposal is void after 30 days.

Date Signed
Title

MEMBER: ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
MBE CERTIFICATION #: 15060364 (SUPPLIER CLEARING HOUSE) DIR# 1000000444 www.enterpriseroofing.com
PLEASE RESPOND TO:

P.O. BOX 5130 CONCORD, CA 94524
PHONE (925) 689-8100 FAX (925) 285-5027
2023
Name: Attn: Edward J. Anisman INTERACTIVE RESOURCES Date: 8/1/2025 Address: 117 Park Place, Richmond, CA 94801
Job Name and Address: Sunflower Park Restroom Roof East Cotati Ave At Sunflower Drive, Cotati, CA 94931 Attachment “A” is part of this contract. The undersigned agrees to furnish and provide necessary labor, materials, tools, implements, and appliances to do, perform and complete in good workmanlike manner the following:

SCOPE OF WORK:

 SAFETY EQUIPMENT: Safety equipment will be set up to provide fall protection during the course of work. Safety equipment will be removed upon completion of the work, and any resulting repairs needed will be made at that time.  DRY ROT: The existing wood roof deck is thought to be in good condition. If any defective wood or dry rot is found and must be replaced the cost of replacement will be agreed to by the Owner and ENTERPRISE ROOFING SERVICE, INC. prior to the undertaking of the replacement of the deteriorated roof deck. The Owner will be notified immediately if any deteriorated roof deck is encountered.  Tear off existing one (1) layer of shakes to the roof deck and remove from job site.  Demo existing gutters.
 Furnish and install new gutters.
 On the perimeter: Furnish and install new 3” X 4”nosing metal.  Furnish and install one (1) layer of roof underlayment.  Furnish and install GAF Timberline Shingles.

INCLUSIONS:
 Two (2) years contractor warranty.
 GAF Standard Product Warranty.

TOTAL BASE BID: $11,770.00

PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
257 of 387

PROPOSAL AND CONTACT

Terms of Payment shall be as follows: NET UPON COMPLETION in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions.

This proposal is void after 30 days.

Date Signed
Title

MEMBER: ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
MBE CERTIFICATION #: 15060364 (SUPPLIER CLEARING HOUSE) DIR# 1000000444 www.enterpriseroofing.com
PLEASE RESPOND TO:

P.O. BOX 5130 CONCORD, CA 94524
PHONE (925) 689-8100 FAX (925) 285-5027
2023
Name: Attn: Edward J. Anisman INTERACTIVE RESOURCES Date: 8/1/2025 Address: 117 Park Place, Richmond, CA 94801
Job Name and Address: Well 2 Roof 8562 Lakewood Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 Attachment “A” is part of this contract. The undersigned agrees to furnish and provide necessary labor, materials, tools, implements, and appliances to do, perform and complete in good workmanlike manner the following:

SCOPE OF WORK:

 SAFETY EQUIPMENT: Safety equipment will be set up to provide fall protection during the course of work. Safety equipment will be removed upon completion of the work, and any resulting repairs needed will be made at that time.  DRY ROT: The existing wood roof deck is thought to be in good condition. If any defective wood or dry rot is found and must be replaced the cost of replacement will be agreed to by the Owner and ENTERPRISE ROOFING SERVICE, INC. prior to the undertaking of the replacement of the deteriorated roof deck. The Owner will be notified immediately if any deteriorated roof deck is encountered.  Tear off existing one (1) layer of shakes to the roof deck and remove from job site.  Tear off existing one (1) layer of built-up roofing to the roof deck and remove from job site  Demo existing gutters.
 Furnish and install new gutters.
 Paint and repair wood trim.
 On the perimeter: Furnish and install new 3” X 4”nosing metal.  Furnish and install one (1) layer of ¼’’ cover board mechanically attached to the existing roof deck.  Furnish and install new PVC 60 mil PVC on the upper roof only.  Furnish and install one (1) layer of roof underlayment.  Furnish and install GAF Timberline Shingles.

INCLUSIONS:
 Two (2) years contractor warranty.
 GAF Standard Product Warranty.
 Carlisle Standard Warranty.

TOTAL BASE BID: $17,766.00

PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
258 of 387
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARING (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING

ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY TO COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 (PUBLIC SERVICES) AND

TAKING ASSOCIATED ACTIONS
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a Resolution approving the annexation of certain property to Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 (Public Services); approving the annexation map related thereto and authorizing and directing recording thereof; and authorizing and directing the preparation and recording of an amended notice of special tax lien related thereto.

Background
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, beginning with Government Code Section 53311 (the “Act”), is the statutory framework that provides the authority and describes the methodology that local agencies may use to form Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and levy special taxes within the boundaries of those CFDs. Under the Act, CFDs may be used to fund certain authorized public services and related incidental administrative and incidental expenses.

On September 12, 2017, the Council adopted a Resolution establishing CFD No. 2017-01, establishing the initial boundaries of CFD No. 2017-01 and designating the remaining property within the corporate boundary of the City of Cotati as future annexation area (the “Future Annexation Area”) of which the City Council intended to later authorize annexation of specific portions of the Future Annexation Area with an expedited annexation procedure authorized by the Act. The special tax currently levied on all nonexempt taxable parcels within the CFD is in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax (“RMA”). The RMA specified an initial maximum special tax assessment per dwelling unit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 259 of 387
of $644.86 for single family residential property and $429.91 for multi-family property.

Currently, the single-family residential property is $800.82. There are no multi-family properties in the CFD currently. The assessment is to be increased each July 1st by the greater of the change in the San Francisco Urban Consumer Price Index or two percent (2%), with a maximum annual increase of four percent (4%) for any given year.

Analysis/Discussion
In accordance with Government Code Section 53326 regarding Proceedings to Create a Community Facilities District , the vote for annexation is to be by the landowner(s) if the number of registered voters associated with the property is less than twelve (12). The attached confirmation letter from the Sonoma County Clerk-recorder-Assessor, Registrar of Voters Division, confirms there are three registered voters associated with APN 046-223-018.

Pink Viking ORH, LLC, as the sole owner of the property within the Future Annexation Area identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 046-223-018 (the “Subject Property”), submitted to the City Clerk an instrument entitled “Request and Unanimous Approval for Annexation and Landowner-Voter Ballot” containing (a) a request that the Subject Property be annexed to CFD No. 2017-01, (b) a statement of unanimous approval of the Landowner for such annexation and (c) an affirmative vote of the Landowner in favor of authorizing the City to levy the Special Tax on the Subject Property.

By adopting the proposed Resolution, the City Council confirms that no majority protest exists, and approves annexing the Property identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 046-223-018 into CFD No. 2017-01. The result will allow the special tax to be levied on all nonexempt taxable parcels within the Subject Property.

Financial Considerations
The Landowner has paid the costs of processing the annexation into the existing CFD. The costs of providing services and administering the CFD will be covered by the special taxes levied within the CFD.

Environmental Issues
It can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation of certain property to the existing CFD No. 2017-01 and the taking of the associated actions set forth above would have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the adoption of the resolution to approve annexation of certain property to the existing CFD No. 2017-01 and its associated actions is found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.
260 of 387
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING

ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 (PUBLIC SERVICES), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE

ANNEXATION MAP AND RECORDING THEREOF, AND AUTHORIZING AND

DIRECTING THE PREPARATION AND RECORDING OF AN AMENDED NOTICE

OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cotati (“City”) has previously formed City of Cotati Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 (Public Services) (“CFD No. 2017-01”) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”), to provide for the levy of a special tax (the “Special Tax”) on all taxable property within the boundary of CFD No. 2017-01 for the purpose of financing certain authorized public services (the “Public Services”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and in accordance with Resolution No. 2017-62, the City Council also authorized the future annexation of territory to CFD No. 2017-01 (the “Future Annexation Area”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 53339 through 53339.9 of the Act (the “Annexation Provisions”), pertaining to annexation of property to a community facilities district, the owner of the parcel to be annexed, Pink Viking ORH, LLC (the “Landowner”), has submitted to the City Manager an executed form entitled “Voter and Unanimous Approval for Annexation and Landowner-Voter Ballot” (“Unanimous Approval Form”), requesting the annexation of a parcel owned by Landowner to CFD No. 2017-01 (“Subject Property”) and voting in favor of authorizing the levy of the Special Tax on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Resolution of Intention, incorporating a description and map of the proposed boundaries of the territory to be annexed to CFD No. 2017-01 and stating the services to be provided and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within CFD No. 2017-01 (“Resolution of Intention”) are fully incorporated herein by reference, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as required by the Act and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed annexation of the Subject Property to CFD No. 2017-01, wherein all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the annexation of territory to CFD No. 2017-01 and the levy of said Special Tax within the Subject Property were able to provide public comment and wherein a full and fair hearing was held; and
261 of 387
WHEREAS, a map showing the Subject Property and designated as Annexation No. 2025-01 (the “Annexation Map”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, has been submitted to this legislative body; and WHEREAS, all prior proceedings taken by the City Council with respect to CFD No. 2017-01 and the proposed annexation of territory thereto have been duly considered and are hereby determined to be valid and in conformity with the Act, and CFD No. 2017-01 has been determined as validly established pursuant to the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cotati City Council, acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 (Public Services), hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and to be findings of the City Council of the City of Cotati and are made a part of this Resolution.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the Annexation Map and authorizes and directs the Deputy City Clerk to cause the recordation thereof in the official records of the County Recorder in accordance with the provisions of Section 3113 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Section 4. In accordance with the request set forth in the Unanimous Approval Form, the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Deputy City Clerk as soon as practicable following the recordation of the Annexation Map to cause the preparation and recordation of an Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien (the “Amended Notice”) in the official records of the County Recorder in accordance with the provisions of Section 53339.8. Upon recordation of the Amended Notice, the Subject Property shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special tax for CFD No. 2017-01.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
Approved:________________________________
Mayor 262 of 387
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
Attachments:
263 of 387
July 10, 2025
Kuda Wekwete
DTA
18201 Von Karman Ave, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92612
To Whom It May Concern:

Thank for your request to confirm the voter registration status of residents at the following parcel numbers:

Parcel Number Registered Voters
046-223-018 3
According to our records we currently have 3 registered voters for all parcel numbers listed above. If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,
Melissa Sadler
County of Sonoma Registrar of Voters
Department Information Systems Technician II
264 of 387

Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt: 1) the resolution revising the Traffic Impact Fee, the Sewer Connection Fee, the Water Connection Fee and the Parks and Recreation Fee, adopting a General Plan Fee (Replacing the Downtown Specific Plan Recovery Fee) and making associated findings; 2) introduce an ordinance to move most development impact fees to a single inflationary index, 3) and provide feedback to staff on the policy recommendations for focused fee eliminations and direct staff to return to City Council with a resolution implementing the final policies.

Background
California Government Code 66000, part of the Mitigation Fee Act, was enacted in 1987 to regulate the imposition and use of development impact fees by local agencies. More broadly, there has been a long history in California of ensuring that new development funds the public infrastructure needed to accommodate the growth and not shift the cost of those improvements to existing residents. Development impact fees are the tool to accomplish that, particularly off-site public infrastructure where the development is one of many contributors to cumulative impacts, as a local agency grows in accordance with its General Plan.

The Mitigation Fee Act built upon the "reasonable relationship" test established by California courts in 1949. Prior to 1987, local agencies in California had been collecting impact fees for new development to fund public infrastructure, but the process lacked a standardized framework.

The Mitigation Fee Act aimed to create a more transparent and accountable system for these fees. The Mitigation Fee Act has been amended several times since its enactment, reflecting evolving legal interpretations and policy considerations. The Mitigation Fee Act aims to ensure that such fees, collected from new development projects to fund public facilities, are reasonably related to the project's impact and are used for their intended purpose. It outlines requirements 266 of 387
for local agencies regarding fee justification, accounting, and reporting.

The City of Cotati (City) and every other local agency in California known to staff, collects various impact fees prior to issuance of occupancy of a new development. However, among local agencies, impact fee types and amounts are not uniform, as the fees are dependent on the specific infrastructure needs or limitations of that local agency.

The City lists all fees for service, including impact fees, in the adopted fee schedule. This is posted on the City website here: https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/441/Master-Fee-Schedule Currently, aside from regular building permit fees, the City assesses the following fees/taxes on new development:
• Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee (for developments with 9 or less units, otherwise the development is required to include 15% of units as deed restricted affordable) • Bed Tax
• Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Recovery (Only applicable to developments in the DSP area)
• Linkage Fee (Only applicable to commercial, industrial, retail developments) • Park n-Lieu Fee (Charged on residential developments to the extent that the required park area is not provided in the development)
• Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
• Sewer Connection Fee
• Water Connection Fee
• Water Conservation Fee
• Fire Impact Fee (A City fee established on behalf of the Rancho Adobe Fire District) Additionally, residential and commercial developments are required to pay School Impact Fees to the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District.

Inflationary Indices
These impact fees have been adopted over time, each with their own inflationary indices, some of which are no longer published or use different time periods to measure inflationary changes.

Additionally, some of the existing impact fees, such as the Park In-Lieu and other fees are difficult or impossible to estimate without assistance from City staff (and occasionally outside third-party professionals), thereby adding cost uncertainty, reducing transparency and generally impacting the customer experience. Further, new state laws have also created new requirements around the development and collection of impact fees, often eroding a local jurisdiction‘s ability to cover the long-term costs of providing services. Finally, impact fees can be a useful tool in advancing community policy goals, if used strategically, which is discussed later in this report.

For these reasons, it is timely to update the impact fee study and supporting ordinances.

State Law Changes Related to Impact Fees
Historically, all impact fees were collected at the time of building permit issuance. This simplified administration of the fees by collecting them all at the same time at the issuance of the 267 of 387
building permit rather than spreading payment across the various phases of a construction project. Collecting fees at different points during construction creates the possibility of missed fee collections, which is why it is typically not done that way. In recent years, the City added the ability to defer some impact fee collection through an agreement approved by the City Council and recorded against the property, which acted as security if the unit sold prior to fee collection (backstopped by the title report to note the fee for inclusion in closing). Now, in the on-going effort to encourage housing construction in California, State Senate Bill (SB) 937 (Wiener, 2024) in most cases prohibits local agencies from imposing fees on ”designated residential development” projects until the final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. Designated residential development includes 100% affordable projects, SB 35 projects,”by right” projects, low barrier navigation centers, density bonus projects, or projects with 10 or less units. For example, water and sewer connection fees can’t be collected until the water and sewer connections are turned on. Traffic impact fees can’t be collected until occupancy is granted and so forth. It is still permissible for a local agency to require that an agreement be recorded against the property to ensure collection no later than occupancy. Responding to this state law and for administrative efficiency, the City now offers such fee deferral agreements to all residential projects, by right. Commercial projects may also request such fee deferrals, however these agreements would require City Council approval under current practice.

In general, recent state legislation has sought to affect the collection process and general application of impact fees to residential development. Assembly Bill (AB) 602 (Grayson, 2021) requires local agencies to follow specific standards and practices when conducting updated impact fee studies, such as justifying the level of service for the identified fee, calculating said fee proportionate to the square footage of the project, and a new requirement to update development impact fee studies every eight (8) years. Staff anticipates this trend to continue as the state legislature looks to local governments to mitigate the impacts of the state's housing crisis.

Analysis/Discussion
The City contracted with Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to complete a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (Nexus Study) of the City’s development impact fees, including providing the fees on a square footage basis and greatly simplifying the calculation of the fees.

The fees included in the Nexus Study are the “maximum justified fees,” which are intended to fully cover the impact of new development on City infrastructure. The calculated fees are summarized in Table E.1, included in the staff report below:
268 of 387
In addition to the existing fees, staff is proposing to add a General Plan fee to pay for the costs of updating the General Plan and associated studies. The Nexus Study provides support for the General Plan fee as well. Staff is proposing that the General Plan fee would supersede the existing Downtown Specific Plan Recovery fee.

Fee Calculations
Chapter 1 of the attached Nexus Study describes the methodology used to calculate each fee type, but in general the fees are intended to ensure that new development funds the impacts that it creates, using the existing standard and is not intended to fund the correction of existing deficiencies. The impact fees are not intended to fully recover the costs of improvements, as they only recover the share attributable to new developments, as indicated in the table below.

While much of the Nexus Study is relatively straightforward, there are a couple of areas worth pointing out, as described below.

Park & Recreation Facility Fees (Park in-Lieu)
269 of 387
The Quimby Act is a provision of the state Subdivision Map Act that allows cities and counties to require the dedication of parkland (or fees in lieu of dedication). It only applies, however, to residential land subdivisions. The Quimby Act does not apply to residential projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other similar multifamily development. The Quimby Act allows subdividers to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated to meet the recreational needs of the future residents of the new subdivided properties. Although calculated based on land values, the in-lieu fee revenue may be used for park land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing recreation facilities.

Alternatively, the City can adopt a park and recreation facilities fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act that applies to all residential developments, not just subdivisions, like the Quimby Act.

The City may only use Mitigation Fee Act impact fee revenue to acquire land, provide parks and recreation facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Unlike Quimby Act fees, it cannot be used to rehabilitate existing recreation facilities.

Rather than setting up two park mitigation funds, with different but similar rules on collection and uses, staff is recommending establishing Mitigation Fee Act fees for park and recreation facilities rather than Quimby Act fees. Planned work in the adopted Park Master Plan over the 8- year time horizon are primarily facility expansions, which are eligible uses for Mitigation Fee Act fees. Additionally, this fee applies to all residential development types, so there is no need to have different fees for different types of residential development. The only limitation is that the fee cannot be used to rehabilitate an existing facility. This recommendation is intended to facilitate the administration of Parks and Recreation impact fee collection and simplify the fee schedule for the public.

Acquire
Park
Land
Develop
Park Land
Expand/
Improve
Park
Land
Rehabilitate
Park Land
Residential
Subdivisions
(SFDs,
Condos)
Residential
Projects
(Apartments)
Quimby X X X X X
Mit. Fee Act X X X X X
Residential Impact Fees
Rather than break out the various impact fees for multi-family and single-family units, the Nexus Study combines them into ”All Units”. This was done for a couple of reasons. The first is that listing them separately would complicate the assessing and tracking of fees on developments.

Additionally, having a single residential fee simplifies and provides more clarity to the development community.

Administrative Costs
All impact fees include a 2% administrative fee for the purpose of handling, tracking, and reporting these fees.

Comparison with Other Communities
270 of 387
The change in the fee calculation methodology makes direct comparisons difficult. For example, the water and sewer connection fees are currently calculated by the water meter size, so a direct comparison to a square footage-based fee depends on the size of the structure. To compare the fees using an ”apples to apples” methodology, Willdan used several neighboring jurisdictions selected by staff, including higher growth communities. However, each community has different infrastructure needs, so while this is a guide to understand Cotati’s regional competitiveness, it’s important to understand that every community has different infrastructure needs, depending on their individual circumstances.

With this in mind, the goal of the fee comparison was to look at total impact fees for sample development types in Cotati and in other communities where impact fees do not appear to be a barrier to new development. The full comparison is attached to this staff report, but the summary of assumptions used for each development type are shown in Table 1, below. The development prototypes are only intended to provide a comparison using units within the normal range that we typically see, making estimates easily scalable. Additionally, for the calculation of Cotati’s existing Park in-Lieu Fee, which applies to residential development only, Willdan assumed 3.10 residents per single family unit and a fair market value of land at $669,000 per acre.

The details can be found in the attached comparisons, but the following narrative summarizes the bottom line by development type.

Single Family Home Prototype
Assuming a 2,500 square foot (SF) single family home, the fees would increase by approximately $15,000 – largely due to the increase in the Parks and Recreation (aka Park inLieu) Fee. At approximately 2,000 SF, the existing and proposed impact fees are equal. The existing fees are calculated by unit and the proposed fees are by SF. Therefore, units larger than 2,000 SF would see higher total impact fees and units smaller than 2,000 SF would see lower 271 of 387
total impact fees when compared to the existing fee structure.

If the new fees were applied to this prototype home, it would be about $13,000 higher than Petaluma, about $3,000 higher than American Canyon and in the range of fees for Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa.

Multi-Family Prototype
Assuming a 20-unit apartment development at 1,000 SF each, the fees would increase by approximately $40,000 – again largely due to the increase in the Parks and Recreation (aka Park in Lieu) Fee. If the new fees were applied to this prototype apartment complex, it would be about $75,000 less expensive than Petaluma, $180,000 less expensive than American Canyon, and in the range of fees for Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa.

Retail/Commercial Prototype
Assuming a 2,000 SF space, the fees would decrease by approximately $25,000 – largely due to decreases in water and sewer connection fees. If the new fees were applied to this prototype commercial space, it would be about $60,000 less expensive than Petaluma, $25,000 less expensive than American Canyon, $10-50,000 less expensive than Rohnert Park and about $10,000 less expensive than Santa Rosa.

Office Prototype
Assuming a 2,000 SF space, the fees would decrease by approximately $17,000 – largely due to decreases in water and sewer connection fees. If the new fees were applied to this prototype office space, it would be about $30,000 less expensive than Petaluma, $14,000 more than American Canyon, $2,000-36,000 less expensive than Rohnert Park and about the same range as Santa Rosa.

Industrial Prototype
Assuming a 10,000 SF space, the fees would decrease by approximately $30,000 – largely due to decreases in water and sewer connection fees. If the new fees were applied to this prototype industrial space, it would be about $70,000 less expensive than Petaluma, $110,000 more than American Canyon, $60,000-95,000 more than Rohnert Park and about $50,000 more than Santa Rosa.

Application of the Development Impact Fees
Currently, many impact fees are charged by the unit, so the size of the unit is not typically material to the impact fees collected. However, with the change across most fees to a SF based fee, it raises new questions of applicability. Following existing practice, the incremental increase in building square footage would typically be charged the incremental impact fee amounts, depending on the original impact fees applied. Today, this most often comes up with increases in water meter sizes. Moving forward, if an existing home expands by 500 square feet, that incremental increase could be subject to the related impact fees. A notable exception is Accessory Dwelling Units, which are exempt from impact fees if they are 750 square feet or less.

Impact Fees Adjustments in Sonoma County for Affordable Housing As previously mentioned, jurisdictions typically adopt the maximum justifiable impact fees, primarily to ensure that the infrastructure required to accommodate new development is funded 272 of 387
by the new development that creates the impact rather than through other existing revenue sources. However, in recent years, some jurisdictions in Sonoma County have decided, as a policy, to reduce or eliminate some impact fees to lower the cost to develop affordable housing.

If fees are reduced for certain types of development, such as affordable housing, the jurisdiction cannot charge more to the other developments subject to the fee to make up the difference. The costs associated with the ”non-paying” development’s fair share must be made up through or backfilled with other city revenues, such as grants or general fund revenue.

A summary of Sonoma County jurisdictions are listed below.

Staff are not aware of any standing policies to reduce or eliminate impact fees for affordable housing in the cities/towns of Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Windsor or the City of Sonoma. It should be noted that these jurisdictions may have reduced or eliminated certain impact fees for specific projects, which is not discussed here, as this staff report focuses on standing policies only. The cities of Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Sonoma County have either on-going polices (Petaluma) or pilot programs (Santa Rosa, Sonoma County) to eliminate impact fees for certain categories of affordable housing development, as described in detail below.

City of Petaluma:

On November 21, 2022, the Petaluma City Council adopted a resolution to eliminate development impact fees for city facilities, parkland development, parkland acquisition, open space acquisition, and traffic mitigation development impact fees for certain affordable housing projects. Water and wastewater connection fees are still charged. Eligible projects include:
• Residential development projects that will be deed-restricted prior to occupancy to acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, and/or moderate-income residents and that will be owned and operated by non-profit corporations recognized as such by the United States Internal Revenue Service and the State of California Franchise Tax Board. • Residential development projects that will be deed-restricted prior to occupancy to acutely low, extremely low, very low, low and/or moderate income residents, that will be supportive housing projects or will provide on-site supportive services, and that have received or will receive City financial support or other comparable City support such as the City applying for grant funding for the project as co-applicant with or on behalf of the project developer.

This does not apply to affordable units within a market rate project and is intended for 100% affordable projects. Projects that have not yet paid the required impact fees (not retroactive) are eligible as of the date of approval of the enabling resolution in 2022.

In adopting these fee eliminations, Petaluma did not propose to backfill the lost revenue, in the stated hope that future grants will make up the shortfall. There was no time limit on the fee reduction, but it was stated that a wider reduction in fees would be considered with an updated General Plan that is currently in progress.
273 of 387
City of Santa Rosa:

On November 12, 2024, the City Council implemented a targeted impact fee reduction for affordable housing units. Based on the production of units towards their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, Santa Rosa had achieved the allocation of market rate units and made significant progress towards the Low-income unit allocation. The percentage of completion for Very Low- and Moderate-income units remained low, which was the focus of their pilot program.

Santa Rosa charges a variety of development impact fees, including a Capital Facilities Fee (CFF), Water Fee, Wastewater Fee, Park Fee, Public Art in Private Development, School District Fees, Housing Impact Fees and Commercial Linkage Fees. The purpose of the CFF is to fund capital improvements to accommodate the impact of new developments on transportation, public safety and storm drain facilities and infrastructure.

Based upon their analysis, Santa Rosa set the CFF to zero dollars (100% reduction) under the pilot program for certain new deed restricted affordable housing units for up to three (3) years from the date of the program adoption or until a new Development Impact Fee study addressing CFF has been completed, whichever occurs first.

The pilot program will apply to housing units meeting the criteria listed below:
• All residential units, deed restricted through the City’s Housing Authority, administered by the Department of Housing and Community Services, at the following affordability levels:
o Very Low Income (30-50% of Area Median Income (AMI))
▪ Includes Acutely Low Income (0-15% of AMI) and Extremely Low Income (15-30% of AMI)
o Low Income (50-80% of AMI)
o Moderate (80%-120% AMI)
• For eligible units within the Low-Income affordability category, the zero-dollar fee will no longer apply if the City reaches the required unit totals within the Low-Income affordability category, as determined through the current RHNA cycle. o Note that there is no corresponding limitation on Very Low Income or Moderate Income units in the program. It is believed that this structure was adopted because Santa Rosa had already achieved 67% of the RHNA requirement for Low Income units, with a significant number of new units in review. Very Low and Moderate were at 33% and 10% of RHNA, with no units in review. • Residential units receiving locally sourced financial assistance from the City or the Housing Authority’s loan programs will not be eligible for the fee program. • For projects that elect to convert temporary housing units to permanent housing units, the zero fee will apply to any units if the required approval to convert the temporary housing units to permanent housing units is obtained during the program’s lifespan. • The fee reductions will apply to building permit applications proposing vertical construction associated with the unit issued during the program’s lifespan. 274 of 387
Restricting the zero fee to new affordable units that obtain a building permit for vertical construction during the program’s lifespan is intended to ensure that the reduction will only apply to housing units that are initiating construction.

Existing market-rate projects may also elect to build inclusionary deed restricted affordable units through the building permit process to avoid paying Housing Impact Fees, which is an option provided under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Units constructed through this process may meet all eligibility requirements for the CFF elimination.

Ultimately, Santa Rosa elected to defer the decision to backfill lost revenue until the end of the pilot program, in part because no replacement revenue was identified and because the actual impact is uncertain due to the unknown timing of building permit issuance for projects in the development pipeline. Elimination of the impact fees will require Santa Rosa to offset the funding gap through other sources of funding, such as General Fund reserves, grants, and special taxes which would have been dedicated to other projects. According to Santa Rosa staff, General Fund reserves are not a viable option to backfill projects due to the structural deficit and strain on this resource for many organizational needs. It's possible to shift some special revenue sources that may be eligible to reduce the impact to the General Fund, but it would simply move funds into the impact fee programs and reduce funds in the contributing special revenue fund.

According to Santa Rosa staff, these alternate sources do not meet the current project needs of Santa Rosa, so the General Fund will most likely need to backfill, as required. If Santa Rosa makes no decision, the costs will still ultimately be borne by the General Fund or some of the impact fee projects will not have sufficient funding to be constructed.

Sonoma County (Unincorporated):

On March 11, 2025, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) created a two (2) year pilot program to eliminate some impact fees for affordable housing. The elimination program is time-limited and will be revisited when the County completes their pending development impact fee nexus study, which they anticipate taking 18-24 months (the term of the pilot program).

The BOS ultimately voted to eliminate park and traffic impact fees for very low, low, and moderate-income affordable housing and backfill the lost revenue with up to $3 million from the County’s General Fund. Unincorporated areas do not typically include ”County“ water or wastewater, as these are typically provided by special districts operated by Sonoma Water (typically wastewater districts inherited from the County) or private companies (typically private water districts). The summary of the adopted pilot program is as follows:
• All qualifying projects that paid or will pay impact fees between February 1, 2025, and December 31, 2026, are eligible for the impact fee elimination. • Fees will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance, including eliminating fees for affordable units, but not collected until the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. This creates a blanket unsecured fee deferral and relies on collection at occupancy.
• The fee eliminations will apply only to ”affordable housing developments“ that have a recorded affordability restriction at the time of building permit issuance. Affordable 275 of 387
housing developments is defined as, ”dwelling unit(s) reserved for rent or sale to persons and families of low or moderate income (as defined in California Health & Safety Code section 50093) pursuant to the provisions of the general plan housing element and requiring that the continued affordability of said units be secured by a recorded affordability restriction.” Therefore, the fee elimination applies to inclusionary as well as 100% affordable housing projects.
• Consistent with the Housing Affordability Act and RHNA obligations, eligible affordability restrictions will include deed restrictions that guarantee continued affordability of rental units for at least 55 years and of ownership units for at least 45 years.
• Fees will be assessed on a unit basis, as opposed to a project basis.

The County used the prior two-years‘actual impact fee revenue and the pending development pipeline to estimate the potential revenue loss. Based on this, the County decided to backfill the lost revenue by up to $3 million from the General Fund over the two-year pilot program. Given the large amount of “builders remedy“ projects in their pipeline (30x historical average), this backfill was believed to be sufficient to cover the eligible affordable units. However, the County did not cap the total number of qualifying units at RHNA obligations or other criteria, so if the revenue backfill runs out, the elimination of fees will continue through the term of the pilot program along with any related loss in impact fee revenue.

Policy Recommendations
Impact fees are measures of the proportional impact that new development brings to the community. Any reductions or eliminations of impact fee revenue is effectively shifting the cost burden to the City’s other existing revenue sources. Therefore, collection of 100% of the justifiable amount is the most common and generally recommended level for impact fees. In some cases, there may be policy justifications to adjust the impact fee amounts. For City Council discussion, the staff believe the following recommendations for lodging and affordable housing would allow for fiscal responsibility while leveraging fee eliminations to achieve policy goals. Staff would return to City Council as soon as possible (but within 60 days) with a resolution implementing the final policy recommendations for targeted fee elimination, if any.

Lodging
As part of the economic development strategy, the City has been seeking to bring in high quality lodging options for visitors to Cotati. Overnight lodging brings visitors into the community that support local businesses, helps diversify the economy and supports local services and infrastructure through sales taxes and a local tax called a transient occupancy tax (TOT). The City of Cotati is the only city in Sonoma County with no overnight lodging options or TOT revenue.

In the City’s municipal code, hotels are required to pay a TOT of 10%. Additionally, the Sonoma County tourism district collects an additional 2% in most areas of Sonoma County, for a total TOT of 12% in Cotati, Petaluma and Cloverdale. Other cities in Sonoma County collect a higher TOT percentage, with the highest at 16% (Healdsburg, Santa Rosa).

Given the economic imperative to diversify revenue sources and continue to grow revenue to 276 of 387
provide high quality services and infrastructure for our residents, staff explored options to incentivize the construction of quality lodging through the impact fee program. Unlike most other land uses, lodging comes with a separate local revenue source (TOT), in addition to the incremental increases in property and sales taxes. Therefore, it is possible to effectively recover the equivalent of impact fees, if not more over time, through TOT collection. For this reason, it is recommended that all impact fees be set to zero for hotels, provided that the amenities are equivalent to a 3-star hotel or better, and a portion of the TOT revenue, equivalent to the impact fees, be directed to backfill the lost impact fees. Rather than collecting the fees at the time of development, this recommendation would effectively defer the collection of fees for a defined period of time after occupancy and operation using an internal loan among funds. While all types of hotels or motels will generate TOT, this program is proposed to be targeted at encouraging only the higher quality hotels that will be additive to the community. Any proposed extended stay hotels or proposed hotels/motels with 2-star ratings or lower would not qualify for this program and would pay the full impact fee.

For reference, although there is no universal hotel rating system, a general summary of the rating criteria is provided below that could be established as part of the program criteria:
• 1-Star: Basic accommodation with minimal amenities and services. Expect a clean room, a bed, and perhaps a small desk. En-suite bathrooms may not be guaranteed, and services like 24-hour reception or daily cleaning are unlikely.
• 2-Star: Modest comfort with some added conveniences. Expect en-suite bathrooms, a TV, and possibly Wi-Fi. Amenities are still limited, but you can expect better service and cleaner spaces compared to a 1-star hotel.
• 3-Star: A balance between affordability and comfort. Expect spacious rooms with modern furnishings, on-site dining options, and enhanced services like daily housekeeping and 24-hour reception. Locally, these are hotels such as the Fairfield Inn, Hampton Inn and Oxford Suites.
• 4-Star: Upscale hotels with a focus on comfort, style, and service. Expect features like multiple dining outlets, a gym or spa, and concierge services. Rooms are often larger and more stylish, with plush bedding. Locally, these are hotels such as the Lodge at Sonoma, Fairmont Mission Inn and the Graton Hotel.
• 5-Star: The highest level of luxury and service. Expect top-notch amenities, personalized service, and a high-end experience. This could include valet parking, concierge service, 24-hour room service, and other luxurious touches. Locally, these are hotels such as the Montage in Healdsburg.

Affordable Housing
The City currently requires that all new market rate developments (over nine units) incorporate 15% of the units as affordable housing with a housing affordability mix that best meets the City’s RHNA requirements. The 15% set aside for affordable housing is known as the ”inclusionary housing” requirement. The policy concept is that affordable housing is spread throughout market rate development so that they are virtually indistinguishable and fully integrated into the market rate neighborhood. These projects are commonly financed through conventional construction loans, which means that any losses attributable to the affordable housing component of the project must be made up for with the market rate housing. 277 of 387
Alternatively, some affordable housing is developed as 100% affordable housing. These are typically financed differently than market rate housing, leveraging a variety of grants of public funds and other affordable housing funding sources to buy down the construction costs such that the development becomes viable at the lower rental or sale prices. Notably, because of the various public funding sources used for 100% affordable housing projects, these are almost always prevailing wage projects, similar to any other publicly funded project.

The City has an affordable housing RHNA requirement, which must be met by 2031. The following table shows the RHNA requirements for affordable housing and the progress towards meeting these requirements, as of December 31, 2024.

Income Level
Very Low Income
(<50% of Area
Median Income)
Low Income
(50-80% of Area
Median Income)
Moderate Income
(80-120% of Area
Median Income)
RHNA Allocation: 60 34 39
Entitled Units 32 2 2
Building Permit Issued 1 2 1
Occupancy Issued 2 1 1
Remaining Units 25 29 35
For over five years now, the state legislature has been considering and passing a dizzying slate of housing legislation each year, intended to increase housing production in the State. From the perspective of the State, it has become an economic imperative that housing across all levels of affordability be available to retain the workforce and encourage economic growth. In general, this legislation has trended toward removing local jurisdiction authority over the approval of residential developments, making their ability to construct less “discretionary” and more “ministerial”. Locally, the City has entitled or re-entitled numerous market rate housing developments, many of which have not yet gone into construction. While the reasons are numerous – from interest rates to the cost of land, materials or labor to the cost of infrastructure improvements to just general market uncertainty - ultimately the reason is that the project did not yet reach the profit threshold to “pencil” for the developer and/or project funders. One of many cost components embedded in the construction cost of a project is permitting fees – specifically impact fees. Therefore, staff spent considerable time looking at this and exploring options that met the City’s fiscal and policy goals for consideration by the City Council.

As mentioned earlier, eliminating or lowering the cost of an impact fee doesn’t eliminate the corresponding cost to the City – it simply shifts the cost to other existing funding sources. To encourage market rate development to continue to mix affordable housing into their developments and lower the overall cost of development, it is recommended that affordable housing impact fees be eliminated in mixed market developments – provided that the affordable units meet the City’s RHNA needs, are no more than the approximately 15% (included rounding 278 of 387
of fractional units) required by the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, and there are sufficient funds in the inclusionary housing fund to backfill the loss of impact fees. This will discourage segregating affordable housing on a single project site and encourage the City’s policy goal of mixed income developments by reducing the loss on these units. Additionally, because these projects are conventionally financed, these units could come to market much faster than a typical 100% affordable project. Lastly, capping the fee elimination at approximately 15% would limit the backfill exposure to the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Funds on inclusionary projects.

Under this proposal, projects that are 100% affordable would not have reduced impact fees by policy. The Council could, however, make this decision on a case-by-case basis for projects that meet the community's goals. These 100% affordable housing projects can take advantage of numerous state law incentive programs (Builders Remedy, SB 35, etc.), often reducing community and city input on the scope, scale and design of the projects. Keeping fee waivers under the discretion of the Council, rather than through a blanket policy, will ensure the City is not forced to subsidize a project for which there is little community support. Lastly, it is worth noting if fee waivers or reductions are granted by the City Council, it is not expected to create project financing issues for the developer. While the waiver or reduction would likely trigger prevailing wage requirements, this is often already a requirement of the project given the assortment of public funds typically needed to build this type of project.

Program Duration
While there is no “sunset” date or pilot period in the staff recommendation, the affordable housing impact fee elimination would no longer be available if/when the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Fund balances reach zero. Alternatively, the City Council could also choose to put a term on the program, if desired, regardless of remaining fund balances. From a development perspective, particularly when obtaining construction financing, it is important to know what impact fees are going to be required. The program in Petaluma doesn’t have a sunset date and the pilot programs in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County have defined terms, which provides a window of time to pull construction permits. The goal of any such program would ideally be to get projects that are “on the fence” to move into construction, but fee certainty is important in this calculation. Therefore, in the staff recommendation, fee certainty and what triggers it, are important considerations.

In any case, if the City Council wishes to pursue the recommendation for focused fee elimination on inclusionary housing, given the pressure it will put on those funds, staff will explore and present options at a future meeting to potentially increase revenue to the Inclusionary Housing and/or Linkage Funds.

Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Fee
If the City Council adopts the proposed General Plan fee, it is recommended that the DSP fee (currently calculated on a per acre basis) be repealed, which is included in the attached resolution. The General Plan encourages infill development in the DSP area of the City, so removing this fee for development lowers development cost in this Priority Development Area. 279 of 387
Other Impact Fees
Although not specifically discussed, it is worth pointing out that the City also has a Fire Impact Fee that was adopted on behalf of the Rancho Adobe Fire District. If this fee is eliminated for inclusionary units, as recommended above, it would also be subject to backfill by the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Funds. Similarly, if the fees are eliminated for quality lodging development, it would be subject to backfill by TOT revenue. Finally, there is a School Impact Fee, which is excluded from this discussion and would continue to be collected from all development, as this fee is adopted and administered directly by the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District.

Inflationary Indices
Staff recommend using the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for San Francisco as the inflationary index, to be used for all development impact fees in the fee schedule. For simplicity of administration, staff recommend using the prior twelve-month period, based on a calendar year (January-December). Inflationary adjustments would be applied to the updated fee schedule, effective the following July.

Financial Considerations
The recommendations proposed are cost neutral to the City. The impact fee elimination for certain hotel projects would be repaid by TOT revenues through an internal loan over time, ideally within 5 years of project occupancy.

For affordable housing impact fee elimination or reductions, the lost revenue would be made up through a transfer of funds from the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Funds. As of July 1, 2025, these funds have an estimated current balance available of approximately $895K and $330k, respectively. Additionally, each year, the Inclusionary Housing Fund receives approximately $66k in interfund loan payments and interest on the existing loan schedule. If the Inclusionary Housing Fund were to call the interfund loan debt owed as well as sell the land held for redevelopment to affordable housing (120 East Cotati Avenue) at market value, there could be an additional $2.36M in funds available for impact fee reductions (approximately $3.6M).

However, calling the interfund loan with the Sewer Enterprise is not a near term option, but some restructuring or acceleration may be an option. The sale of 120 East Cotati Avenue is unknown, but is expected to be determined as part of development agreement discussions this calendar year. Regardless of the balance, if these funds become depleted, this proposed program would no longer be available until the funds were replenished.

In general, most of the entitled residential developments are SB 330 projects, meaning that all City fees were ”frozen” at the time the application was deemed complete. This includes Redwood Row, Cotati Village 1 and Cotati Village 2, which will see no cost changes as a result of the updated impact fees. New development will be subject to the new impact fee schedule, which will go into effect 60 days after adoption. It is proposed that any policy changes to the impact fees would go into effect concurrently with the new fee schedule. This would include any project that has qualified under SB 330.
280 of 387
Based on total fee costing of proposed developments, it is expected that the combined funds available in the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Funds of $1.2M, as of July 1, 2025, would eliminate development impact fees on approximately 18 affordable housing units at the proposed single family unit prototype (2,500 square feet) if all City impact fees are set to zero, or 44 multifamily units using the multifamily prototype (1,000 square feet) if all impact fees are set to zero. If entitled units are excluded from the RHNA requirements (because they have not pulled a building permit yet), there are 125 units remaining in the City‘s RHNA affordable housing allocation. Another option is to do partial impact fee reductions for residential. For example, if the fees are only 50% reduced, it would double the number of affordable units that would qualify (36 SFD and 88 MFD). Essentially, every $1M in subsidy would waive all City impact fees for 15 single family prototypes or 37 multifamily prototypes.

Environmental Issues
Where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review.

This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.
281 of 387
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
City of Cotati
August 12, 2025
282 of 387
What is a Development Impact Fee?
One-time charge 1
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
2 283 of 387
Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
§ Key findings
§ Need: Development creates need for facilities
§ Benefit: Development benefits from use of revenue
§ Rough Proportionality: Fee amount development’s
share of facility costs (i.e. proportional to demand)
§ Other findings
§ Purpose of fee
§ Use of fee revenue
3 284 of 387
§ Requires local jurisdictions to make certain
information available on website:
§ Current impact fee schedule
§ Nexus studies
§ Annual AB1600 reports
§ Five-Year AB1600 reports
§ Changes to impact fee adoption process:
§ Prior to adoption of development fees,
an impact fee nexus study needs to be
adopted with 30 days notice
§ Technical changes:
§ Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another
metric
§ Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part
of the nexus study
§ Nexus study should identify level of
service
§ If fees are increasing, review the
assumptions of the original nexus
study and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee
AB 602
285 of 387
Impact Fees – Basic Methodology

ESTIMATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

STANDARDS

DETERMINE NEW

FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT
5 286 of 387
Impact Fee Categories
§Park Facilities
§Traffic Facilities
§General Plan Update
§Water Capacity
§Sewer Capacity
287 of 387
Growth Projections
7 2025 Buildout Increase
Residents 7,281 11,196 3,915
Dwelling Units 3,246 5,349 2,103
Employment 2,615 8,177 5,562
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2025; City of Cotati EIR for the 2013 General Plan Update (2014); Table 2-3 Santero Way Specific Pan Update Draft EIR (2025); OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Costar; American Community Survey (2023); Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services. 288 of 387
Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand
BUY IN
Existing Facilities
Total Capacity

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand

SYSTEM PLAN
Existing + Planned Facilities
Total Demand @ Horizon
289 of 387
Fee Program Methodologies
Parks
Existing
Standard
General Plan
System
Plan
Water Capacity
Component
Sewer Capacity
Component
Buy In
Water Capacity
Component
Sewer Capacity
Component
Traffic Mitigation
Planned
Facilities
290 of 387
Major Planned Facilities
§ Share of future General Plan updates
§ Parks needed to maintain existing
standard (4.05 acres per 1,000
residents)
§ Traffic Facilities – Share of various
capacity expanding facilities:
§ Capacity expanding signals
§ Various SR 116 Improvements
§ La Plaza Reunification
§ Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan
§ Safety Improvements
§ Water
§ Future Distribution Facilities
§ Future Storage Facilities
§ Future Well
§ Share of excess capacity in existing
system
§ Sewer Capacity
§ Future Conveyance Facilities
§ Share of excess capacity in existing
system
291 of 387
Maximum Justified Fee Schedule
11 Land Use
Parks and
Recreation
Water
Capacity Sewer Capacity Traffic General Plan Total
Residential - per Square Foot
All Units $ 12.36 $ 4.03 $ 4.91 $ 4.03 $ 0.21 $ 25.54
Nonresidential - per Square Foot
Commercial $ - $ 2.63 $ 3.54 $ 14.56 $ 0.09 $ 20.82
Office - 2.63 3.54 15.26 0.14 21.57
Industrial - 1.09 1.42 8.84 0.05 11.40
292 of 387
Questions
12 293 of 387
Development Impact Fee Policy Recommendation
Summaries for Consideration
The following is a summary of staff policy recommendations and potential options for consideration. Staff intend to return to the City Council within 60 days with a resolution to implement the preferred policy options for fee reduction or elimination.

Lodging Recommendation
• Eliminate all development impact fees (School fees excluded) • Must be a 3-star equivalent or better product. Extended stay hotels not eligible. • A portion of the Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) revenue, equivalent to the equivalent impact fees, be directed to backfill through an internal and RAFD loan to be established at time of development.
• No predefined program sunset

Affordable Housing Recommendation
• Impact fees be 100% eliminated by policy in market rate developments for deed restricted affordable housing units only.
o Must meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) o No more than the approximately 15% (included rounding of fractional units) o There are sufficient funds in the Inclusionary Housing or Linkage Funds to backfill the loss of impact fees.
• Impact fees to be reduced or waived by the City Council on a case-by-case basis for 100% affordable projects.
• No defined program sunset, but would pause if there are insufficient funds available in the Inclusionary Housing or Linkage Funds.
• Fees eliminated on a unit-by-unit basis (not project), at time of building permit issuance (vertical construction)
• Other policy options to discuss:
o Fee Amounts
▪ Set lower fee amounts rather than eliminating 100% of fees. ▪ Only target certain levels of affordability (i.e. Low, Very Low, or Moderate).
▪ Only eliminate certain development impact fees rather than all fees. o Program “Certainty”
294 of 387
Development Impact Fee Policy Recommendation
Summaries for Consideration
▪ Allocate at time of entitlement, rather than at building permit, with a 12- month term to pull the building permits for all affordable units. Allocation window is intended to provide time to produce construction level documents, obtain financing and account for construction seasonality. 295 of 387
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI REVISING

THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, THE SEWER CONNECTION FEE, THE WATER

CONNECTION FEE AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION FEE, ADOPTING A

GENERAL PLAN FEE (REPLACING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

RECOVERY FEE), ALL BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT NEXUS

STUDY UPDATE, AND MAKING ASSOCIATED FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE

MITIGATION FEE ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Cotati (City) has adopted various Development Impact Fee (DIF) programs over many years, with fees generally set by resolution, including:
• Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Recovery Fee
• Park-In-Lieu Fee – Ordinance 766 (established current fee) • Traffic Impact Fee – Resolution 2015-71
• Sewer Connection Fee - Resolution 2016-68
• Water Connection Fee - Resolution 2016-68
• Water Conservation Fee - Resolution 93-83
• Fire Impact Fee - Ordinance 931, Section 4.15.030.
; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the DIF programs are to ensure that new development mitigates the impact that a new development has on the City's public facilities and essential services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.) certain findings are required to be made regarding unexpended development impact fees in connection with consideration of the annual development impact fee report; and WHEREAS, in 2021, Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”) amended the Mitigation Fee Act of the California Government Code, which governs Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, AB 602 emphasized the need to adopt a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study at a public hearing prior to the adoption of any new or increased Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, AB 602 requires, in part, that the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify new levels of service, include an explanation of why the new levels of service are more appropriate, and include information to support the required findings for adoption of new or increased Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study provides a quantified basis for support of each Development Impact Fee and the legal support for the required findings that 296 of 387
must be made to justify the amount of each Development Impact Fee, based on existing deficiencies of certain public facilities and the projected burdens on those facilities caused by prospective development in the City; and
WHEREAS, as cited above, the City has adopted various Development Impact Fees individually over time and approved multiple new specific plans, capital project master plans and Capital Improvement Plan Budgets; and
WHEREAS, the City retained the professional services of Willdan Financial Services to prepare the City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Study Update (the “DIF Study”); and WHEREAS, the DIF Study is a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t A a n d i s a l s o incorporated herein by this reference and provides the requisite findings related to the City’s DIF Fees; and WHEREAS, the DIF Study includes a General Plan fee, which is intended to collect fees to perform future amendments and updates to the General Plan and Specific Plans, therefore eliminating the need for the current Downtown Specific Plan fee; and WHEREAS, the City of Cotati Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025/26 through 2030/31 indicates the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the City’s Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

2. The DIF Study is hereby adopted.

3. The rates for Parks and Recreation, Traffic, Water Capacity (Connection), Sewer Capacity (Connection) are revised, and General Plan fee is adopted, in the amount as are indicated in the table below:
297 of 387

4. The fees in the following Resolutions are hereby superseded:
a. Traffic Impact Fee – Resolution 2015-71
b. Sewer Connection Fee - Resolution 2016-68
c. Water Connection Fee - Resolution 2016-68
d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should any of the fees adopted by this resolution be invalidated for any reason, the corresponding fees shall be deemed to have remained in effect.

5. The Downtown Specific Plan fee is hereby rescinded.

6. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed findings set forth in Chapter 10 of the DIF Study (pp. 47–48), attached as Exhibit A, with respect to the following statutory findings required by Government Code section 66001:
a. That the purpose of the impact fees has been identified; b. That the use of the fees have been identified;
c. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use and the type of project on which it is imposed; and
d. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for public improvement and the type of project on which it is imposed.

7. Effective Date: 60 days following the adoption of this resolution.

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 August 12, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
298 of 387
Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
299 of 387

CITY OF COTATI

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS

STUDY UPDATE

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JULY 9, 2025
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
300 of 387
This page intentionally left blank.
301 of 387
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 2
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 3
Other Funding Needed 3

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 7
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 10 Land Use Types 10
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 12

3. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES........................................... 14 Service Population 14
Existing Parkland Inventory 14
Special Use Facilities Inventory 15
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 16
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 17
Mitigation Fee Act 17
Quimby Act 17
City of Cotati Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 17 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 18
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 18
Use of Fee Revenue 19
Fee Schedule 19

4. WATER CAPACITY..................................................................... 20 Water Demand 20
EDU Generation by New Development 21
Facility Needs and Costs 22
Cost per EDU 23
Current Water System Asset Valuation 23
Capacity Fee per GPD 24
Cost per EDU Summary 25
Fee Schedule 25
302 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii

5. SEWER CAPACITY..................................................................... 26 Sewer Demand 26
EDU Generation by New Development 27
Facility Needs and Costs 28
Cost per EDU 28
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation 29
Capacity Fee per GPD 30
Cost per EDU Summary 30
Fee Schedule 30

6. TRAFFIC FACILITIES .................................................................. 32 Trip Demand 32
Trip Growth 33
Project Costs 34
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 36
Fee Schedule 36

7. GENERAL PLAN ........................................................................ 38 Service Population 38
Planned Costs 39
Facility Standard 39
Fee Revenue Projection 40
Fee Schedule 40

8. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 42 Compliance with AB 602 42
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 42
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 43 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 43
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 43

9. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 44 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 44
Inflation Adjustment 44
Reporting Requirements 44

10. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 47 Purpose of Fee 47
Use of Fee Revenues 47
Benefit Relationship 47
Burden Relationship 48
Proportionality 48
303 of 387
1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Cotati through buildout of the City’s General Plan. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Park and Recreation Facilities
• Water Capacity
• Sewer Capacity
• Traffic Facilities
• General Plan
The City also charges impact fees to fund affordable housing on residential development and commercial linkage fees on nonresidential development. The affordable housing impact fees apply to housing development projects of nine units or less, and are calculated relative to the sales price of each unit. The nonresidential commercial linkage fees are charged as a fee per square foot of building space. These fees are not being updated as a part of this nexus study.

Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. Two types of fees are identified in this report:

1. This study identifies the maximum justified development impact fees for parks and recreation facilities, traffic facilities, and general plan updates under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. Chapter 10 provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of these facility categories.

2. The water capacity and sewer capacity fees calculated in this report are subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 66013, which defines a capacity charge as “a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge” does not include a commodity charge.” In this case the water and sewer capacity fees include a buy-in component (where new development buys into the excess capacity of the existing system) and a system expansion component (where new development funds its proportional cost of capacity expanding facilities). Capacity charges are not subject to the nexus findings required for impact fees and are typically triggered by a new or upsized connection to the utility.

The City will program development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. 304 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used to ensure that service levels remain constant as new development adds demand for facilities. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital improvement plan and budget process. This approach is used to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the general plan update fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the traffic mitigation fees, and components of the water and sewer capacity fees in this report.

The buy-in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy-in methodology, new development “buys” a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for components of the water and sewer capacity fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis “Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.”1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Capacity fee revenue can be used to pay the City back for improvements it made in anticipation of demand from new development, and to fund future capacity expanding improvements. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new 1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
305 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 3 development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Parks and
Recreation
Water
Capacity
Sewer
Capacity Traffic
General
Plan Total
Residential - per Square Foot
All Units $ 12.36 $ 4.03 $ 4.91 $ 4.03 $ 0.21 $ 25.54
Nonresidential - per Square Foot
Commercial $ - $ 2.63 $ 3.54 $ 14.56 $ 0.09 $ 20.82
Office - 2.63 3.54 15.26 0.14 21.57
Industrial - 1.09 1.42 8.84 0.05 11.40
Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.8, 5.8, 6.5 and 7.5.

Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Cotati.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $21.6 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Note that the water and sewer capacity fees are not included in this table, as implementing fees under Government Code 66013 has different requirements than fees implemented under the Mitigation Fee Act.
306 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 4 Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Total Project
Cost
Development
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Parks $ 32,220,177 $ 32,220,177 $ -
Traffic 64,248,500 43,720,328 20,528,172
General Plan 1,900,000 778,182 1,121,818
Total $ 98,368,677 $ 76,718,687 $ 21,649,990
Sources: Tables 3.6, 6.3 and 7.4.
307 of 387
5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Cotati. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy CSF 1.6 of the City’s General Plan states “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.” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the 308 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 6 necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.

Cotati is forecast to have moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned to a particular year. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Cotati has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 9.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. 309 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 7 Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
 Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.  Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
 Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used to ensure that service levels remain constant as new development adds demand for facilities. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital improvement plan and budget process. This approach is used to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
= $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
310 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 8 This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the general plan update fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the traffic mitigation fees, and components of the water and sewer capacity fees in this report
Buy-In Method
The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy-in methodology, new development “buys” a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.

The buy-in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the calculation equation is:

Present Value of Existing Facilities
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for components of the water and sewer capacity fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
= $/unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
311 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 9 • Park and Recreation Facilities
• Water Capacity
• Sewer Capacity
• Traffic Facilities
• General Plan
Chapter 8 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 9 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 10. 312 of 387
10 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2025 base year and a planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned a particular year.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2025 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at buildout is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
• Estimates of growth from 2025 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and other industrial development.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a industrial facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Cotati, both in 2025 and at buildout. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of total dwelling units at buildout is derived from information from the General Plan EIR (2014) and the Santero Way Specific Plan EIR (2025). Total dwelling units at buildout is then used to estimate population at building by multiplying the count of units by the occupant densities of 2.52 residents per single 313 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 11 family unit and 1.73 residents per multifamily unit, based on the latest data for Cotati from the American Community Survey.

Existing and buildout nonresidential square feet were identified in the General Plan EIR. Figures were adjusted for increased nonresidential development potential identified in the Santero Way Specific Plan Update. CoStar was used to identify nonresidential development since 2013 to adjust the General Plan estimates of existing building square feet to current conditions. Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap Application, and future employees were estimated based on the building square feet at buildout and the nonresidential density factors in Table 2.2.
314 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 12 Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2025 Buildout Increase
Residents 1 7,281 11,196 3,915
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 2,126 2,476 350
Multifamily 1,120 2,873 1,753
Total 3,246 5,349 2,103
Employment 3
Commercial 1,197 3,110 1,913
Office 348 3,499 3,151
Industrial 1,070 1,568 498
Total 2,615 8,177 5,562
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 321 1,223 902
Office 93 1,060 967
Industrial 565 994 429
Total 979 3,278 2,299
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance.

Projection based on multiplying projected increase in dw elling units from the General Plan EIR by the assumed occupant density of single family (2.52) and multifamily units (1.73), based on American Community Survey data. 2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Increase in dw elling units identified in the City's General Plan EIR and in the Santero Way Specific Plan Update, less the increase in dw elling units since the General Plan w as published.
4 Existing and buildout nonresidential square feet identified in General Plan EIR. Figures w ere adjusted for increased nonresidential development potential identified in the Santero Way Specific Plan Update. CoStar w as used to identify nonresidential development since 2013 to adjust General 3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap.

Projection based on occupant density factors from Table 2.2 multiplied by increase in square footage identified in General Plan EIR and Santero Way Specific Plan Update.

Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2025; City of Cotati EIR for the 2013 General Plan Update (2014); Table 2-3 Santero Way Specific Pan Update Draft EIR (2025); OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Costar; American Community Survey Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.
315 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 13 Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey specifically for the City of Cotati. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for nonresidential land uses.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
All Units 2.25 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
316 of 387
14 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park and recreation facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks and recreation facilities to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional and recreation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City’s existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Cotati primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for parks and recreation facilities.

Table 3.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2025) 7,281
New Development 3,915
Total (Buildout) 11,196
Sources: US Census; Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Parkland Inventory
The City of Cotati maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2025. All facilities are owned by the City or were built to satisfy the City’s park dedication requirements. In total, the inventory includes a total of 29.48 acres of parkland.
317 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 15 Table 3.2: Park Land Inventory
Description Acres
Civic / Cader Field 4.58
Delano 0.95
Draper 0.93
Eagle Drive Lift Station 0.07
Falletti 1.48
Falletti Ranch 3.62
Helen Putnam 8.63
Kotate 2.31
La Plaza 2.38
Lipton1 0.35
Mini Park (Pocket Park) 0.15
Park on Santero Way 0.75
Sunflower 1.73
Veterans 1.54
Total 29.48
Source: City of Cotati.
1 Privately ow ned, but open to the public in
perpetuity. This park w as built to satisfy park in-lieu fee requirements.

Special Use Facilities Inventory
The City owns several special use facilities, including various buildings, the Train Depot and the Falletti Ranch facilities. Table 3.3 provides an inventory of the City’s investment in special use recreation facilities. Current facility replacement costs were identified in the City’s insured property schedule. The total replacement cost of the special use recreation facilities is divided by the existing improved park acres to determine a special use facilities cost per acre. 318 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 16 Table 3.3: Special Use Facilities Inventory
Buildings
Building
Square Feet
Cost per Sq.

Ft.1
Replacement
Cost
Community Center - Cotati Room 2,699 $ 562 $ 1,517,873
Community Center - Dance Studio 1,204 664 799,700
Community Center - Recreation Building 6,924 635 4,393,896 Falletti Ranch House 1,194 493 588,548
Falletti Ranch Water Tower 150 2,577 386,613
Cotati Train Depot1
1,558 1,949 3,036,350
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 10,722,980
Existing Improved Park Acres 29.48
Cost per Acre $ 363,737
1 Original cost per square foot adjusted for inflation into 2025 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index.

Sources: City of Cotati, Insurance Schedule SOV 10-31-2024; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Square feet listed reflects indoor building square footage. Replacement cost show n for entire facility, including outdoor areas.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 3.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Cotati. The cost of improving a acre of parkland with standard park improvements is based on City’s cost to improve Kotate Park in 2022, adjusted for inflation into 2025 dollars. The improvement component also includes the special use facilities cost per acre calculated in the previous table. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $669,000 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous five years in Cotati, as reported by CoStar. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $2 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Cotati.

Table 3.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
per Acre
Standard Park Improvements1$ 998,800
Special Use Facilities 363,737
Total Improvement Cost per Acre $1,362,537
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre $ 669,000
Total Cost per Acre $2,031,537
Sources: City of Cotati; CoStar; Table 3.3, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Based on cost to improve Kotate Park in 2022, adjusted for inflation.
319 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 17 Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation
Fee Act to impose parks and recreation facilities impact fees, and will not impose fees in-lieu of dedication under the Quimby Act. A discussion of park facility standards under the Mitigation Fee Act and the Quimby Act follows below
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City’s existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.

City of Cotati Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 3.5 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents. The City’s General Plan standard is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has an existing parkland standard of 4.05 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report is not based on a standard calculated per the Quimby Act, rather, it will be based on maintaining the City’s 4.05 2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Chapter 10.
320 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 18 acre per 1,000 resident standard as of 2025, as new development adds demand for parks in Cotati.

Table 3.5: Parks and Recreation Facility Standards
Mitigation
Fee Act
Standard
Developed Park Acreage 29.48
Existing Service Population 7,281
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 4.05
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 3.6 shows the park land and improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon new development must fund the acquisition and improvement of 15.86 acres of parkland, at a total cost of $32.2 million.

Table 3.6: Parkland and Improvements to Accommodate
New Development
Calculation
Parkland and Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 4.05
Growth in Service Population (2025 to Buildout) B 3,915 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 15.86
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 2,031,537
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $32,220,177
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5.

Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 3.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard. The cost to acquire and improve an acre of parkland is multiplied by the existing standard to determine the cost to serve 1,000 residents. The result is divided by 1,000 to determine the cost to serve a single resident at the existing facility standard. 321 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 19 Table 3.7: Cost per Capita
Calculation
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $2,031,537
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 4.05
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B $8,227,700
Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 8,228
Sources: Tables 3.4 and 3.5.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park and recreation facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of parks and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to acquire land, provide parks and recreation facilities, and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees for residential land uses, the cost for park and recreation facilities is determined on a per capita basis. The cost per capita factor (shown in Table 3.7) is based on the unit cost estimates and the existing facility standard. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 3.8 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fees based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 3.8: Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential $ 8,228 2.25 $18,513 $ 370 $ 18,883 $ 12.36 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of data from the 2023 American Housing Survey, San Francisco Metropolitan Area. 322 of 387
20 4. Water Capacity
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water capacity to accommodate growth within the City of Cotati. The fee includes two components: a project driven component based on future capacity expanding projects identified in the City’s Water Master Plan (2011), and a buy-in component where development buys into the excess capacity of the City’s current system. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for water facilities from the projected increase water flow and the additional water infrastructure needed to provide water service to new development. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of water flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 4.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Wastewater Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the water demand generated by each unit of new development.
323 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average Flow
Generation
per DU or
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1,267 6.00 211.11 1.00
Multifamily 2,567 20.00 128.33 0.61
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1,350 21.78 61.98 0.29
Office 1,350 21.78 61.98 0.29
Industrial 550 21.78 25.25 0.12
1 Gallons per acre per day.

Source: City of Cotati Water System Master Plan (2011), Chapter 3.2.2; City of Cotati General Plan (2015); Santero Way Specific Pan Update Draft EIR (2025); Willdan Financial Services. 2 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Plan and Santero Way Specific Plan and EIR. Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratios of 0.50 for commercial, office and industrial.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 4.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 4.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 2,013 new EDUs through buildout, comprising 40.2% of water demand in the City at that time.
324 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 Table 4.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units / 1,000
SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 2,126 2,126 350 350 2,476 2,476
Multifamily

0.61 1,120 683 1,753 1,070 2,873 1,753
Subtotal 3,246 2,809 2,103 1,420 5,349 4,229
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.29 321 93 902 262 1,223 355
Office 0.29 93 27 967 280 1,060 307
Industrial 0.12 565 68 429 51 994 119
Subtotal 979 188 2,299 593 3,278 781
Total 2,997 2,013 5,010

59.8% 40.2% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to Buildout Total - Buildout
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 4.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. The new water facilities were all identified in the City’s Water Master Plan (WMP). City staff provided updates to the project costs to reflect the current cost of construction.

Projects that are needed to provide capacity to accommodate new development are allocated 100% to the fee. For those water facilities projects that benefit both existing development and new development, costs are allocated to new development consistent with the allocation from the City’s prior water capacity fee study. In total, $11.3 million in capacity expanding projects is allocated to the capacity fee.
325 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 4.3: Water Facilities Allocation to New Development Project Size Unit
Length
(Feet) Cost
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Future Distribution System Cost
P-10 Blodget Loop 10 Inches 1,200 $ 846,169 100% $ 846,169 P-11 Helman 12 Inches 1,000 1,015,403 100% 1,015,403
P-12 Near Ford 10 Inches 1,100 775,655 100% 775,655
P-13 Near Gilman 10 Inches 2,000 1,410,282 100% 1,410,282 P-14 W. School Loop 8 Inches 1,000 451,290 100% 451,290 Subtotal Distribution System 6,300 $ 4,498,798 $ 4,498,798 Future Storage System Cost
T-1 Cypress Storage Tank 600,000 Gallons $ 2,826,000 100% $ 2,826,000 T-2 West Sierra 2 1,000,000 Gallons 4,710,000 53% 2,496,300 Subtotal Storage System 1,600,000 Gallons $ 7,536,000 $ 5,322,300 Future Well Cost
W-4 Well 4 $ 1,500,000 100% $ 1,500,000
Total Water Facilities Projects $13,534,798 $ 11,321,098 Source: City of Cotati, 2011 Water Master Plan, Table 7.3.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development, is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU, which drives planned facilities component of the water capacity fee. Table 4.4 displays this calculation.

Table 4.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $11,321,098
Growth in EDUs (2025 to Buildout) 2,013
Cost per EDU $ 5,624
Sources: Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Current Water System Asset Valuation
Table 4.5 displays the current water system asset valuation. In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to determine the current value of the water systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system’s value in today’s dollars. Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and repair, RCNLD is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation-adjusted to recover the cost of replacing that capacity in 326 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.

Table 4.5: Current Water System Asset Valuation
Name Size Unit Length (ft) Cost
Date
Acquired1
Lifespan
(Years)
Percent
Depreciated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Existing Distribution System Replacement Value
Piping 4 inch 5,056 $ 570,431 1990 50 70% $ 171,129
Piping 6 inch 40,467 10,272,576 1990 50 70% 3,081,773
Piping 8 inch 70,269 31,711,704 1990 50 70% 9,513,511
Piping 10 inch 24,897 17,555,890 1990 50 70% 5,266,767
Piping 12 inch 10,535 10,697,268 1990 50 70% 3,209,180
Piping 16 inch 5,836 10,534,916 1990 50 70% 3,160,475
Subtotal Existing Distribution Value 157,060 $81,342,785 $ 24,402,835 Existing Storage System Replacement Value
West Sierra 1 1,000,000 gallon $ 4,710,000 2016 50 18% 3,862,200 Existing Well Replacement Value
Well 1A $ 1,750,000 2018 50 14% 1,505,000
Well 2 1,000,000 2009 50 32% 680,000
Well 3 1,500,000 2025 50 0% 1,500,000
Subtotal Existing Well Value $ 4,250,000 $ 3,685,000
Total Current Water System Valuation $90,302,785 $ 31,950,035 1 Average age of distribution system. Most recent year of upgrades for storage and w ells.

Source: City of Cotati, 2011 Water Master Plan, Table 5.1.

Capacity Fee per GPD
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. The calculation of the buy-in component per GPD for water facilities is shown in Table 4.6. The water system’s water flow capacity, totaling 2.1 million gallons per day (MGD) was identified by the City. The total system value divided by the system capacity yields the capacity fee per gallon per day of $15.43. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 211 gallons per day per EDU to determine the capacity fee buy-in component per EDU.

Table 4.6: Buy-In Cost per EDU
Total System Value $31,950,035
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day) 2,070,000
Cost per GPD $ 15.43
GPD per EDU 211
Cost per EDU $ 3,257
Sources: City of Cotati; Tables 4.1 and 4.5, Willdan Financial Services
327 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Cost per EDU Summary
Table 4.7 summarizes the two capacity fee component costs per EDU from Table 4.4 and 4.6.

Table 4.7: Cost per EDU
Future Facilities Cost per EDU $ 5,624
Buy-In Cost per EDU 3,257
Total $ 8,881
Sources: Tables 4.4 and 4.6.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified water capacity fee schedule is shown in Table 4.8. The cost per EDU from Table 4.7 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 4.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 4.8: Maximum Justified Water Capacity Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / Average or
1,000
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential
All Units4$ 8,881 0.68 $ 6,039 $ 121 $ 6,160 $ 4.03
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 8,881 0.29 $ 2,575 $ 52 $ 2,627 $ 2.63
Office 8,881 0.29 2,575 52 2,627 2.63
Industrial 8,881 0.12 1,066 21 1,087 1.09
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.7.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of data from the 2023 American Housing Survey, San Francisco Metropolitan Area.
328 of 387
26 5. Sewer Capacity
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Cotati. The fee includes two components: a project driven component based on future capacity expanding projects identified in the City’s Sewer Master Plan (2011), and a buy-in component where development buys into the excess capacity of the City’s current system. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer facilities from the projected increase sewer flow and the additional sewer facilities needed to provide sewer service to new development. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of sewer improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Sewer Master Plan (SMP). EDU factors express sewer flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the sewer demand generated by each unit of new development.
329 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 Table 5.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average Flow
Generation per DU
or 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1,100 6.00 183.33 1.00
Multifamily 1,600 20.00 80.00 0.44
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1,000 21.78 45.91 0.25
Office 1,000 21.78 45.91 0.25
Industrial 400 21.78 18.37 0.10
1 Gallons per acre per day of w astew ater flow .
2 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Plan and Santero Way Specific Plan and EIR..

Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratios of 0.40 for commercial, 0.40 for office and 0.50 for industrial.

Sources: City of Cotati Sew er System Master Plan (2011); General Plan (2015); Santero Way Specific Pan Update Draft EIR (2025); Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 5.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 5.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 1,708 new EDUs through buildout, comprising 38.7% of sewer demand in the City at that time.
330 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 5.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 2,126 2,126 350 350 2,476 2,476
Multifamily

0.44 1,120 493 1,753 771 2,873 1,264
Subtotal 3,246 2,619 2,103 1,121 5,349 3,740
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.25 321 4 902 302 1,223 306
Office 0.25 93 23 967 242 1,060 265
Industrial 0.10 565 56 429 43 994 99
Subtotal 979 83 2,299 587 3,278 670
Total 2,702 1,708 4,410

61.3% 38.7% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1
2025 Growth 2024 to Buildout Total - Buildout
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 5.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the SMP. City staff provided updates to the project costs to reflect the current cost of construction.

For those sewer projects that benefit both existing development and new development, costs are allocated to new development consistent with the allocation from the City’s prior water capacity fee study. In total, $2 million in capacity expanding projects is allocated to the sewer capacity fee.

Table 5.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Project
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Pipe
Length
(ft) Cost
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
P-2A: ORH 21 1,100 $ 3,102,168 30% $ 930,650.49
P-2B: La Plaza 16 1,700 3,056,818 29% 886,477
P-6: Lincoln 8 400 247,446 23% 56,913
P-7: La Salle 10 700 602,637 25% 150,659
Total Sewer Facilities Project Costs $ 7,009,069 $ 2,024,700 Source: City of Cotati, 2011 Sew er Master Plan, Table 7.2.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 5.4 displays this calculation. 331 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 Table 5.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 2,024,700
Growth in EDUs (2025 to Buildout) 1,708
Cost per EDU $ 1,185
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Table 5.5 displays the current sewer system asset valuation. In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to determine the current value of the sewer systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system’s value in today’s dollars. Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and repair, RCNLD is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation-adjusted to recover the cost of replacing that capacity in current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.

Table 5.5: Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Name Diameter (in) Length (ft) Cost
Date
Acquired1
Lifespan
(Years)
Percent
Depreci
ated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Existing Collection System Replacement Value
Piping 4 196 $ 60,624 1990 50 70% $ 18,187
Piping 6 92,979 43,138,723 1990 50 70% 12,941,617
Piping 8 35,519 21,972,622 1990 50 70% 6,591,787
Piping 10 9,558 8,228,578 1990 50 70% 2,468,573
Piping 12 6,013 6,844,357 1990 50 70% 2,053,307
Piping 16 1,790 3,218,649 1990 50 70% 965,595
Piping 18 1,247 2,719,266 1990 50 70% 815,780
Piping 21 2,585 7,290,096 1990 50 70% 2,187,029
Piping 24 22,539 79,755,063 1990 50 70% 23,926,519
Subtotal Collection System 172,426 $ 173,227,977 $ 51,968,393 Existing Sewer Pumping System Replacement Value
Redwood Lift Station $ 750,000 2001 50 48% $ 390,000
Benson Lift Station 250,000 1973 50 100% -
Quail Hollow Lift Station 750,000 1988 50 74% 195,000
Eagle Drive Lift Station 500,000 1984 50 82% 90,000
Subtotal Pumping System $ 2,250,000 $ 675,000
Total Current Sewer System Valuation $ 175,477,977 $ 52,643,393 1 Average age of collection system assets.

Source: City of Cotati.
332 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Capacity Fee per GPD
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. The calculation of the buy-in fee per GPD for sewer facilities is shown in Table 5.6. The sewer system’s usable sewer flow capacity, totaling 760,000 was identified by in the 5th amendment to the agreement for use of Santa Rosa Subregional Sewerage System. The system value divided by the total capacity of the system yields the capacity fee per gallon per day of $69.27. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 183 gallons per day per EDU to determine the capacity fee buy-in component per EDU.

Table 5.6: Buy-In Cost per EDU
Total System Value $ 52,643,393
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day) 760,000
Cost per GPD $ 69.27
GPD per EDU 183
Cost per EDU $ 12,699
Sources: 5th amendment to the agreement for use of Santa Rosa Subregional Sew erage System; Willdan Financial Services, Table 5.5.

Cost per EDU Summary
Table 5.7 summarizes the two component costs per EDU from Table 5.4 and 5.6.

Table 5.7: Cost per EDU
Future Facilities Cost per EDU $ 1,185
Buy-In Cost per EDU 12,699
Total $ 13,884
Sources: Tables 5.4 and 5.6.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified sewer capacity fee schedule is shown in Table 5.8. The cost per EDU from Table 5.7 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 5.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
333 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 31 Table 5.8: Maximum Justified Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / Average or
1,000
Land Type
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential
All Units4$13,884 0.53 $ 7,359 $ 147 $ 7,506 $ 4.91
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $13,884 0.25 $ 3,471 $ 69 $ 3,540 $ 3.54
Office 13,884 0.25 3,471 69 3,540 3.54
Industrial 13,884 0.10 1,388 28 1,416 1.42
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Table 5.1 and 5.7.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of data from the 2023 American Housing Survey, San Francisco Metropolitan Area.
334 of 387
32 6. Traffic Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various traffic facilities to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new traffic mitigation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional traffic mitigation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Trip Demand
The need for traffic facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trip adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
• Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.

These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.

Table 6.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Trip rates for all land uses are based on the latest data available from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The trip purpose and trip length assumptions in Table

6.1 are based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The SANDAG is used to supplement the trip generation rates, because the SANDAG surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of pass-by trips factors for a wide range of land uses. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip demand generation in this report are based on data specific to the City.
335 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Table 6.1: Trip Demand Factors
Pass-by
Trips1
Primary
and
Diverted
Trips
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjustment
Factor3ITE Category
PM Peak
Hour
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B = 1 - A C
D = B x C
/ Avg. E F = D x E
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210) 0.99 1.10 Multifamily 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 0.57 0.63 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 22% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820) 4.09 1.68 Office 4% 96% 8.8 1.22 General Office (710) 1.44 1.76
Industrial 2% 98% 9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110) 0.80 1.02 Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Institute of Traffic Engineers, San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Percent of total trips. A pass-by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass-by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Based on SANDAG data. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 6.9 miles.
4 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.

Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is General Plan buildout. Table 6.2 lists the 2025 and buildout land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 6.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet from Table 2.1 to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

Table 6.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units / 1,000
SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.10 2,126 2,339 350 385 2,476 2,724
Multifamily

0.63 1,120 706 1,753 1,104 2,873 1,810
Subtotal 3,246 3,045 2,103 1,489 5,349 4,534
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1.68 321 539 902 1,516 1,223 2,055
Office 1.76 93 164 967 1,702 1,060 1,866
Industrial 1.02 565 576 429 438 994 1,014
Subtotal 979 1,279 2,299 3,656 3,278 4,935
Total 4,324 5,145 9,469

45.7% 54.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to Buildout Total - Buildout
336 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 6.3 and were sourced from the City’s current traffic mitigation fee program and CIP. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. Projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the City’s prior impact fee study continue to be allocated 100% to new development. Projects are needed both due to existing development and new development are allocated to new development proportionally to new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 6.2 (54.3%). Allocating this amount of costs to the impact fee ensures that new development will not fund more than its proportional share of traffic mitigation facilities demand. 337 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 6.3: Planned Facilities
Project Description Cost (2025)1
Cost
Allocated to
Adjacent
Properties
Total Cost
(2025)1
Allocation to
New
Development2
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Gateway Signage - La Plaza Convert the La Plaza marquee to a digital display $ 51,000 - $ 51,000 54.3% $ 27,693 Gateway Signage - Commerce Monument Designs and build monument gateway sign 765,000 - 765,000 54.3% 415,395 La Plaza Reunification Reconfigure Old Redwood Highway and Sierra Ave. 15,660,000 - 15,660,000 54.3% 8,503,380 Traffic Signal - Commerce/Old Redwood Hwy Installing a new traffic signal 1,080,000 - 1,080,000 54.3% 586,440 Gravenstein Hwy Widen SR 116 and add turn lanes 8,544,200 - 8,544,200 100.0% 8,544,200 SR 116/Madrone Ave Signal and additional turn lanes 1,556,100 - 1,556,100 100.0% 1,556,100 SR 116/New North-South Street Signalize new intersection 2,135,700 - 2,135,700 100.0% 2,135,700 SR 116/ W Cotati Ave Realign and signalize the intersection 6,262,400 - 6,262,400 100.0% 6,262,400 SR 116/ Redwood Dr Additional lane capacity 1,116,600 - 1,116,600 100.0% 1,116,600 ORH/Commerce Blvd-US 101 N Restriping and signal modification 127,700 - 127,700 100.0% 127,700 SR 116/ORH Extend turn lane and change phasing 103,000 - 103,000 100.0% 103,000 ORH/St. Joseph Street Signal 1,009,500 - 1,009,500 100.0% 1,009,500 ORH/William-George Streets Signal 1,009,500 - 1,009,500 100.0% 1,009,500 ORH/East Cotati Ave Reconfiguration and phasing change 171,700 - 171,700 100.0% 171,700 E Cotati Ave/Charles St Signal 1,038,300 - 1,038,300 100.0% 1,038,300 E Cotati Ave/Lasalle Ave Signal 1,057,600 - 1,057,600 100.0% 1,057,600 New North-South and East-West Streets New Streets 7,475,600 5,232,920 2,242,680 100.0% 2,242,680 Helman Ave Center turn lane 3,568,200 - 3,568,200 100.0% 3,568,200 Isabel Ave-Gilman Ranch Rd Extension New Streets 5,774,000 4,041,800 1,732,200 100.0% 1,732,200 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Various Improvements 4,614,800 3,230,360 1,384,440 100.0% 1,384,440 Safety Program Various safety improvements 1,127,600 - 1,127,600 100.0% 1,127,600 Total $64,248,500 $12,505,080 $51,743,420 $ 43,720,328
Sources: City of Cotati FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program; W-Trans 2015 Traffic Impact Fee Study; Table 6.2, Willdan Financial Services. 2 Allocation to new development for projects new to the fee program is equal to new development's share of total trip demand at the planning horizon. Allocation for all legacy projects is 100%, as the facilities w ere operating at an acceptable LOS w hen they w ere added to the program. 1 Capacity expanding project costs from 2015 traffic impact fee study adjusted for inflation using the ENR Construction Cost Index. SR 116/ W Cotati Ave based on 35% Engineer's Estimate. 338 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 36 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per dwelling unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 building square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 6.4 calculates the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development in Table 6.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 6.2.

Table 6.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Costs Allocated to New Development $ 43,720,328
Growth in Trip Demand (2025 to Buildout) 5,145
Cost per Trip $ 8,498
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the maximum justified traffic facilities fee schedule. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip shown in Table 6.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 6.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
339 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 Table 6.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / Average
or 1,000
Trip Fee
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
per Sq.

Ft.

Residential
All Units4$ 8,498 0.71 $ 6,034 $ 121 $ 6,155 $ 4.03
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 8,498 1.68 $ 14,277 $ 286 $ 14,563 $ 14.56 Office 8,498 1.76 14,956 299 15,255 15.26
Industrial 8,498 1.02 8,668 173 8,841 8.84
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of data from the 2023 American Housing Survey, San Francisco Metropolitan Area. 4 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
340 of 387
38 7. General Plan
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of future general plan updates and related studies. The City will undertake several planning studies through the buildout of the City’s General Plan. These studies will guide future facility planning needed to serve all development within the City. A fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of general plan studies in the City of Cotati to ensure that new development funds its fair share of those analyses. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for updated planning documents from the projected increase in service population and the additional planning documents needed to meet those demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planning documents needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
General plan updates serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general plan updates.

While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The

0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
341 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 Table 7.1: General Plan Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2025) 7,281 1.00 7,281
New Development 3,915 1.00 3,915
Total (Buildout) 11,196 11,196
Workers
Existing (2025) 2,615 0.31 811
New Development 5,562 0.31 1,724
Total (Buildout) 8,177 2,535
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 8,092
New Development 5,639
Total (Buildout) 13,731
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31) Planned Costs
Table 7.2 lists the City’s anticipated General Plan updates and related study costs within the planning horizon. Estimated study costs are based on Willdan’s experience with other clients in California. In total, the City has identified $1.9 million in general plan and related study costs.

Table 7.2: General Plan Costs
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
General Plan Update 1 Update $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000
Housing Element Update 2 Updates 300,000 600,000
Zoning Code Update 1 Update 300,000 300,000
Total $1,900,000
Note: Costs are assumed based on Willdan's experience w ith other clients in California.

Source: Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Standard
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for General Plan updates and related studies. The studies will identify facilities needed to serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the studies are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of all studies 342 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 needed by buildout by the total service population at buildout. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 7.3: General Plan – System Standard
Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,900,000
Future Service Population (Buildout) 13,731
Cost per Capita $ 138
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 138
Cost Allocation per Worker1
43 1
Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fee revenue to complete the studies identified in Table 7.2. The studies will be used to identify facility needs to serve the City as it grows. Table 7.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 7.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue $1.1 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 7.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 138
Growth in Service Population (2025 to Buildout) 5,639
Fee Revenue $ 778,182
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,900,000
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (1,121,818)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 7.5 shows the maximum justified advanced General Plan update fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized 343 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

Table 7.5: General Plan Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
or 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential
All Units $ 138 2.25 $ 311 $ 6 $ 317 $ 0.21
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 43 2.12 $ 91 $ 2 $ 93 $ 0.09
Office 43 3.26 140 3 143 0.14
Industrial 43 1.16 50 1 51 0.05
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.3.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of data from the 2023 American Housing Survey, San Francisco Metropolitan Area. 344 of 387
42 8. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602 for the Mitigation Fee Act Fees included in this report (parks and recreation facilities, traffic facilities, and general plan updates).
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For the park and recreation fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in the park and recreation facilities chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the traffic mitigation facility fees. Traffic projects included in these fees met the City’s congestion level of service standards at the time they were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the general plan update fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of future general plan updates and related studies.

New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the future updates. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the increased level of service through any other funding source.
345 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 43 66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions Willdan extensively reviewed the City’s prior impact fee study while conducting this fee analysis.

Notable this study differs from the 2015 traffic impact fee study in several ways:

1. This study uses a planning horizon of General Plan Buildout, which has been updated based on increased density associated with the Santero Way Specific Plan.

2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2015 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities.

Table 8.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected from FY2016 through FY2024 for the traffic mitigation impact fees. Note that the City’s park in-lieu fee is charged under the Quimby Act, and the water and sewer capacity fees are charged under Government Code 66013, so this requirement does not apply to those fees.

Table 8.1: Annual Collected
Impact Fee Revenue
Fiscal Year
Traffic Mitigation
Fee Revenue
FY 2024 $ 7,255
FY 2023 150,964
FY 2022 357,351
FY 2021 55,221
FY 2020 7,097
FY 2019 -
FY 2018 306,523
FY 2017 92,294
FY 2016 19,219
Source: City of Cotati Annual Report on
Developer's Funds per GC 66000, FY 2016
through FY 2024.
66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.
346 of 387
44 9. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code sections 66004, 66016.5, 66018, and 66019. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 14 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Per Government Code section 66016.5(a)(8) nexus studies must be updated every eight years, effective January 1, 2022.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

There is no time limit by which impact fee revenue must be spent. However, if the City is accruing impact fee revenue to fund new development’s share of a project, then it must make certain findings with respect to unexpended impact fee fund balances after five years. Among other requirements, the five-year report requires the City to “Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements,” and to “Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.”4
On October 13, 2023 AB 516 was signed into law by the Governor of California, and went into effect on January 1, 2024. This bill requires local agencies to:
• Include information on projects noted in prior reports and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report.
4 California Government Code § 66001(d).
347 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 45 • Explain the reason for any delay in the start of the project and provide a new approximate date construction will begin.
• Identify the number of people or entities that receive refunds of Mitigation Fee Act fees.

The bill also requires local agencies to inform people paying mitigation fees that they:
• Can request an audit to determine if the fees charged by a local agency are more than the amount of money needed to cover the cost of the public improvements. • Can receive information by mail about when the local agency will meet to review its annual Mitigation Fee Act report.
• Can access and review mitigation fee information on the local agency’s website, and how to do so.

Table 9.1 summarizes the annual and five-year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.
348 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 Table 9.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and thepurpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) (i) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(ii) An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report pursuant to clause (i) and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report.
(iii) For a project identified pursuant to clause (ii) for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §66001 and §66006.
349 of 387
47 10. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
 Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to serve new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
 Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: parks and recreation facilities, traffic mitigation facilities, and general plan updates.

Benefit Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new 350 of 387
City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 48 development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility parks and recreation facilities and general plan updates, service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with nonresidential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and nonresidential development.

For traffic mitigation facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
 Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
351 of 387
July 9, 2025

Page 1 ends

Development Impact Fee Comparison Survey
Methodology
Willdan collected one-time development impact fee schedules for fees charged under the Mitigation Fee Act for four comparison cities. These comparison jurisdictions are:
• American Canyon
• Petaluma
• Rohnert Park
• Santa Rosa
Willdan collected data regarding one-time fees and charges charged by the cities used to fund infrastructure and facilities related to new development. Impact fees are not standardized and are assessed by various units of development by different jurisdictions. To create a meaningful comparison of impact fees, Willdan calculated the fees for five prototype projects. Table 1 presents the project prototype assumptions used in this analysis.

Results
Tables 2 through 7 display the fee companions for each prototype, respectively. Some jurisdictions charge impact fees that vary by project location. In these cases, the tables show the range of potential impact fees.

Table 1: Prototype Assumptions
Type
Dwelling
Units
Square
Feet
Lot Size
(Acres)
Water Meter
Size
Wastewater
Meter Size
Single Family Unit - Detached 1 2,500 0.15 3/4" 3/4"
4 Bedroom
Multifamily Prototype - Apartments
2 Bedroom 20 1,000 1.5" 1.5"
Total 20 20,000 0.50
Retail/Commercial - 2,000 0.15 1" 1"
Office - 2,000 0.15 1" 1"
Industrial - 10,000 0.50 1.5" 1.5"
352 of 387
July
9, 2025

Page 2 ends

Table 2: Single Family Unit Prototype - 2,500 Square Feet Cotati Maximum Justified Cotati (Current) American Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Fee Category (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 4 (High)1,4 Canyon (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 2 (High)1, 2 (Low)3(High)3 Bed Tax $ 462 $ 462 $ 462 $ 462 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Public/Capital Facilities3 - - - - - 7,665 7,665 27,090 42,624 9,924 9,924 Climate Action2 - - - - - - - - 308 - -
General Government - - - - 533 - - - - - -
General Plan 525 525 - - - - - - - - -
Library - - - - 1,170 - - - - - -
Open Space - - - - - 539 539 - - - -
Parks and Recreation4 30,900 30,900 12,459 12,459 7,220 9,878 9,878 - - 14,890 17,314 Police - - - - 101 - - - - - -
Public Art In Lieu5 - - - - - - - - - - -
Specific Plan Fee - 1,181 - 1,181 - - 319 - - - -
Storm Drain - - - - - 225 225 - - - -
Traffic 10,075 10,075 8,178 8,178 6,843 19,276 19,276 - 8,821 - - Wastewater 12,275 12,275 19,003 19,003 12,729 10,737 10,737 - - 7,288 7,288 Water 10,075 10,075 10,617 10,617 23,266 5,228 5,228 1,991 9,160 5,042 7,188 Water Conservation 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 - - - - - - - Total $ 66,062 $ 67,243 $ 52,469 $ 53,650 $ 51,862 $ 53,548 $ 53,867 $ 29,081 $ 60,913 $ 37,144 $ 41,714 Affordable Housing - - - - 8,925 - - 15,520 15,520 7,500 25,000 Total - per Prototype $ 66,062 $ 67,243 $ 52,469 $ 53,650 $ 60,787 $ 53,548 $ 53,867 $ 44,601 $ 76,433 $ 44,644 $ 66,714 1 Specific plan fees vary by geographic area.
5 Public art fee assumes public art is provided onsite. 4 Cotati current Parks and Recreation fee calculated according to the follow ing 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. Assumes 3.10 residents per single family unit, and fair market value of $669,000 per acre. 3 Santa Rosa capital facilities fee includes street w idening, traffic signals, freew ay interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains. Water fees increase during severe w ater shortage. 2 Rohnert Park public/capital facilities fee listed varies w ith location of project and funds fair share costs for expansion of sew er, w ater, and public facilities. Water capacity fee charged in addition to public facilities fee.
353 of 387
July
9, 2025

Page 3 ends

Table 3: Multifamily Prototype - 20 Apartments
Cotati (Maximum Justified) Cotati (Current) American Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Fee Category (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 4 (High)1,4 Canyon (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 2 (High)1, 2 (Low)3(High)3 Bed Tax $ 7,180 $ 7,180 $ 7,180 $ 7,180 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Public/Capital Facilities3 - - - - - 103,220 103,220 349,680 525,720 134,680 134,680 Climate Action2 - - - - - - - - 6,152 - -
General Government - - - - 10,641 - - - - - -
General Plan 4,200 4,200 - - - - - - - - -
Library - - - - 23,396 - - - - - -
Open Space - - - - - 7,220 7,220 - - - -
Parks and Recreation4 247,200 247,200 169,150 169,150 144,396 133,160 133,160 - - 223,380 247,500 Police - - - - 2,021 - - - - - -
Public Art In Lieu5 - - - - - - - - - - -
Specific Plan Fee - 3,935 - 3,935 - - 1,063 - - - -
Storm Drain - - - - - 2,250 2,250 - - - -
Traffic 80,600 80,600 163,560 163,560 88,514 236,660 236,660 - 176,434 - - Wastewater 98,200 98,200 101,291 101,291 165,480 142,180 142,180 - - 103,380 103,380 Water 80,600 80,600 35,354 35,354 302,460 5,228 5,228 20,230 128,386 68,680 101,440 Water Conservation 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 - - - - - - - Total $ 552,980 $ 556,915 $511,535 $515,470 $736,908 $629,918 $630,981 $369,910 $ 836,692 $530,120 $587,000 1 Specific plan fees vary by geographic area.
5 Public art fee assumes public art is provided onsite. 3 Santa Rosa capital facilities fee includes street w idening, traffic signals, freew ay interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains. Water fees increase during severe w ater shortage. 4 Cotati current Parks and Recreation fee calculated according to the follow ing 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. Assumes 2.11 residents per multifamily unit and fair market value of $669,000 per acre. 2 Rohnert Park public/capital facilities fee listed varies w ith location of project and funds fair share costs for expansion of sew er, w ater, and public facilities. Water capacity fee charged in addition to public facilities fee.
354 of 387
July
9, 2025

Page 4 ends

Table 4: Retail/Commercial Prototype - 2,000 Square Feet Cotati Maximum Justified Cotati (Current) American Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Fee Category (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 4 (High)1,4 Canyon (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 2 (High)1, 2 (Low)3(High)3 Bed Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Commercial Linkage 8,880 8,880 8,880 8,880 1,820 12,000 12,000 2,380 2,380 6,000 6,000 Public/Capital Facilities3 - - - - - 2,902 2,902 37,432 39,964 28,890 28,890 General Government - - - - 399 - - - - - -
General Plan 180 180 - - - - - - - - -
Library - - - - 352 - - - - - -
Open Space - - - - - 208 208 - - - -
Parks and Recreation4 - - - - 82 3,744 3,744 - - - -
Police - - - - 82 - - - - - -
Public Art In Lieu5 - - - - - - - - - - -
Specific Plan Fee - 1,181 - 1,181 - - 319 - - -
Storm Drain - - - - - 1,013 1,013 - 2,683 - -
Traffic 29,120 29,120 17,262 17,262 52,680 74,494 74,494 - - - - Wastewater5 7,080 7,080 31,737 31,737 8,184 5,225 5,225 22,256 37,896 15,332 15,332 Water6 5,260 5,260 17,764 17,764 11,049 8,728 8,728 2,657 15,844 8,400 12,682 Water Conservation 344 344 344 344 - - - - - - -
Total - per Prototype $ 50,864 $ 52,045 $ 75,987 $ 77,168 $ 74,648 $ 108,314 $ 108,633 $ 64,725 $ 98,767 $ 58,622 $ 62,904 1 Specific plan fees vary by geographic area.
4 Public art fee assumes public art is provided onsite. 5 Where applicable, w astew ater fees assume 115 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 6 Where applicable, w ater fees assume 155 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 2 Public/capital facilities fee listed varies w ith location of project and includes transportation infrastructure, public safety infrastructure, public w orks facilities and community facilities. 3 Santa Rosa capital facilities fee includes street w idening, traffic signals, freew ay interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains. Water fees increase during severe w ater shortage. 355 of 387
July
9, 2025

Page 5 ends

Table 5: Office Prototype - 2,000 Square Feet
Cotati Maximum Justified Cotati (Current) American Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Fee Category (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 4 (High)1,4 Canyon (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 2 (High)1, 2 (Low)3(High)3 Bed Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Commercial Linkage 5,140 5,140 5,140 5,140 1,820 6,940 6,940 1,380 1,380 6,000 6,000 Public/Capital Facilities2,3 - - - - - 2,772 2,772 24,920 28,906 15,820 15,820 Climate Action - - - - - - - - - - -
General Government - - - - 809 - - - - - -
General Plan 280 280 - - - - - - - - -
Library - - - - 560 - - - - - -
Open Space - - - - - 196 196 - - - -
Parks and Recreation4 - - - - 146 3,578 3,578 - - - -
Police - - - - 206 - - - - - -
Public Art In Lieu5 - - - - - - - - - - -
Specific Plan Fee - 1,181 - 1,181 - - 319 - - - -
Storm Drain - - - - - 1,013 1,013 - 2,683 - -
Traffic4 30,520 30,520 11,644 11,644 12,004 50,926 50,926 - - - - Wastewater5 7,080 7,080 31,737 31,737 8,184 5,225 5,225 22,256 37,896 15,332 15,332 Water6 5,260 5,260 17,764 17,764 11,049 8,728 8,728 2,657 15,844 8,400 12,682 Water Conservation 344 344 344 344 - - - - - - -
Total - per Prototype $ 48,624 $ 49,805 $ 66,629 $ 67,810 $ 34,778 $ 79,378 $ 79,697 $ 51,213 $ 86,709 $ 45,552 $ 49,834 1 Specific plan fees vary by geographic area.
4 Public art fee assumes public art is provided onsite. 5 Where applicable, w astew ater fees assume 115 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 6 Where applicable, w ater fees assume 155 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 2 Public/capital facilities fee listed varies w ith location of project and includes transportation infrastructure, public safety infrastructure, public w orks facilities and community facilities. 3 Santa Rosa capital facilities fee includes street w idening, traffic signals, freew ay interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains. Water fees increase during severe w ater shortage. 356 of 387
July
9, 2025

Page 6 ends

Table 6: Industrial Prototype - 10,000 Square Feet
Cotati Maximum Justified Cotati (Current) American Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Fee Category (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 4 (High)1,4 Canyon (Low)1(High)1(Low)1, 2 (High)1, 2 (Low)3(High)3 Bed Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Commercial Linkage 44,400 44,400 44,400 44,400 5,900 35,700 35,700 7,100 7,100 30,000 30,000 Public/Capital Facilities - - - - - 8,830 8,830 40,120 44,720 48,100 48,100 Climate Action - - - - - - - - - - -
General Government - - - - 1,475 - - - - - -
General Plan 500 500 - - - - - - - - -
Library - - - - 1,030 - - - - - -
Open Space - - - - - 630 630 - - - -
Parks and Recreation4 - - - - 100 11,400 11,400 - - - - Police - - - - 520 - - - - - -
Public Art In Lieu5 - - - - - - - - - - -
Specific Plan Fee - 3,935 - 3,935 - - 1,063 - - - -
Storm Drain - - - - - 4,500 4,500 - 8,942 - -
Traffic 88,400 88,400 47,480 47,480 26,966 150,770 150,770 - - - - Wastewater5 14,200 14,200 63,282 63,282 6,549 4,181 4,181 17,810 30,325 12,371 12,371 Water6 10,900 10,900 35,354 35,354 9,002 17,403 17,403 2,143 12,778 18,415 21,904 Water Conservation 689 689 689 689 - - - - - - -
Total - per Prototype $ 159,089 $ 163,024 $ 191,205 $195,140 $ 51,542 $233,414 $ 234,477 $ 67,173 $ 103,865 $ 108,886 $ 112,375 1 Specific plan fees vary by geographic area.
4 Public art fee assumes public art is provided onsite. 5 Where applicable, w astew ater fees assume 18 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 6 Where applicable, w ater fees assume 25 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. 2 Public/capital facilities fee listed varies w ith location of project and includes transportation infrastructure, public safety infrastructure, public w orks facilities and community facilities. 3 Santa Rosa capital facilities fee includes street w idening, traffic signals, freew ay interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains. Water fees increase during severe w ater shortage. 357 of 387
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COTATI COUNCIL ADDING CHAPTER 4.20 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS) TO THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 4.14 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE DEFERALS), 17.31 (AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS),

13.03 (WATER SYSTEM RULES AND REQUIREMENTS), 13.42 (SEWERS - CHARGES) AND 17.16 (DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS)
WHEREAS, the City has adopted various Development Impact Fees (DIF) over many years, often using different inflationary indices or time periods for annual adjustments; and WHEREAS, over time, some adopted inflationary indices no longer exist, requiring staff to seek out and utilize successor indices that best match the originally adopted index; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes, to the greatest degree possible, to have DIFs set to adjust annually using a single index and uniform time period, utilizing a construction cost index that is in widespread use and unlikely to be phased out in the near future; and WHEREAS, the City Council therefore desires to use the Construction Cost Index, published by Engineering News Record, for San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the existing Park in Lieu fee uses a per unit cost calculation; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Assembly Bill 602, impact fees must now be calculated to be proportionate to the square footage of the project, necessitating amendments to the existing Cotati municipal code (Chapter 17.16); and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted a new Parks and Recreation Fee in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act and introduced the ordinance herein; and
WHEREAS, where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.

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

SECTION 1: Recitals.
358 of 387
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the findings herein.

SECTION 2: Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code.

Chapter 4.14 (Development Impact Fee Deferrals) is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 4.14

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS

4.14.010 Deferral of fees.

A. The provisions of this chapter are not applicable to fees for services or equipment.

B. The deferral of the payment of any city impact fee from the time payment is otherwise required is not permissible except as provided in this section.

1. Only those development fees defined as such by California Government Code Section 66000(b), as may be amended or revised from time to time, and including any successor statutes or provision, are subject to deferral. Development fees deferred under this subsection B shall not be deferred for more than two years from the date when fees were otherwise due and payable. Fee deferral agreements under this subsection B shall not be assignable except in the discretion of the city attorney and with prior written consent.

2. Fee amounts of less than ten thousand dollars may not be deferred. Interest will be charged on all amounts deferred on non-residential permits in an amount equal to the average annual rate of interest earned by the city on the investment of pooled funds for the prior fiscal year. Deferral of fees for residential permits will not accrue interest.

C. An application for fee deferral under this chapter shall be filed with the department of community development at least sixty days prior to the date when the fees would otherwise be due.

D. Any deferral of fees under this title shall be documented by written agreement in a form approved by the city attorney. Deferral of fees for non-residential permits and shall be subject to prior approval by the city council. All fee deferrals shall be secured by a deed of trust and such other security as may be required by the city attorney. The applicant shall pay all title insurance, recording and any other processing fees. The unpaid fee balance, calculated at the rate in effect at the time payment was otherwise required, shall be due and payable in full upon the sale or any other transfer of the property offered as security for payment of the fee, or upon the placement of long-term financing for the project, or at such other time as may be expressly provided in the written agreement. The fee deferral agreement shall include provisions imposing penalties for delinquent accounts. The city may require such other terms and conditions for the fee deferral as it deems necessary to protect the city’s interests.
359 of 387
E. The council will be regularly advised of the total amount of fee deferrals that are outstanding and the status of outstanding fee deferral accounts. (Ord. 863 § 3(part), 2016).

4.14.020 Time of payment.

Unless project conditions of approval or other provisions of the Cotati Municipal Code establish a different time of payment, all development impact fees shall be paid to the city no later than at the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy, as applicable and whichever comes first, excepting payment of school impact fees and other fees not within the jurisdiction of the city which shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance, or, if no building permit is required, fees shall be paid upon the approval of a use which requires a use permit or other permit or approval authorizing a change in use. (Ord. 863 § 3(part), 2016).

Chapter 4.20 (Development Impact Fee Inflationary Adjustments) is hereby added as follows:

Chapter 4.20

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS

4.20.010 Inflationary Adjustments
Unless stated otherwise in this code, all development impact fees shall be increased or decreased annually by the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco for the prior calendar year (January-December). The in-lieu fee shall be automatically adjusted, and a new schedule published effective July 1st of each year. This adjustment will offset the effects of inflation related to construction cost increases or deflationrelated cost decreases. If the Construction Cost Index is discontinued, the City Manager shall use a comparable index for determining the inflationary changes in construction.

Chapter 17.31 (Affordable Housing Requirements) is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 17.31

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

A residential development of nine or fewer units may comply with the requirements of this chapter by paying an in-lieu fee as established by council resolution, as it may be amended from time to time. Inflationary adjustments shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 4.20 (Inflationary Adjustments of Development Impact Fees) of this code.The council may annually review the fee and may, based on the review, adjust the fee. For any annual period during which the council does not review the fee authorized by this section, fee amounts will be adjusted once 360 of 387
by the city manager based on the Construction Cost Index. (Ord. 930 § 5, 2024; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

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

1. Determination of Fee. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be established by resolution of the city council. Inflationary adjustments shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 4.20 (Inflationary Adjustments of Development Impact Fees) of this code. Thereafter, beginning on January 1, 2008, the fee shall be increased or decreased annually by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index for the prior year, as reflected in the third quarter Engineering NewsRecord published in November of each year. The in-lieu fee shall be automatically adjusted, and a new schedule published by the director of planning on January 1st of each year. This adjustment will offset the effects of inflation related to construction cost increases or deflationrelated cost decreases. If the Construction Cost Index is discontinued, the director shall use a comparable index for determining the changes in the median home costs for Sonoma County.

The fee shall be periodically reviewed and updated as required at least every two years to reflect any changes in the funding gap for a low-income household.

Chapter 13.03 (Water System Rules and Requirements) is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 13.03

WATER SYSTEM RULES AND REQUIREMENTS

13.03.210 Water connection fees.

A. The amount of the connection fee shall be established by resolution of the city council.

Inflationary adjustments shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 4.20 (Inflationary Adjustments of Development Impact Fees) of this code. Any single-family homes, planned unit developments, condominiums and multiple-family projects are charged connection fees per meter size, except for meters serving both domestic demands and the needs of fire suppression systems. If meters are oversized for serving a fire suppression system, in addition to domestic demands, the service shall be charged connection fees for the equivalent meter size calculated to adequately meet domestic demand, as approved by the city engineer, and documented in the utility account. In no case shall the connection fee be less than the equivalent of a three-quarterinch meter. Industrial and commercial uses are charged connection fees per meter size.

Connection fees are established by resolution of the city council.

1. Each year, commencing on July 1, 2013, and continuing thereafter on each July 1st, the water connection fee shall be adjusted in proportion to the change in the ENR (Engineering News361 of 387 Record) Construction Cost Index for San Francisco over the prior year. The base ENR San Francisco CCI is equal to ten thousand three hundred eighty-eight and eighty-four-hundredths (June 2013).

Chapter 13.42 (Sewers - Charges) is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 13.42
SEWERS – CHARGES

13.42.020 Connection fees.

The amount of the connection fee shall be established by resolution of the city council.

Inflationary adjustments shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 4.20 (Inflationary Adjustments of Development Impact Fees) of this code.

Connection fees are authorized and are charged to recover the following costs:

A. Construction and/or inspection of the physical connection to the public sewer; B. Prior and estimated future outlays by the city for providing sewage collection and treatment capacity utilized to serve the premises. (Ord. 462 § 2(part), 1988).

Chapter 17.16 (Dedications and Exactions) is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 17.76

DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS

17.76.030 Park land dedications and fees.

A. Purpose. This section 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. This section is enacted as authorized by the provisions of Chapter 4, Article 3 of the Map Act, also known as the “Quimby Act.”
B. Applicability.

1. Land Dedication and/or Fee Payment Required. As a condition of tentative map approval, the subdivider shallresidential projects shall dedicate land and/or pay a fee, at the option of the council, in compliance with this section for the purpose of developing new or expanding rehabilitating existing park or recreation facilities. to serve the subdivision.

2. Exemptions. The provisions of this section do not apply to industrial or commercial subdivisionsprojects or those non-residential portions of mixed-use projects., condominium 362 of 387
projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added, or to any other subdivision exempted by Map Act Section 66477.

C. Amount of Parkland Required.

1. General Standard. It is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that one acre of property for each two hundred persons residing within this city be devoted to neighborhood and community park and recreational purposes.

2. Dedication Requirement for Residential Subdivisions. The amount of contiguous acreage required to be dedicated by a residential subdivider developerfor park and recreational purposes shall be based upon the number of dwelling units expected in the subdivision. The required dedication shall be computed using the following formula:

X = .005(U)(P)
Where:

X = Amount of parkland required, in acres.

U = Total number of approved dwelling units in the subdivision.

P = 3.104 for detached single-family dwellings;

2.438 for attached single-family dwellings;

1.664 for duplexes, and multifamily dwellings containing four or fewer dwelling units;

2.107 for multifamily dwellings containing five or more unit; and

1.738 for mobilehomes.

D. Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land.

1. If the entire parkland obligation for a proposed residential subdivision project is not satisfied by dedication in compliance with subsection C of this section, the subdivider developer shall pay a fee to the city in lieu of dedication. , as a condition of tentative map approval. To the extent that the parkland obligation cannot be met, the total The fee shall equal the acreage of parkland obligation derived from the formula in subsection C of this section shall be calculated, less the amount of parkland, if any, offered for dedication by the subdividerdeveloper. The remaining parkland required shall be used in the formula in subsection C to determine the number of units 363 of 387
of unmet need. The average square footage of all conditioned spaces in the residential portion of the development is then multiplied by the number of units of unmet need to determine the total square footage and remaining dedication requirement to be paid through in-lieu fees., times the average per-acre fair market value for the appropriate park planning area, plus twenty percent toward the cost of off-site improvements (e.g., utility line extensions).

2. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be established by resolution of the city council.

Inflationary adjustments shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 4.20 (Inflationary Adjustments of Development Impact Fees) of this code. For purposes of determining the required fee, the term “fair market value” shall mean the market value of the land as determined by the staff of the city, and approved by the council, immediately prior the receipt of the final map by the council. The subdivider shall notify the city of the expected submittal date of the final map at least six weeks prior to the submittal of the final map to the department, to permit the city to select a certified land appraiser and prepare an appraisal. The subdivider shall pay the city’s costs for an independent appraiser. If more than one year elapses from the date that the final map is approved by the council and the date the subdivider obtains their first building permit, the city will prepare a new appraisal and will bill the subdivider for the cost of reappraisal. Any in-lieu fees remaining unpaid after the one-year period shall be based on the new appraisal.

3. If the subdivider developer or city staff object to the valuationdedication, they may appeal the determination in compliance with Chapter 17.84 (Appeals); provided that the burden of proof on all issues shall lie with the developersubdivider.

E. Fees Only. Only the payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions of fifty parcels or less, except that when a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project exceeds fifty dwelling units, dedication of land may be required even though the number of actual parcels may be less than fifty.

FE. Criteria for Requiring Dedication and Fees. In subdivisions of over fifty lots, tThe city may require the subdivider developer to dedicate both land and pay a fee, as follows:

1. Determination of Land or Fee. Whether the city accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following:
a. The general plan, and the compatibility of dedication with the general plan; b. Topography, geology, access, size, shape and the location of land in the subdivision available for dedication;
c. Feasibility of dedication; and
d. Availability of previously acquired park property.
364 of 387

3. Procedure for Determining Land or Fee. The review authority shall determine whether the subdividerdeveloper shall dedicate land, pay in-lieu fees, or provide a combination of both, at the time of tentative map approval. The determination of the review authority shall be based on a report and recommendation from the director. The recommendation by the director and the action of the review authority shall consider the factors in subsection (EF)(1) of this section, and shall include the following:
a. The amount of land required;
b. Whether a fee shall be charged in lieu of land;
c. Whether land and a fee shall be required;
d. The location and suitability of the park land to be dedicated or use of in-lieu fees; and e. The approximate time when development of the park or recreation facility shall commence.

The determination of the city as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.

4. Land and Fees. A requirement for both land dedication and fee payment shall comply with the following standards:
a. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided developed is proposed in the general plan or applicable specific plan as the site for a local park, that portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes, and a fee computed as provided by subsection D of this section shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated by subsection C of this section. b. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has been acquired by the city and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivisiondeveloper to complete the site, the remaining portion shall be dedicated, and a fee computed as provided by subsection D of this section shall be paid in an amount equal to the value offor the land that would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by subsection C of this section. The fees shall be used for the improvement of the existing park or recreational facility serving the subdivision.

5. Credit for Improvements. If the subdivider developer 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.

FG. Suitability of Land to be Dedicated. Each park site proposed for dedication in compliance with this section shall be physically suited for the intended use.

1. Land which is made part of a park site for subdivision design purposes, but which is physically unsuited for park use, shall not be considered when calculating the area of the park site provided in compliance with this section. The park space provided shall be calculated from 365 of 387
the road rights-of-way and interior property lines abutting the site, and not from any abutting roadway centerline.

2. Land intended for other than trail use shall have a maximum slope of three percent. If necessary, the site shall be graded by the subdividerdeveloper to achieve this slope, in compliance with plans approved by the city. Land with an average slope of more than three percent may be counted as part of the park dedication requirement where the review authority determines that special circumstances exist that would make the acceptance of the land in the public interest. The amount of credit against the park obligation in these cases shall be calculated as shown in Table 7-2. Greater credit for sites in excess of three percent slope may be granted in the sole discretion of the review authority, where the review authority determines that a site contains an exceptional visual, biotic, or other natural resource.

Table 7-2
Limit on Credit for Dedication of Sloping Property
Park Site Slope Credit Against Park Obligation
0 to 3% 100%
More than 3%, up to 5% 80%
More than 5%, up to 10% 60%
More than 10%, up to 15% 20%
Over 15% 0%

3. If the council determines that any of the land proposed to be dedicated is not suitable for park use, it may reject all or any portion of the land offered, and in that event the subdividerdeveloper shall instead pay a fee in compliance with subsection D of this section.

GH. Conveyance of Land, Payment of Fees. Real property being dedicated for park purposes shall be conveyed by the parcel or final map in fee simple absolute, to the city by the subdividerdeveloper, free and clear of all encumbrances except those which, in the opinion of city attorney, will not interfere with use of the property for park and recreational purposes, and which the council agrees to accept. The amount of required fees shall be deposited with the city at the time of building permit, unless deferred in accordance with Chapter 4.14 of this code. at the time of submittal of a parcel or final map. The fees shall be held by the city until the map is recorded, or the time for recordation expires. The subdivider developer shall provide all fees and 366 of 387
instruments required to convey the land, and title insurance approved by the city attorney in favor of the city in an amount equal to the value of the land. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

SECTION 3. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

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

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and/or posted as required in Section 36933 of the California Government Code.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on August 12, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on August 26, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:
367 of 387
Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
City Attorney
This document is a true and correct copy of Ordinance Number ### and has been published or posted pursuant to law. California Government Code § 40806
______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
368 of 387
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING

THE OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES
FROM FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 AND LEVYING OF
ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive all oral and written public comments to the amount of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 backflow testing charges and approve a resolution establishing the outstanding backflow testing charges and directing the levying of assessments on the Fiscal Year 25/26 property tax rolls.

Background
The City of Cotati (City) is required by state law to ensure all backflow devices in the water distribution system are tested annually. The City established backflow testing requirements with Ordinance No. 773. This Ordinance established that the testing and associated costs are the responsibility of the property owner and allowed levying of assessment of outstanding backflow charges onto their property taxes. Under California State law, the City is required to hold a public hearing annually to set the assessment rates for the following year for each outstanding backflow testing charge. On July 8, 2025, the City Council set a public hearing for August 12, 2025.

Analysis/Discussion
The City notifies all property owners annually of the need for testing and certification of their backflow devices. A portion of the property owners conduct their own testing, and submit the certifications to the City. Other property owners rely on the City to conduct the testing and certification. Following testing, any necessary repairs, and certification by the City, the City invoices the property owner for the cost of the service. Most property owners pay the City in a 369 of 387
timely manner. However, some are not responsive to requests for payment. These properties are listed in the attached resolution.

Adoption of the attached resolution sets the property tax assessment to recover the outstanding backflow testing charges.

Financial Considerations
The costs of back flow testing are expected to be paid by owners of the property for which the testing was performed. These testing charges remain unpaid despite repeated attempts for payment.

Environmental Issues
The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 on the grounds that this action is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as the action proposed is to establish the outstanding backflow testing charges from Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and levy assessments against certain properties for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
370 of 387
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI ORDERING

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES AND PENALTIES FROM FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 AND DIRECTING LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 2025-2026
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 773 adopted on May 25, 2005 added Chapter 13.20 to the Cotati Municipal Code regarding backflow testing expenses and the requirements for outstanding charges and penalties to be considered a lien upon property; and WHEREAS, an itemized report showing outstanding backflow testing charges has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Cotati, identified below; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, the City Council set a public hearing for August 12, 2025, and duly noticed said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 12, 2025, at which time the City Council duly heard and considered any and all protests, objections, and other comment regarding the backflow testing expenses; and
WHEREAS, the charges and penalties set forth below are not discriminatory or excessive, and are in compliance with law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati hereby establishes as follows:

Section 1. The above Recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct findings of the City Council of the City of Cotati and are made a part of this Resolution.

Section 2. The charges and penalties set forth in Section 7 below are hereby confirmed.

Section 3. The charges and penalties set forth in Section 7 below constitute a lien on real property which shall continue until all charges and penalties are fully paid or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first.

Section 4. In addition, when such lien is recorded, the City Clerk is authorized to place the lien on the tax roll of the property for Fiscal Year 25/26, served by notification to the Sonoma County Assessor/Auditor.

Section 5. The City Manager or their designee is authorized to take such further and other action as may be necessary to implement this Resolution.

Section 6. If any provision, sentence, clause, section or part of this Resolution is found to be 371 of 387
invalid or unenforceable, such finding shall not affect or impair any other provision, sentence, clause, section or part hereof.

Section 7. The parcels with outstanding backflow charges are listed below:

APN Outstanding Charges
144-780-049-000 79.5
144-010-025-000 99.5
800-014-047-000 107
144-770-047-000 99.5
800-061-618-000 107
144-800-008-000 107
144-080-017-000 107
144-770-053-000 107
144-292-027-000 107
144-292-034-000 107
046-640-017-000 107
046-620-038-000 92
144-770-023-000 107
144-522-006-000 107
144-360-033-000 107
144-282-012-000 107
046-111-053-000 107
144-070-018-000 107
144-292-036-000 107
144-770-049-000 70
144-292-058-000 107
144-730-031-000 92
144-470-013-000 107
144-770-019-000 107
144-620-004-000 92
144-301-013-000 107
144-070-026-000 107
144-450-093-000 107
144-770-049-000 107
144-292-033-000 107
144-770-066-000 107
144-770-036-000 107
046-111-041-000 107
144-530-023-000 107
144-770-002-000 107
144-770-037-000 107
144-450-061-000 107
144-650-020-000 107 372 of 387
144-070-027-000 107
144-190-021-000 107
144-292-076-000 107
144-770-027-000 107
144-301-014-000 107
144-540-056-000 107
144-200-001-000 107
144-301-015-000 107
144-450-077-000 107
Total

$4,904.50
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on the August 12, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest: _______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form: ____________________________
City Attorney
373 of 387
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 116

AND WEST COTATI AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve by motion the design agreement amendment with Mark Thomas for the completion of the intersection design on Highway 116 at West Cotati Avenue and authorize the City Manager to excecute said amendment.

Background
The intersection of West Cotati Avenue and Highway 116 has long been a safety concern as it serves the West side of town and is off a busy two-lane highway. The City continues to pursue grant funds to improve the intersection and is included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program.

The intersection was included in the Caltrans Highway 116 Widening Project, for which plans were completed in 2009 as part of the South Sonoma Business Park. However, the Business Park did not get completed in its entirety and only improvements to the Lowes development were completed.

Improving the intersection remains a high priority for the City and the history of stalled developments in this Priority Development Area have made it apparent that the City needs to take the lead on the design to remove the uncertainty around a multi-year Caltrans design approval process.

Additionally in 2021, the City completed its Local Road Safety Plan which identified the intersection improvements as a priority safety project, and, in 2024, the City adopted its Active Transportation Plan which also includes the Project as a high priority. The improvements are envisioned to move ahead in tandem with the recently entitled Cotati Villages 1 and 2 development projects which are to add a total of 303 rental units including 31 affordable units for 374 of 387
families in the very low-income bracket. The private developments are dependent upon the proposed Project improvements being constructed and impact fees for those projects are to be applied to the Project.

On October 25, 2022, City Council approved professional services agreements to complete the environmental review and 35 percent design for the Project. Those efforts were completed and the City subsequently issued and Request for Qualification and then awarded a design agreement with the most qualified contractor (Mark Thomas) on September 10, 2024 to complete the construction level design package and all related State and Federal approvals.

Analysis/Discussion
The City and Mark Thomas began design work by doing the needed refinements of the 35% design in preparation for initiating the design review process with Caltrans. As discussed at the design agreement approval meeting, this intersection was proceeding as a conventional signalized intersection. This project is within Caltrans right of way on Highway 116, so the roadway improvements require Caltrans review and approval and will ultimately be operated by Caltrans.

At the outset, the goal has been to qualify the project for a ”streamlined” design review process by getting project design authorized through the Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER).

This is a review process used by Caltrans to streamline the development of projects funded by others by reducing steps in the project development process and ultimately to save significant time and money.

To determine if the project would qualify under the DEER process, Mark Thomas had to first develop and submit a variety of technical documents to Caltrans for an Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP). Essentially, the ISOAP requires that the designer (Mark Thomas) must evaluate numerous intersection control alternatives before Caltrans would approve the proposed intersection type and allow the City to proceed into design development using the DEER process. In the ISOAP, Caltrans uses a variety of criteria to evaluate the intersection alternatives, but most relevant to this item is that Caltrans evaluates the intersection operations and safety. After screening out various intersection options, the two intersections that met the Caltrans criteria were a signalized intersection and a roundabout.

Following Caltrans review of the ISOAP submittal, they communicated to staff that both intersection types had similar operational characteristics, but that a roundabout in this location was superior from a safety perspective. After numerous meetings with the consultant team, SCTCA and Caltrans staff, it was concluded that there are no safety measures that can be added to the signalized intersection that would improve intersection safety enough to make it equal to or superior to the roundabout alternative. As a matter of statewide policy, Caltrans staff communicated that they would not approve an operationally equivalent intersection design that is inferior in safety. Caltrans indicated that they would allow the roundabout alternative to proceed as the single preferred alternative into the DEER process. Caltrans recognized the impact of the intersection design change to the City and offered to partner with the City on the project, including potentially including the completed intersection design in a planned Caltrans repaving 375 of 387
project on Highway 116 in 2028. However, regardless of the type of intersection, the City is still responsible for pulling together the necessary funding to construct the project. If the project is not constructed, Cotati Villages 2 would most likely not proceed, but it will also stymie any future development along the largely undeveloped/underdeveloped Highway 116 Priority Development Area.

Given the need to preserve design funds, the City quickly froze the design work and ultimately engaged in negotiations with the design team on what would be required to move to a roundabout design. Overall cost, timing and impacts to surrounding properties were all discussed in depth. After iterations to streamline and reduce design costs, the final proposed scope of work is attached that will move the project forward with a roundabout design on Highway 116. The developers at Redwood Row and Cotati Villages have indicated a willingness to engage with the City to ensure a cohesive design process, with geometric design expected to be confirmed before the end of 2025, if the design amendment is approved.

Financial Considerations
Following City Council approval, the City entered into a design agreement with Mark Thomas for $1,206,756, with approximately $265K spent to date. The proposed amendment will add an additional $225,114 for a total design fee of $1,431,870. The additional funding is anticipated to come from savings from the budgeted Police Station Roof project, which came in substantially under budget at $30,705. If this design agreement amendment is authorized, it is proposed to be funded by a portion of the remaining Police Station Roof project budget. The adopted Police Station roof budget is $693,000, with an estimated $634,583 remaining if the roofing project proceeds. Therefore, it is recommended that $225,114 be redirected to fund this amendment, with the remaining available budget (approximately $409,469) returned to the unappropriated General Fund.

The most recent planning level estimate for construction of the intersection is approximately $8M. Other costs, including right of way and construction inspection could add another $1.5M, but these costs are preliminary and won’t be known until the project is closer to final design. At this time, the City has secured $2M in construction funding and is currently applying for another $2M in construction grants. Traffic impact fees from the adjacent developments, if used for this project, are expected to add approximately $3M in additional funding. Regardless, once the design becomes ”shovel ready”, funding generally becomes more readily available through redirected regional project savings, other grants, etc. For this reason, it is not uncommon for capital projects to move to final design to be ready to leverage any available funding.

Environmental Issues
The Project implements the General Plan and is consistent with the circulation plans and infrastructure facilities established by the adopted Public Works Development Standards, circulation planning and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The analysis relies upon the program level analysis prepared for the 2015 City of Cotati General Plan and its 376 of 387
EIR (SCH No. 2013082037), which was certified in 2015. The project is an infrastructure improvement to ensure the on-going bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular circulation function safely and appropriately for Cotati residents under the General Plan build out, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in substantial changes nor does it involve new information that would warrant further environmental review because the level of improvements proposed are primarily the construction of limited new features along an existing roadway, which were planned for and included within the development assumptions analyzed in the program level EIR for the General Plan. Furthermore, the project does not contain elements that are peculiar to the project or project site(s) that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts relative to the General Plan EIR. Lastly, all adopted mitigating General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR that apply to the Project will be imposed as requirements within the construction contract. With implementation of identified General Plan mitigation measures and uniformly applied development standards, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity or significant impacts that were previously identified in the program level EIR, nor would the project introduce any new significant impacts that were not previously identified. There would be no additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the project is exempt pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
377 of 387
August 6, 2025
Mr. Craig Scott
201 W. Sierra Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
Project No.: 24-B0519
RE: SR116 & West Cotati – Scope Amendment #1 – Rev 1
Dear Mr. Scott:

Please find enclosed a proposed contract amendment for the SR-116/West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements Project. This amendment updates our scope of work to reflect the City’s decision to transition from a signalized intersection to a single-lane roundabout design, following recent Caltrans direction under the ISOAP process. We look forward to continuing our collaboration as the project moves forward under this modified design approach.

Since our last amendment submission, we have removed the development of the 35% concept designs and have changed our approach to the project development process to skip 35% plan development and proceed directly to 65% design plans. Task 3.5, the development of the initial concepts will be expanded slightly to meet the standard of Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) to support a Caltrans Submittal; however, full 35% designs will not be developed. The condition of this change in approach is that all major geometric changes from the proposed developments need to be provided to the design team before beginning work on the 65% design. This is approximately November of this year, per the included schedule. That change has resulted in a savings of approximately $38,000 from the previous amendment budget. Additionally, per the city's request, we have taken a second look at our assumptions from the reports that will be reworked in the DEER process and have been able to collectively reduce the cost by an additional $2,000, resulting in a total cost savings for the city of $40,000 since our previous proposal by creatively and collaboratively redesigning the project development process.

Sincerely,

MARK THOMAS
Shawn O’Keefe, PE, QSD
Principal + Vice President
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope Amendment
Exhibit B – Cost Detail
Exhibit C - Revised Schedule
378 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
SCOPE OF WORK- AMENDMENT #1

BACKGROUND & UNDERSTANDING
The SR-116/West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements Project was initially advanced as a signalized intersection realignment to improve vehicular safety and multimodal connectivity between Gravenstein Highway and West Cotati Avenue. The project was identified as a priority improvement in the City of Cotati’s General Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), and 2024 Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and was determined to be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 based on its consistency with the General Plan and certified EIR.

Following completion of 35% design plans in April 2024, the City began coordination with Caltrans for project review and approval under the Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) process. As part of this coordination, the City initiated the required technical documentation in accordance with Caltrans' project development procedures. Shortly thereafter, Caltrans released its new Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) in November 2024, introducing a formal and mandatory screening framework for new or modified intersections on the State Highway System. Because the ISOAP process was not in effect when the project was originally scoped, neither the City nor its consultant team could have anticipated the requirements or policy implications associated with its implementation.

In early 2025, as technical studies were being prepared to support the DEER, the City began discussions with Caltrans staff about the evolving safety policies embedded in ISOAP. Although the original design proposed a four-way signalized intersection, Caltrans advised that under its new statewide safety prioritization framework, it would be extremely difficult, if not infeasible, for a signalized intersection to be approved over a roundabout alternative due to these new ISOAP processes. This was reinforced in a formal interagency meeting on May 6, 2025, during which Caltrans District 4 Division Chiefs informed the City that a signalized intersection would not meet Caltrans’ current safety policies included in the ISOAP.

Based on this direction, the City directed the consultant team to suspend all work on the signal alternative at the end of May 2025. Additional meetings were held with Caltrans staff on June 27, 2025, and again on July 22, 2025. During those meetings, Caltrans confirmed that the project could remain in the DEER process if the City transitioned to a roundabout design. As a result, the City is now pursuing a modified scope of work that will redesign the intersection as a single-lane roundabout while preserving prior investments made in the environmental clearance and DEER Process for the signal.

This contract amendment serves to formalize that transition and update Mark Thomas’s work plan accordingly.

TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Task 1.1. Project Management and Administration
Additional fee is added for the additional management oversight that is required based on the modifications to the scope of work.

Task 1.2. Meetings and Coordination
Additional fee is added for the additional meetings that will be required based on the modifications to the scope of work.

EXHIBIT A
379 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
Task 1.3. Project Schedule
An additional fee is added for the additional schedule modifications required based on the modifications to the scope of work.

Task 1.4. Quality Management Plan
An additional fee is added for the additional QMP tasks that are required based on the modifications to the scope of work.

TASK 2. SURVEYS AND MAPPING
Task 2.1. Aerial Mapping (ABC)
No added scope
Task 2.2. Base Map (Optional Task)
No added scope
Task 2.3. Appraisal Maps
No added scope
Task 2.4. Legal Descriptions and Plats
No added scope
Task 2.5. Record Right of Way Map (Optional Task)
No added scope
Task 2.6. Record of Survey
No added scope
Task 2.7. Supplemental Topography
No added scope
Task 2.8. Potholing
No added scope
TASK 3. CALTRANS DEER
Task 3.1. Geometric Approval Drawings (35% Plans)
This task scope will update the GAD developed in task 3.5 for the roundabout to the previously contracted scope of work within the existing budget for this task as the project progresses through the DEER process. 380 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
Task 3.2. Stormwater Data Report
A Long Form Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) was previously partially prepared based on the signalized intersection design. With the transition to a roundabout configuration, this task will update the SWDR to reflect the revised layout and drainage collection points, consistent with the previously contracted scope of work.

Task 3.3. Right of Way Data Sheet
Right of Way Data Sheets were previously partially prepared based on the signalized intersection layout. With the shift to a roundabout configuration, this task will update the Data Sheets to reflect revised acquisition areas, updated utility impacts, and parcel ownership information consistent with the previously contracted scope of work for this task.

Task 3.4. Traffic Analysis Updates
No added scope
Task 3.5. Intersection Control Evaluation
This task was originally scoped to prepare an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) in accordance with Caltrans procedures in place prior to November 2024. The ICE was developed to support the justification of a signalized intersection alternative at SR-116 and West Cotati Avenue based on traffic operations, multimodal safety, and corridor consistency.

However, in November 2024, Caltrans implemented its new Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP), which superseded the ICE process and introduced a more stringent safety policy framework. In response, Fehr & Peers completed the required ISOAP screening effort under this task, even though it was outside the original contract scope. This initial ISOAP screening effort was used to confirm that Caltrans’ current policy would not support the signalized intersection alternative and instead strongly favored a roundabout configuration.

Once that determination was made, additional out-of-scope work was performed by Mark Thomas under this task to develop and evaluate a roundabout concept for discussion and grant funding efforts to move the project forward. This included preparation of roundabout concept layouts, identification of geometric and right-of-way implications, and conceptual cost estimates.

This task is not yet complete. Caltrans has confirmed that the project may proceed with a roundabout configuration, and Fehr & Peers will continue to support documentation of the ISOAP process, including operations modeling, final narrative, and related coordination, under this task. Additionally, any initial concept updates to the roundabout design will be completed under this task to develop GAD-level concepts to process a DEER approval. 35%’s will not be developed. Only high level GAD’s will be used for the geometric approval during the DEER process.

Task 3.6. Initial Site Assessment
Crawford & Associates will update the previously prepared Initial Site Assessment (ISA) to reflect the revised roundabout design. No new sampling or field investigations are anticipated as part of this update.

Task 3.7. Geotechnical Design and Materials Report
Crawford & Associates will update the previously prepared Materials Report to reflect the revised roundabout design.

The Materials Report provides the necessary geotechnical recommendations for the project elements. No new borings or additional geotechnical field work are anticipated. The separate Geotechnical Design Report will not be revised, as its recommendations are now fully incorporated into the updated Materials Report. 381 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
Task 3.8. Design Standard Decision Document
A Draft Design Standards Decision Document (DSDD) was previously partially prepared based on the signalized intersection design. With the transition to a roundabout configuration, this task will update the DSDD and DIB 78 to reflect the revised geometry, identify any new design exceptions, and provide updated justifications consistent with the previously contracted scope of work.

Task 3.9. Transportation Management Plan
A draft Transportation Management Plan (TMP) was previously partially prepared for the signalized intersection layout.

This task will update the TMP scope outlined in the previous contract to reflect the revised roundabout design, including changes to construction staging, access, and traffic handling assumptions, in coordination with Caltrans and the City and the previously contracted scope of work.

Task 3.10. DEER Preparation
A draft DEER was previously partially prepared based on the signalized intersection design. With the transition to a roundabout configuration, this task will update the DEER to reflect the revised project footprint, design features, and supporting attachments required for Caltrans review and approval, consistent with the previously contracted scope of work for this task.

TASK 4. FINAL DESIGN
Task 4.1. Utility Coordination
No added scope
Task 4.2. Right of Way Acquisition
No added scope
Task 4.3. Drainage Report
No added scope
Task 4.4. Resource Agency Permitting & NEPA Coordination Environmental documentation was previously prepared based on a signalized intersection design. With the transition to a roundabout configuration, this task will update CEQA documentation, and permitting exhibits to reflect the revised footprint. Updates will include an addendum to the 15183 Consistency Analysis, revised wetland impact figures, and updated permitting materials for Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 and California Fish and Game Code Section 1602. The project alternatives analysis prepared for these permits will also be revised to reflect the elimination of the signal alternative and to document the rationale for advancing the roundabout design in compliance with environmental requirements. No new biological or wetland delineation field surveys will be conducted.

Task 4.5. Maintenance Agreement Support
No added scope
382 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
Task 4.6. Landscape Concept Plan
A landscape concept plan was previously prepared for the signalized intersection design. This task will update the plan to reflect the revised roundabout configuration, including the central island and perimeter areas, consistent with the previously contracted scope of work.

Task 4.7. 65% PS&E
The 65% PS&E scope is revised to remove references to the traffic signal design and reflect a single-lane roundabout configuration. The updated plans will comply with Caltrans DIB 89-02 (Design Guidance for Separated Bikeways) and DIB 94 (Complete Streets), incorporating current standards for multimodal safety and accessibility. A small reallocation of budget is proposed with this modification to move some of Fehr & Peers time to task 3.5 as this task will be less intensive without a signal. Otherwise, no changes to the overall budget are proposed with this modification, as no work had previously begun on this task.

Task 4.8. 95% PS&E
The 95% PS&E scope is revised to remove references to the traffic signal design and reflect a single-lane roundabout configuration. No changes to the overall budget are proposed with this modification, as no work had previously begun on this task.

Task 4.9. 100% PS&E
The 100% PS&E scope is revised to remove references to the traffic signal design and reflect a single-lane roundabout configuration. No changes to the overall budget are proposed with this modification, as no work had previously begun on this task.

Task 4.10. Bid Documents
No added scope
TASK 5. BID SUPPORT
Task 5.1. Design Support During Bidding
No added scope

ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS
Note: This list is not exclusive or a replacement of the previous contract’s Assumptions & Exclusions  Development plans will be provided to the design team prior to 65% and no significant changes will be made to the development plans that affect the project design after these plans have been provided.  A cooperative agreement between the City and Caltrans is not required  Caltrans project approval will come through the DEER process and not full project development  Any reports not specifically noted in this scope of work are not included  Resource Agency permit fees will be paid directly by the City  No special-status species (e.g., threatened or endangered species) need to be surveyed  Construction monitoring for mitigation or habitat impacts is not included  Traffic operational modeling is limited to ISOAP Phase 2 support 383 of 387

SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements City of Cotati
 The project will utilize local funds for design and use a blend of local, state and federal funds for construction  Non-standard retaining walls or bridges will not be utilized  Assessment and rehabilitation of existing pavement is not included in this scope  A Caltrans Utility Policy Variance Request (UPVR) is not required  Design Support during Construction (DSDC) is not included in the scope but will be added a later date when the construction of the project is awarded to a contractor  Community outreach and/or engagement is not required
384 of 387
Sr. Engineering Manager Project Manager Project Engineer Design Engineer II LAUD Division Manager LAUD Project Manager Landscape Architect Landscape Designer IILandscape Designer I Survey Manager II Project Surveyor III Project Surveyor II Asst Surveyor II Survey Technician II 2-Person Crew (OE3) Project Accountant Sr. Project Coordinator Fehr & Peers M Group Crawford & Associates, Inc. Associated Right of Way Services Sub MarkUp
$475 $314 $223 $200 $313 $259 $186 $161 $126 $305 $288 $246 $176 $161 $405 $178 $199 5%

1.0 Project Management

1.1 Project Management and Administration 19 5 4 20 8 56 $16,624 - - - - $0 $16,624

1.2 Meetings and Coordination 15 25 40 $14,969 - - - - $0 $14,969

1.3 Project Schedule 1 1 $475 - - - - $0 $475

1.4 Quality Management Plan 1.5 1.5 $334 - - - - $0 $334 Subtotal Phase 1 35 30 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 8 98.5 $32,401 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,401

2.0 Surveys and Mapping

2.1 Aerial Mapping (ABC) 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.2 Base Map 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.3 Appraisal Maps 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.4 Legal Descriptions and Plats 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.5 Record Right of Way Map 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.6 Record of Survey 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.7 Supplemental Topo 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

2.8 Potholing 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0
Subtotal Phase 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3.0 Caltrans DEER

3.1 Geometric Approval Drawings (35% Plans) 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

3.2 Stormwater Data Report 2 16 10 28 $6,188 - - - - $0 $6,188

3.3 Right of Way Data Sheet 4 8 10 22 $5,035 - - - 12,000 $600 $17,635

3.4 Traffic Analysis Updates 0 $0 - - - $0 $0

3.5 Intersection Control Evaluation 8 24 100 165 297 $66,580 1,500 - - $75 $68,155

3.6 Initial Site Assessment 2 2 $628 - - 2,604 - $130 $3,362

3.7 Geotechnical Design and Materials Report 2 2 $628 - - 5,508 - $275 $6,411

3.8 Design Standard Decision Document 1 4 10 60 75 $15,955 - - - $0 $15,955

3.9 Transportation Management Plan 4 16 20 $4,815 - - - $0 $4,815

3.10 DEER Preparation 8 2 10 $2,955 - - - $0 $2,955
Subtotal Phase 3 9 50 152 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 456 $102,783 $1,500 $0 $8,112 $12,000 $1,081 $125,475

4.0 Final Design

4.1 Utility Coordination 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

4.2 Right of Way Acquisition 0 $0 - - - $0 $0

4.3 Drainage Report 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

4.4 Resource Agency Permitting & NEPA Coordination 4 4 8 20 36 $8,935 - 31,244 - - $1,562 $41,741

4.5 Maintenance Agreement Support 0 $0 - - - - $0 $0

4.6 Landscape Concept Plan 2 16 40 40 40 138 $23,715 - - - - $0 $23,715

4.7 65% PS&E 0 $0 (1,500) - - - -$75 -$1,575

4.8 95% PS&E 0 $0 - - - $0 $0

4.9 100% PS&E 0 $0 - - - $0 $0

4.10 Bid Documents 0 $0 - - - $0 $0
Subtotal Phase 4 4 4 8 20 2 16 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 $32,650 -$1,500 $31,244 $0 $0 $1,487 $63,881

5.0 Bid Support

5.1 Design Support During Bidding 0 $0 - - - $0 $0
Subtotal Phase 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL HOURS 48 84 165.5 265 2 16 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 8 728.5 0 0 0 0 Anticipated Salary Increases (2% for 2 years) $3,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,357 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $22,800 $26,355 $36,824 $53,000 $625 $4,140 $7,450 $6,450 $5,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,550 $1,590 $171,190 $0 $31,244 $8,112 $12,000 $2,568 $225,114

TOTAL COST
COST PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT SCOPE - City of Cotati: SR 116 & West Cotati Total MT
Cost
Mark Thomas
Total
Hours
Subconsultants
Please note that the rates shown are for estimating purposes only. See rate schedule for actual rates/ranges.

MT Fee (A-1 Rates)
8/6/2025

EXHIBIT B
385 of 387
ID % Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 0% SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Improvements 406 days Tue 8/12/25 Tue 3/2/27 2 0% City Council Approval 0 days Tue 8/12/25 Tue 8/12/25 3 0% Kick off Meeting & Contracting 21 days Tue 8/12/25 Tue 9/9/25 2 4 0% Concept Updates under Task 3.5 45 days Wed 9/10/25 Tue 11/11/25 3 5 0% Task 1 - Project Management 362 days Wed 9/10/25 Thu 1/28/27 3 6 0% Task 2 - Surveys and Mapping 382 days Mon 9/15/25 Tue 3/2/27 7 0% 2.1 Aerial Mapping (ABC) 60 days Mon 9/15/25 Fri 12/5/25 3FS+3 days 8 0% 2.2 Base Map 60 days Mon 12/8/25 Fri 2/27/26 7
9 0% 2.3 Appraisal Maps 20 days Wed 4/1/26 Tue 4/28/26 37FF,8 10 0% 2.4 Legal Descriptions and Plats 20 days Wed 6/10/26 Tue 7/7/26 9FS+30 days 11 0% 2.5 Record Right of Way Map 60 days Wed 10/14/26 Tue 1/5/27 28FF,9 12 0% 2.6 Record of Survey (after construction) 0 days Tue 3/2/27 Tue 3/2/27 11,48FF 13 0% 2.7 Supplemental Topo 30 days Wed 2/25/26 Tue 4/7/26 7,37SS+25 days 14 0% 2.8 Potholing 30 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 6/9/26 37
15 0% Task 3 - Caltrans DEER 90 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 3/17/26 16 0% 3.1 Geometric Approval Drawings (35% Plans) 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 17 0% 3.2 Stormwater Data Report 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 18 0% 3.3 Right of Way Data Sheet 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 19 0% 3.4 Traffic Analysis Updates 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 20 0% 3.5 Intersection Control Evaluation 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 21 0% 3.6 Initial Site Assessment 20 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/9/25 4 22 0% 3.7 Geotechnical Design and Materials Report 20 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/9/25 4 23 0% 3.8 Design Standard Decision Document 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 24 0% 3.9 Transportation Management Plan 30 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/23/25 4 25 0% 3.10 DEER Preparation 60 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 3/17/26 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 26 0% Task 4 - Final Design 340 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 3/2/27 27 0% 4.1 Utility Coordination 180 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 1/5/27 37 28 0% 4.2 Right of Way Acquisition 180 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 1/5/27 37,10FF 29 0% 4.3 Drainage Report 30 days Wed 3/18/26 Tue 4/28/26 37FF 30 0% 4.4 Resource Agency Permitting & NEPA Coord 150 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 7/21/26 31 0% USACE Nationwide Permit 120 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 6/9/26 16 32 0% USFWS Biological Opinion 90 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 4/28/26 16 33 0% RWQCB Permit 150 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 7/21/26 16 34 0% NEPA Coordination 120 days Wed 12/24/25 Tue 6/9/26 16 35 0% 4.5 Maintenance Agreement Support 90 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 9/1/26 37 36 0% 4.6 Landscape Concept Plan 20 days Wed 11/12/25 Tue 12/9/25 4 37 0% 4.7 65% PS&E 70 days Wed 1/21/26 Tue 4/28/26 25FS-40 days,36 38 0% 4.8 95% PS&E 90 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 9/1/26
39 0% Prepare 95% PS&E 45 days Wed 4/29/26 Tue 6/30/26 37,13,14FF 40 0% QA/QC & IDR 15 days Wed 7/1/26 Tue 7/21/26 39
41 0% Agency Review 30 days Wed 7/22/26 Tue 9/1/26 40
42 0% 4.9 100% PS&E 70 days Wed 9/2/26 Tue 12/8/26
43 0% Prepare 95% PS&E 25 days Wed 9/2/26 Tue 10/6/26 38 44 0% QA/QC & IDR 15 days Wed 10/7/26 Tue 10/27/26 43
45 0% Agency Review 30 days Wed 10/28/26 Tue 12/8/26 44 46 0% 4.10 Bid Documents 60 days Wed 12/9/26 Tue 3/2/27 42,27FF,28FF,30FF,35FF 47 0% Task 5 - Bid Support 0 days Tue 3/2/27 Tue 3/2/27 48 0% 5.1 Design Support During Bidding 0 days Tue 3/2/27 Tue 3/2/27 46 8/12
3/2
3/2
3/2
Qtr 3, 2025 Qtr 4, 2025 Qtr 1, 2026 Qtr 2, 2026 Qtr 3, 2026 Qtr 4, 2026 Qtr 1, 2027 Qtr 2, 2027 City of Cotati - SR 116 & West Cotati Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements August 6th, 2025

EXHIBIT C
386 of 387
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council
Subject: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.

Pursuant to City Council Policy 2025-02: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.

1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the Deputy City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.

2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.

City Council Policy 2025-02 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.gov or by request from the Deputy City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected]. 387 of 387

Cotati City CouncilAugust 12, 2025

Cotati City Council
August 12, 2025