AGENDA
JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, August 26, 2025
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
The Cotati City Council welcomes you to its meetings that are generally scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated.
City Council meeting agendas, minutes and recordings are posted on the City’s Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov. For questions about the agenda or to receive the City Council agenda by e-mail, contact the City Clerk at [email protected] or 707-665-3622.
Cotati City Council Meetings will be conducted in person in the Council Chamber. To guarantee your ability to participate, you must attend the meeting in person. As a courtesy to the public, the City allows citizens the opportunity to view and offer public comments virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing platform. Technical difficulties may occur that make the Zoom platform unavailable. If Zoom is unavailable, the meeting will continue. Participants considering using Zoom should consider attending in person, if they desire to ensure their ability to view the meeting and offer public comments.
Subject to the above disclaimer, Zoom Online video conferencing is available to watch or listen in the following ways:
1. Using the following online livestream meeting portal link: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofcotati7280/streams
2. Cable T.V. Broadcast, local channel 28
Members of the public can participate in the meeting online by clicking the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84749267015?pwd=U9zm7mdPlqvKX9bhN8gkUQuJwr2x1t.1 If you do not have the ability to join online, but would like to participate in the meeting, you can call into the meeting using your telephone, by dialing one of the following numbers and entering the meeting credentials:
Webinar ID: 847 4926 7015 Passcode: 693931
+1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (346) 248-7799 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (301) 715-8592 or +1 (312) 626-6799 or +1 (929) 436-2866 Attendees may join the meeting any time after 5:45pm. Attendees will be muted until they are called upon for Public Comment. To make a public comment, use the “raise hand” icon on your smart device or desktop computer, or dial *9 if you are using just your telephone. Please listen carefully for the Mayor or City Clerk to address you by name (or phone number) and for the audible Zoom notification that you have been unmuted. Once you begin your public comment, your three minutes will begin.
If you would prefer to submit your public comment in writing, please email your comments to [email protected]. If you are commenting on a specific agenda item or items, please state the agenda item number(s) in the subject line of the email. All comments received via email will be provided to the City Council in writing and included as part of the record of the meeting. They will not be read aloud into the record at the meeting.
Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda, in accordance with the City Council Rules of Conduct.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cotati City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.
Accommodations: Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate formats to persons with disabilities as required by Section Cotati City Council Agenda August 26, 2025
202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk at (707) 665-3622 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Rules of Decorum: To avoid distraction, the following meeting etiquette shall be enforced. • Silence electronic devices, including cell phones.
• Audience members are advised to keep conversations to a minimum or conduct them outside the building. • Members of the public are prohibited from speaking, yelling, or otherwise making loud noises from the audience that disrupt the orderly proceeding of the meeting.
• Photographs or video recordings using tri-pods or other means that would be distracting are to be taken only from the designated media area. • The Presiding Officer shall request that the audience withhold expressions of support or opposition for speakers in the interest of time and to encourage the full expression of differing views.
Public Comment: Public comment on any one agenda item is limited to no more than three (3) minutes per person, in accordance with the City Council Rules of Conduct.
Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions/direction of the City Council of the City of Cotati in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cotati at, or prior to, the public hearing(s).
Announcements:
A. Meeting Orientation for New Attendees/Viewers. In conformance with the Brown Act and the adopted City Council Rules, if the City Council is considering an item in which action will be taken, citizens will be invited to provide comments relevant to the item being discussed.
The meeting agenda also includes a Citizen Business item, which is the designated place on the agenda where citizens have the right to comment on any matter within the City’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, Citizen Business items do not generally receive a response because the Brown Act prohibits the City Council from taking action or considering any item that is not on this agenda, so as to ensure that other members of the community who wish to provide comment are notified in advance through a properly noticed meeting agenda. Nonetheless, in accordance with the Brown Act, the Council may briefly respond, may ask a question for clarification, or may direct an item be placed on a future agenda.
B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the maintenance of our streets, parks, and public buildings. See details on the web at cotaticity.gov.
C. Citizens interested in receiving City of Cotati community alerts via text or email are encouraged to enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.gov, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.
D. Have you noticed a street light out, pothole, or issues in a City Park? We want to keep Cotati beautiful and running smoothly, so please let us know what needs to be fixed, by going to the City website under “How do I” and “Report a Service Request.” E. Like always, we love to hear from you, so please feel free to contact the City at 707-792-4600 or [email protected]. If you have a nonemergency issue after normal business hours, you can contact us at 707-792-4611 and of course if you have an emergency, please contact 9-1-1.
Continue to look for updates on the City's website and social media channels available on Facebook, Instagram, and CivicReady.
City Council meetings are conducted according to City Council Policy 2025-03: City Council Rules of Conduct. This policy available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.
Those wishing to address the Council are asked to complete a speaker card and give it to the City Clerk. When you are called, step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Persons wishing to address the Council are not required to identify themselves or complete a speaker card; (Gov’t. Code § 54953.3); however, this information assists the Mayor by ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and it assists the City Clerk in preparing the City Council meeting minutes.
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED UNDER THIS
AGENDA (ACTION)
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING – AUG 12, 2025
3. PROCLAMATIONS
A. WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY PROCLAMATION
Cotati City Council Agenda August 26, 2025
4. AGENDA REVIEW (ACTION)
5. CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Any member of the public wishing to speak to the Council on any item(s) listed on the Consent Calendar or any matter(s) not listed on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council may do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda. Pursuant to City Council Policy 2025-03, comments of any member of the public are normally restricted to a total of three (3) minutes in length per person for matters not on the agenda and a total of three (3) minutes per person in length for any and all items on the Consent Calendar. The Mayor may extend the time limit for a reasonable time where a disability accommodation has been requested. To facilitate public comment, the timer indicator lights will display yellow when there are thirty seconds remaining, and red when time has expired.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN CONTRACT FOR
THE VERONDA FALLETTI RANCH BARNS
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement amendment with ArchiLOGIX for the schematic design of the Veronda Falletti Ranch barn and brooder house.
7. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
8. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. 120 E. COTATI AVENUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT DESIGN DISCUSSION It is recommended the City Council receive a presentation from city staff and Freebird Development, accept public comment, and provide feedback and direction to staff and the development team. While the project is subject to ministerial review pursuant to state law, transfer of the city-owned property to the developer is subject to a negotiated Disposition and Development Agreement. As such, the City may impose conditions on the project.
B. CONSIDER A FIRE IMPACT FEE AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE RANCHO ADOBE FIRE DISTRICT
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a fire impact fee and development coordination agreement with the Rancho Adobe Fire District.
C. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS TO ELIMINATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNITS IN INCLUSIONARY
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, HIGH-QUALITY LODGING PROJECTS AND
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE POLICIES
It is recommended that the City Council adopt resolutions 1) eliminating development impact fees for certain types of lodging, 2) eliminating development impact fees for deed restricted affordable units in multi-family inclusionary projects, subject to funding availability, and 3) clarifying policies for the application of development impact fees generally.
D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL UPDATE - UNAUDITED FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2025
It is recommended that the City Council receive the presentation on the un-audited financial position for the City as of June 30, 2025, covering the Fiscal Year of 2024/25 and by motion adopt the budget amendment for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27.
9. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Cotati City Council Agenda August 26, 2025
The City of Cotati recognizes that we’re on the ancestral lands of the Coastal Miwok, who are the original caretakers of this area. We respectfully acknowledge the Indigenous peoples who have been stewarding and maintaining a relationship on this land as knowledge keepers for millennia. This acknowledgment does not take the place of authentic relationships with Indigenous communities but serves as a gesture of respect to the land we are on.
10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT & COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
11. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
12. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before August 22, 2025. /s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Mayor Ford called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED UNDER THIS
AGENDA (ACTION)
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING – JUL 8, 2025
No public comment.
RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
3. 7A.
AGENDA REVIEW (ACTION)
City Manager O’Bid recommended that item 7A be moved to before item 4. There being no objection from the Council, the item was moved.
No public comment.
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 (PUBLIC SERVICES) AND TAKING ASSOCIATED ACTIONS During Agenda Review, this item was moved to immediately before item 4.
Presentation by Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott.
Councilmembers comment. 5 of 261
Cotati City Council Minutes August 12, 2025
No public comment.
RESULT: Adopt [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
4. CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Any member of the public wishing to speak to the Council on any item(s) listed on the Consent Calendar or any matter(s) not listed on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council may do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda. Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Conduct, comments of any member of the public are normally restricted to a total of three (3) minutes in length per person for matters not on the agenda and a total of three (3) minutes per person in length for any and all items on the Consent Calendar. The Mayor may extend the time limit for a reasonable time where a disability accommodation has been requested. To facilitate public comment, the timer indicator lights will display yellow when there are thirty (30) seconds remaining, and red when time has expired.
Public Comment:
George Barich of Cotati
Laurie Alderman of Cotati
Michael Ceremello
5. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REGULATORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PINK VIKING ORH LLC
IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAHAVAN ESTATES, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
B. ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL
MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ASSOCIATED DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR
THE FLAHAVEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION
C. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER, AND AFTER 35 DAYS WITH NO PROTEST,
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT RETENTION D. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ARGONAUT CONSTRUCTORS AND AN
AGREEMENT WITH BRELJE AND RACE CONSULTING ENGINEEERS FOR THE
URGENT WATER REPAIRS PROJECT
E. APPROVE MINOR CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH ENTERPRISE ROOFING FOR ROOF REPAIRS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND REROOFING THE SUNFLOWER PARK RESTROOM AND THE WELL 2 PUMP HOUSE 6 of 261
Cotati City Council Minutes August 12, 2025
RESULT: Adopt [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Sylvia Lemus, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
6. DIRECTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Sparks requested a future agenda item on a discussion around the City’s process on soliciting proposals for projects, and ways to ensure the City receives high quality bids for its projects, during the City Council’s mid-year review.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
B. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Presentation by City Manager Damien O’Bid and Carlos Villareal of Willdan Financial Services.
Councilmembers comment.
Public Comment:
Omar Lopez of Generation Housing
Ebi Arnold of Santa Rosa
Laurie Alderman of Cotati
The City Council requested that staff return within 60 days with developed policies, with the following feedback on the policy options that were presented:
• Affordable Housing
o How are Development Impact Fees (DIFs) calculated with expansions/renovations of existing buildings?
o Preference for eliminating DIFs by policy for deed restricted affordable units in inclusionary multifamily developments.
o A cap of a 1,500 square foot unit size for DIF elimination. o Provide DIF elimination assurance at time of entitlement, provide 24 months (subject to discussion with housing developers) to pull a building permit. If the building permits are not pulled for the affordable units, this assurance expires and is only extendable by the City Council.
o Provide a 3-year sunset on the affordable housing DIF elimination to check in on the effectiveness of the policy.
• Lodging
o Analyze the payback time horizon and total estimated cost for lodging with DIFs eliminated.
Council voted on adopting the Resolution to approve the DIF Nexus Study and recommended DIFs, and introducing the Ordinance to consolidate inflationary indices, separately. 7 of 261
Cotati City Council Minutes August 12, 2025
RESULT: Adopt [5 TO 0] Resolution
MOVER: Sylvia Lemus, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: John Savage, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
RESULT: Introduce [5 TO 0] Ordinance
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: John Savage, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
C. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES FROM FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 AND LEVYING
OF ASSESSMENTS
RESULT: Adopt [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None
Presentation by Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott.
Councilmembers comment.
No public comment.
8. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 116 AND WEST COTATI
AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Presentation by City Manager Damien O’Bid.
Councilmembers comment.
Public Comment:
Laurie Alderman of Cotati
RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: John Savage, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None 8 of 261
Cotati City Council Minutes August 12, 2025
9. 10.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT & COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Report by City Manager Damien O’Bid.
Councilmembers report out on local and regional events and meetings.
11. A.
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9) NAME OF CASE: COUNTRYSIDE MHP LLC V. CITY OF COTATI, SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24CV00804
Mayor Ford announced the closed session topic. No public comment. Council adjourned to closed session at 8:56pm.
Council returned from closed session at 9:30pm. Mayor Ford announced that there was nothing to report out of closed session.
12. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ford adjourned the meeting at 9:31pm.
/s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
9 of 261
PROCLAMATION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI
PROCLAIMING AUGUST 26, 2025, AS WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY IN THE CITY OF COTATI
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2025, we mark the 105th anniversary of the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secured the right to vote for women; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors established one of the first Commissions on the Status of Women in the State of California with the purpose of promoting “equal rights and opportunities that enhance the quality of life for all women and girls” and addressing “issues of discrimination and prejudice that negatively affect women in Sonoma County”; and
WHEREAS, women constitute nearly 50 percent of our workforce, the majority of the students in our colleges and graduate schools, and an increasing number of primary breadwinners; and
WHEREAS, in 2024–2025, Sonoma County women working full time earned 86% of what men earned, and women working in agriculture and service sectors—such as many in Sonoma Valley—earned even less; and
WHEREAS, despite the progress made, substantial challenges remain, including disparities in pay, access to quality affordable childcare, affordable housing, and comprehensive healthcare for women, including reproductive and mental health care; and WHEREAS, the mandate for Women’s Equality Day in 2025 is to “accelerate efforts to eliminate systemic barriers and biases that impede women’s progress…emphasizing the need for swift and decisive measures to achieve gender equity”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED on this day of August 26, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Cotati that the City of Cotati hereby proclaims August 26, 2025, as Women’s Equality Day, celebrating the achievements of women, marking the anniversary of a key milestone in our democracy, and reaffirming our city’s commitment to advancing equity for women and girls in all aspects of community life.
Approved:_____________________________
Mayor
10 of 261
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SCHEMATIC
DESIGN CONTRACT FOR THE VERONDA FALLETTI
RANCH BARNS
Date: August 26, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement amendment with ArchiLOGIX for the schematic design of the Veronda Falletti Ranch barn and brooder house.
Background
The City purchased the 4.37-acre Veronda-Falletti Ranch (Ranch) in 2008 through the Open Space and Agricultural Preservation District’s (Open Space District) Matching Grant Program. As part of this program, the funding recipient (the City in this case) is required to provide a 50% match for the property purchase, which is memorialized in the matching grant agreement and agree to the recordation of a conservation easement on the property. Both documents have certain restrictions and requirements that the City must comply with.
In 2016, the City completed the initial phase of work to begin allowing more public access to the Ranch, which consisted of a new walking path along the East School and El Rancho sides of the property, a new picnic area at the corner of El Rancho and East School Street, and some related crosswalk, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements at the community center building across East School Street from the Ranch. In 2020, the City refurbished the ranch house, demolished and reconstructed the water tower, and performed related access improvements, including ADA parking and installation of a motorized access gate. Subsequent improvements to the ranch house include the addition of a fire sprinkler system to permit children's programming.
The remaining major infrastructure improvements at the Ranch include rebuilding the barn and brooder house. The City held a public workshop on December 9, 2022, to gather 11 of 261
community input on the barn, brooder house and general site circulation. The City held a second public workshop on October 14, 2023 to continue to gather community input, followed by a meeting with the Board of the Cotati Historical Society.
On February 13, 2024, the City Council authorized a schematic design agreement with ArchiLOGIX for the barn and brooder house. The intent was to work through the space design and overall Ranch planning and position the City for the next step of construction level design and fundraising. After continuing to work with the Ranch stakeholders on design development, the City held a public workshop on May 17, 2025 to gather additional input on the draft designs.
Analysis/Discussion
Due to more design iterations than was anticipated, the agreement with ArchiLOGIX has run overbudget. While the schematic design is complete, the associated renderings and cost estimate are not yet complete. These renderings and a cost estimate will be necessary effectively be able to fund raise for the project. Once sufficient funds are received, the City can move the schematic design to full construction documents to bid and build the project.
The matching grant agreement for the purchase of the Ranch requires the City to match the Open Space District contribution of $3,650,000. There is no timeline to provide the City match, but staff have been told that the City will not receive any new matching grants until this obligation is satisfied. The intent is to provide the City match through on-going capital and operation and maintenance expenditures.
Total expenses for the Ranch, through July 31, 2025, are as follows:
CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES $1,195,133.24
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE $ 862,162.30
Grand Total $2,057,295.54
Financial Considerations
The original scope of work was not to exceed $57,000. The design amendment requires an additional not-to-exceed $10,000. The current fiscal budget includes $200,000 for final design of the Veronda-Falletti Barns in account 605-00-91300-27PWGL. As such no additional appropriations are currently required from the General Fund.
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.
12 of 261
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: 120 E. COTATI AVENUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
DESIGN DISCUSSION
Date: August 26, 2025
Written by: JP Harries, Senior Planner
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council receive a presentation from city staff and Freebird Development, accept public comment, and provide feedback and direction to staff and the development team. While the project is subject to ministerial review pursuant to state law, transfer of the city-owned property to the developer is subject to a negotiated Disposition and Development Agreement. As such, the City may impose conditions on the project.
Project Overview
Staff and Freebird Development Company are presenting project drawings and seeking Council feedback on a proposed 100% affordable housing development on city-owned vacant land at 120 E. Cotati Avenue. This meeting is intended to be the fifth and final public meeting to discuss the project design.
The project features a 77,500-square-foot, three-story elevator-served building with 44 residential rental units, including studios and one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. It also includes approximately 3,850 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial space and amenities such as property management and social services offices, a common laundry room, a community room, and a landscaped second-story courtyard with seating and a playground. The project is proposed to be served by an enclosed ground-level parking garage with 54 vehicle spaces and 46 bicycle spaces.
All units, except one two-bedroom manager’s unit, will be deed-restricted as affordable for households earning 30–80% of the area median income. Additionally, twelve units will be designated as supportive housing for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the project qualifies for a density bonus, reduced parking 13 of 261
minimums, and some concessions and waivers from development standards due to its location in the City and the percentage of affordable units. Further, pursuant to AB 2162 (Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018) the project is also subject to a streamlined ministerial review and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because 25% of the units will be designated as supportive housing for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Figure 1. View from E. Cotati Ave. & Arthur St. looking southwest Background
In 2021, the City of Cotati approved a three-story mixed-use project consisting of 27 residential units and 10,400 square feet of commercial space on the subject site - three parcels totaling 0.86 acres at 120 E. Cotati Avenue. This project was never built.
On March 1, 2022, Northbay Housing filed an SB 35 development application proposing to develop a 5-story, 60-foot tall, 70-unit multi-family housing project on the site. In the summer of 2023, while still in the development review process, the applicant indicated an interest in selling the property.
On December 12, 2023, following a closed session discussion, the Cotati City Council directed staff to initiate purchase of the property at 120 E. Cotati Avenue with funding sourced from the Affordable Housing Fund. This funding source, combined with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act, requires that the City-owned property be developed with affordable housing. The specific affordability levels and unit counts are subject to various factors including zoning, funding sources and development capacity of the property. The City took ownership of this property in late 2023.
14 of 261
On February 13, 2024, the City Council determined that the property at 120 E. Cotati Avenue was “exempt surplus land” and provided direction to staff to issue a Request for Qualifications seeking a qualified developer to partner with the City to develop a 100% affordable housing project at 120 E. Cotati Avenue. This RFQ was issued on March 21, 2024, to over 170 individuals and firms.
On April 30, 2024, City staff received a Developer Qualification Statement from Freebird Development LLC, the only party to respond to the RFQ. After reviewing the statement, an internal panel of City staff determined that Freebird Development was well qualified and versed in the development of affordable housing. On May 30, 2024, City staff interviewed Freebird Development LLC ownership and their development partners and confirmed their qualifications and development acumen.
On June 25, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Freebird Development LLC to develop a 100% affordable housing project on the city owned parcel. Signed on July 20, 2024, the ENA outlines procedures and standards for negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).
Under the forthcoming DDA, Freebird Development LLC will undertake specific development activities, and the City will transfer the property with a restriction mandating development of the affordable housing project, subject to negotiated conditions. The City and Freebird Development LLC have been negotiating in good faith, adhering to the ENA's terms. This includes submitting designs to City staff for review and feedback and conducting multiple community presentations to gather input on the project's design and operations. The DDA is expected to be finalized and presented to the City Council for approval within the next few months.
On September 18, 2024, City staff and the development team hosted a noticed community engagement meeting at City Hall. About a dozen people attended the meeting; largely residents either adjacent to the site or from nearby residences, including residents from the Charles Street Village senior community. The meeting focused on an introduction of the development team, proposed development & operational goals, and a survey of architectural design preferences.
On November 20, 2024, a second noticed community engagement meeting was held at City Hall, with similar attendance and many of the same attendees from the first meeting. The meeting focused on a recap of the first community engagement meeting, the results of the design survey from the first meeting, and a presentation of four design options: two mission-styled designs and two Craftsman-styled designs. Eight of the twelve attendees expressed preference for the Mission style and at least two of the attendees strongly preferred the Craftsman style.
On December 10, 2024, the project was presented to the City Council at their regular meeting.
The results of the community meetings, including design preferences, were presented. The Council was supportive of the project and expressed support for the mission-style design that was preferred by community members. The primary concern expressed by the Council members was related to traffic and turn movements onto and off E. Cotati Avenue. Staff advised the Council that a transportation impact study would be completed to specifically look at safety concerns. The transportation impact study is summarized below and is attached for review. 15 of 261
On August 18, 2025, the project was presented to the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting. Similar to the previous City Council meeting, the results of the community meetings, including design preferences, were presented. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed recommended Conditions of Approval that may be incorporated into the forthcoming DDA. The Planning Commission offered the following suggestions for staff and City Council consideration:
• Evaluate the color selection. In response to previous City Council comments, the design team incorporated more color into the proposed structure. The majority of the Commission supported the proposed color selection but at least one commissioner preferred the prior more-muted colors.
• No grading or building permits should be issued until funding for the project is secured.
• Ensure the proposed streetlight near the corner of Charles St. and East Cotati Ave. does not obscure pedestrians trying to cross the street. • Ensure some parking is maintained along East Cotati Avenue (to allow the continuance of flower sales).
Project Description
Project Location
The project site is comprised of three city-owned contiguous parcels that occupy approximately
0.86 acres. The project site is vacant and relatively flat, consisting primarily of grass and scattered trees.
Figure 2. Site Aerial
16 of 261
As seen in Figure 2 above, the project site is bounded by E. Cotati Avenue to the north, La Plaza to the west, Charles Street to the east, and commercial and residential development to the south.
The site is located within the La Plaza District and development is guided by the Downtown Specific Plan.
Building Design
Consistent with the design options and objective design standards within the Downtown Specific Plan, the building’s architecture incorporates mission-style design elements such as stucco walls, recessed windows and doors, circular and arched elements, and clay tile roofing.
The building will occupy the entire site and front the sidewalks along La Plaza, E. Cotati Avenue, and Charles Street frontages. Vehicles will access the ground level garage from East Cotati Avenue and Charles Street. The project would provide 54 vehicle parking spaces and 46 bicycle parking spaces
The first floor will contain retail space located along La Plaza, parking, and the residential lobby entrance and property management services near Charles Street. All residential units will be located on the second and third floors. The second floor will also contain a community room, laundry area, and landscaped courtyard with a children’s play area.
Figure 3. View from E. Cotati Ave. & La Plaza looking southeast Open Space
An important feature of the building is the second story courtyard and play area. Although the building will occupy the entire property, it provides approximately 13,000 square feet of open space with seating and a variety of trees and plants located in planters. The courtyard also 17 of 261
features a play area with a safety surface and structures appropriate for 2- to 5-year-olds and another designed for 5- to 12-year-olds. The amount of open space is approximately double the required open space for multifamily developments (150 sq ft/unit or 6,600 sq ft total for 44 units).
Frontage Improvements
The proposed frontage improvements include undergrounding overhead utilities and installing a 10-foot-wide sidewalk along Charles Street, while widening the existing 5-foot-wide sidewalk along E. Cotati Avenue to 10 feet. Street trees will be planted in tree wells along Charles Street, and along E. Cotati Avenue trees will be placed in 4’x4’ aboveground planters due to a large underground storm drain that prevents in-ground planting. Decorative street lighting and fire hydrants will be installed as outlined in the attached plans. To accommodate the widened sidewalk along E. Cotati Avenue, the south side of the roadway will be restriped as shown in the attached Transportation Impact Study (TIS) or in a similar configuration as directed by the Public Works Department. The bus shelter on La Plaza will remain, but its side benches will be removed.
Landscaping
The proposed building utilizes the entire site with the exception of a 10-foot strip along the southern side that will be used for fire personnel access and stormwater infiltration. All twelve existing trees will be removed. Landscaping will be limited to street trees and planters along the building frontage as well as a variety of trees and plants located in planters on the second-story courtyard.
Analysis/Discussion
Recent changes to land use regulations adopted under SB 330 and AB 2011 limit a city’s ability to regulate the design of residential development to those standards deemed to be “objective”, which is defined as: clearly stated, easily understood and not open to interpretation. These ‘objective’ standards are separate from the need for a project to conform to the General Plan goals and policies for the proposed use. Below is an analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the requirements of the Cotati General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and applicable sections of the Cotati Municipal Code (CMC).
General Plan Conformity
The Project aligns with key General Plan policies promoting mixed-use development, infill growth, and affordable housing, including the following:
• Policy LU 1.4: Require new development to occur in a logical and orderly manner, focusing growth on infill locations and areas designated for urbanization on the Land Use Map, and be subject to the ability to provide urban services, including paying for any needed extension of services.
• Policy LU 2.11: Continue to mix residential and commercial uses in appropriate areas, with an emphasis on providing mixed uses in the areas with Specific Plan land use designations. • Policy LU 3.2: Encourage infill development of vacant lots within existing commercial districts and the core downtown/business areas and prioritize such development. • Policy H-2.1: Ensure that adequate land designated for residential and/or mixed-use development is available to accommodate the City’s fair share of ABAG’s Regional Housing 18 of 261
Needs Allocation (RHNA) and monitor on an annual basis to ensure continual compliance with State law.
• Policy H-2.2: Continue to require that residential development in the NU, NM, CG, and DSP zones meet the minimum density requirements identified in the Land Use Code, and report requests for reduced density on an annual basis.
• Policy H-2.7: Require housing developments to provide housing units at a range of affordability levels to assist in meeting the City’s housing needs as required by Chapter 17.31 of the Land Use Code.
• Policy H-2.11: Encourage housing development on existing infill sites in order to efficiently utilize existing infrastructure.
• Policy H-3-2: Provide incentives for discretionary affordable housing development that address community priorities, including density bonuses, expedited processing, relaxation in development standards through the use of concessions and incentives, and either reduction, delay, or waiver of fees when financially feasible.
• Policy H-3-3: Continue to provide density bonuses to eligible projects as required by Government Code Section 65915, including projects that meet the minimum amount of total units affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income households or provide units restricted to occupancy for senior households.
Downtown Specific Plan Conformity - La Plaza District
A majority of the Cotati downtown area is subject to land use and design criteria as specified in the 2009 Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The DSP outlines a vision for the future development pattern and design aesthetic, regulating all aspects of the built environment including the form, character and circulation network. The project site is included in the La Plaza District of the DSP, which is distinct from the “Historic Core” of the downtown, and encompasses most properties surrounding La Plaza Park. Properties surrounding the park are intended to provide for small-scale ground floor retail, and some office and restaurant uses which are highly compatible with residential above. Buildings are intended to emphasize small-scale ground floor pedestrian oriented storefronts or frontages, with upper floor office or residential uses. Below is a summary of the applicable objective design standards outlined in the DSP, along with a link to Chapter 3 of the DSP where more details on these design criteria can be found.
Staff finds that the project proposes a Mission Revival commercial-block building incorporating a shop-front frontage design. The building provides pedestrian access from the primary street (E.
Cotati Ave) and vehicular access from the secondary street (Charles St); implement the open space and landscaping standards identified in the DSP for the urban area of the site. https://www.cotaticity.gov/DocumentCenter/View/259/Chapter-3---Implementation-PDF Density
19 units per acre
Setbacks
Front Setback: 0’ minimum to 8’ maximum
Street Side Setback: 0' minimum to 12’ maximum
Side Setback: 0' minimum to 10' maximum
19 of 261
Rear Setback: 20' minimum
Parking
Residential: 2/spaces per unit
Non-Residential: 3/1000 square feet
Access permitted only from alleys or sidestreets
Maximum Height
35 feet with an allowance for architectural features
Open Space
150 square feet per unit. May placed within a courtyard and include patio s and decks.
Building Profile and Frontage Types
Architectural Types Allowed: Commercial Block, Courtyard, Plex-Housing, or Rowhouse Frontage Types Allowed: Arcade, Gallery Shopfront, Forecourt, Stoop or Frontyard/Porch frontage design
Figure 4 – Building types allowed within the DSP
Cotati Municipal Code (CMC)
Development criteria within the DSP are implemented as identified in the DSP, except for certain elements not included under the DSP standards but addressed in CMC Chapter 17.39 Objective Design Standards (ODS). For the La Plaza District, these areas primarily include 20 of 261
neighborhood compatibility and site design. Design standards objectively enumerated in the DSP take precedence over those in the zoning code given that the DSP is a Specific Plan, which has a land use authority above the zoning code, similar to that of the General Plan.
Neighborhood Compatibility-The project design is found to be compatible with these identified elements of the ODS included to ensure new multi-family housing fits into the existing development patterns of the community. These standards include:
• Entries and windows shall be oriented to the street
• 75-percent of a building frontage adjacent to a street shall be occupied by habitable space and windows
• Any third-story portion of a building shall be setback 30 feet from adjacent properties in the NL or NM zoning district.
Chapter 17.39 also identifies many objective design standards that address building design elements, massing and articulation, usable open space and amenities, outdoor lighting, site design, and accessory elements.
The project, as proposed, complies with all Chapter 17. 39 ODS except for a requirement for four-inch trim around windows and doors. This design element is more appropriate for craftsman styled buildings that are promoted by the ODS. However, the proposed mission-style building complies with the DSP standards for a mission-styled building which do not require window and door trim. Instead, doors and windows are typically deeply recessed like that proposed.
Access & Traffic Impacts
The proposed parking garage will have street access via E. Cotati Avenue and Charles Street.
During public and City Council discussions, concerns were raised about the safety of exiting onto E. Cotati Avenue and whether turning restrictions should be implemented. To address these concerns, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was conducted to evaluate safety impacts, access alternatives, and effects on the transportation system. The TIS is attached to this staff report.
The TIS concluded that the project would generate an average of 277 daily trips with 19 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour. The TIS also analyzed potential access schemes based on safety criteria and concluded that sight distances at the proposed driveways would meet or exceed recommended minimums and that the merge lane on E. Cotati Avenue would not present an issue for drivers because the drivers would be within a single lane prior to reaching the driveway location with sufficient time to react to vehicles entering or exiting the garage.
The TIS included analysis of a staff recommended limited access to right-hand turns into and out of the site from E. Cotati Avenue to enhance safety. However, the TIS concluded that eliminating left-hand turns out of the property would require physical measures, such as installing a median, which could impact properties north of the project site. Allowing full access would also spread traffic volumes to both E. Cotati Avenue and Charles Street, thereby having a lesser effect on either. As the TIS found no demonstrated need to eliminate left-hand turns, it recommended against restricting access in this manner.
21 of 261
The TIS further concluded that the project would have less than significant impacts on the surrounding streets and intersections. The TIS did acknowledge that the northbound approach of Charles Street at E. Cotati Avenue is currently operating at a Level-of-Service (LOS) E during the p.m. peak hour, however under projected 2040 future conditions (without the project) the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS F. The project is expected to contribute 6.2 seconds to the projected 123.3 second delay. The TIS recommends monitoring the delay at this intersection and consider prohibiting left turns from Charles Street to E. Cotati Avenue if future volumes reach the projected levels.
The TIS also found no significant impacts to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because the site is located in an area with a baseline VMT per capita of 14.9 miles, which is greater than 15% below Cotati’s average baseline VMT of 18.3 miles per capita. State Density Bonus Law (Section 65915(o)(10)) further defines this as a “very low vehicle travel area.” As discussed further below, because the site is within a very low vehicle travel area, certain exemptions from density limits are granted under State Density Bonus Law.
Parking
The project complies with the applicable minimum parking requirements set forth in the Downtown Specific Plan, State Density Bonus Law, and AB 2162, which combined require the following:
• Zero to one bedroom: one parking space
• Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half parking spaces • Retail complex: three spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area • Bicycle: one space for each ten motor vehicle spaces
• Supportive units: None required
• Guest parking: None required
Using the above parking ratios, the project must provide 42-45 vehicle parking spaces (dependent on which units are designated supportive housing) and 5 bicycle parking spaces. As previously noted, the project is providing 54 vehicle parking spaces and 46 bicycle parking spaces within the ground floor garage, which exceeds the parking requirements.
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)and Supportive Housing
Consistent with the City’s purchase of the property and the selection of Freebird Development, all residential units, except for a manager’s unit, will be deed-restricted affordable units based on Area Median Income (“AMI”). All units, except one two-bedroom manager’s unit, will be deedrestricted affordable for at least 55 years for households earning 30–80% of the AMI.
As noted above, twelve units will also be designated as supportive housing. "Supportive housing" means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the residents in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and work in the community.
The target population typically refers to individuals or families experiencing homelessness, at risk of homelessness, or with special needs, such as mental health issues, substance use disorders, or disabilities. Freebird Development has indicated that they intend to target individuals and families with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 22 of 261
The affordable and supportive unit restrictions qualify the project for certain density bonuses and waivers from City standards pursuant to SDBL set forth in Government Code Sections 65650– 65656 and streamlined ministerial review and exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 2162 (Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018).
The Project site is in the LP zoning district which allows for 19 units per acre, or 16 units on a
0.86-acre site. The project will contain 44 units which equals 51.2 units per acre. Although this exceeds the allowable density in the LP district, this density is allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f)(3)(D)(iii) because the project will be 100% affordable and is located in a very low vehicle travel area. The provision states that a city or county shall not impose any maximum controls on density if those conditions are met.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(D) the project also qualifies for five concessions from development standards and an increase in height of up to three additional stories or 33 feet. The project requests one concession (or waiver) and an increase in height. • Increase the maximum building height. The height limit in the LP district is identified as limited to two stories and 35 feet. The proposed building will be three stories and measure 37 feet to the roof level and up to 47 feet-6 inches at the tower peaks. The additional height is needed to add mission-style visual interest with the towers, screen mechanical equipment, and provide for roof access and the elevator overhead. The additional height (including the third story) is granted automatically in accordance with SDBL and is not considered a concession or waiver.
• Placement of structures in the setbacks. The LP zoning district mandates a 20-foot rear setback for development projects. However, the proposed project includes a reduced 10- foot rear setback to maximize the number of units permitted under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) while maintaining a three-story structure. Adhering to the full 20- foot setback would require a significant redesign, likely resulting in a building of four or more stories (to achieve the identified density), and would reduce available parking and courtyard open space. To mitigate the impact on adjacent properties, the building design incorporates a step-down feature, ensuring that no portion of the structure within 30 feet of the rear property line exceeds two stories in height. This minimizes the perceived impact on neighboring parcels along La Plaza and Charles Street.
Financial Considerations
Engagement and negotiation with Freebird Development LLC to develop the property at 120 E.
Cotati Avenue is not expected to have a significant direct impact on the City’s General Fund in the current fiscal year (FY25/26). The RFQ issued in March 2024, identified the City’s goal of minimizing subsidy of future development of the property to the granting of the property.
However, financing of affordable housing is challenging and complex, so future requests for additional support of an affordable housing development project on the site may occur.
Additionally, there will be some limited staff time required to support the project beyond the costs of entitlements. Lastly, it is anticipated some project-related billing from the City Attorney’s office will be necessary to ensure all requirements are met. However, all dedicated 23 of 261
time is anticipated to be within adopted FY 25/26 budget and will largely be cost recovery.
Environmental Issues
The project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Government Code Section 65651(a), as established by AB 2162, which designates qualifying supportive housing projects as a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed-use developments are permitted. As such, the project is subject to a ministerial approval process. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268(a), ministerial projects are exempt from CEQA requirements. This project qualifies as supportive housing under Government Code Section 65651(a)(3), as it includes at least 12 units restricted to residents requiring supportive services.
Although this particular project is exempt from CEQA review, the City examined the site extensively between 2017 and 2023 and approved a prior project in 2021 with the same or similar potential impacts to the environment as this project. The prior CEQA analysis described the project and its environmental setting, including the project site’s existing conditions and applicable regulatory requirements, and provided an assessment of the project’s consistency with the City of Cotati General Plan. All adopted mitigating General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified in the 2013 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2013082037) that may apply to the subject project are identified in the analysis and may be imposed as environmental conditions of approval for this project within the Development and Disposition Agreement.
24 of 261
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. The Project is subject to all development standards and payment of all impact fees identified in the City’s adopted Fee Schedule.
2. All plan sets submitted for building permits and/or improvement plans shall have a sheet printed with all conditions of approval written herein.
PLANNING DIVISION
3. The building materials, elevations, and appearance of this Project, when presented for the issuance of a building permit, shall be substantially the same as that chosen through the community meetings and City Council at its August 26, 2025, meeting.
4. Provide a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in conformance with CMC Chapter
17.34 (Water Efficient Landscape Standards) and the landscape requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. The plan shall be coordinated with all other architectural and civil plans and conflicts with all light standards and utilities shall be avoided.
5. City Council approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement in conformance with CMC Section 17.31.070 is required. This Agreement shall implement the affordable housing and supportive housing requirements as outlined in the Disposition and Development Agreement.
6. Pursuant to Cotati’s Local Preference Policy, and in accordance with Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) laws, preference for tenants of the inclusionary housing units shall be given to people that: 1. Live or work in the City of Cotati; 2. Have children who attend a school within the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District;
3. Are members of a local Native American Tribe, including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”); or 4. Are an employee of Sonoma State University.
7. During construction applicant shall designate a Disturbance Coordinator and post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of the Disturbance Coordinator to contact regarding construction complaints. The Disturbance Coordinator shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
8. Applicant shall mitigate the removal of the existing native trees on the site by paying an in-lieu mitigation fee equal to 80 replacement trees. The mitigation fee shall be paid at issuance of building permits and calculated in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule in effect at permit issuance. (July 2025: 80 trees * $131/tree = $10,480).
ENVIRONMENTAL
25 of 261
9. During any construction period ground disturbance, the Project will ensure that the Project contractor(s) implement the following measures to control dust and exhaust that are recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and listed below:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
g. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
h. Unpaved roads providing access to or on the site located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final lighting plan and the City shall verify that the final lighting plan complies with applicable requirements set forth in CMC Section 17.30.060, in accordance with General Plan Action OS1f to minimize off-site and night sky impacts of outdoor lighting.
11. To avoid impacts to nesting raptors and passerines, a nesting bird survey should be conducted within 7 days prior to commencing with construction work if this work would begin between February 1 and August 31. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site.
The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where raptors could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. The nesting bird survey should include examination of all suitable nesting habitats within 300 feet of the entire project site. A nesting bird survey report should be prepared upon completion of the survey and provided to the City of Cotati with any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers as necessary to protect nesting birds.
If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the construction project, a qualified biologist shall establish a temporary protective buffer around the nest(s). The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that 26 of 261
include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing or orange lath staking.
No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1 unless it is determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. In the region of the project site, most species complete nesting by mid-July. This date can be significantly earlier or later and would have to be determined by the qualified biologist. At the end of the nesting cycle, or abandonment of the nest by its occupants, as determined by a qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffer areas without further regard for the nest site.
12. If a precontact or historic period archaeological resource is encountered by equipment operators during project-related ground-disturbing activities and an archaeologist is not present, that work be halted within 100 feet of the discovery area until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the find and makes recommendations for the treatment of the resource.
Ϋ If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not feasible, the archaeological resource shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or as a unique archaeological resource.
Ϋ If the resource is determined to be eligible for the CRHR or is a unique archaeological resource, adverse impacts shall be mitigated.
Ϋ If the resource is a Native American resource, the assessment, evaluation, and treatment recommendations shall be made in consultation with FIGR.
Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, which may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures, laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials, preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials, and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.
Ϋ Any report produced as a result of a discovery shall be submitted to the City of Cotati and the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NWIC/CHRIS) upon completion of the resource assessment. Precontact period archaeological resources commonly encountered in the area may include obsidian (shiny, black, glass-like stone) and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, charcoal, ash, artifacts, 27 of 261
animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and features such as hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal remains. Historic period archaeological resources include backfilled privies, wells, and refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal glass, and ceramic refuse.
13. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the Sonoma County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. The soil excavated from the discovery location shall also be secured.
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
• Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
o The NAHC is unable to identify the most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site.
o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
14. The Project shall implement recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Reese & Associates on April 8, 2025. All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design, construction documents and improvement plans, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official. The Project’s geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical 28 of 261
analyses.
15. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Department.
16. The Project shall comply with CalGreen Tier 2 Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure requirements.
17. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final design plans and an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer demonstrating that the design incorporates adequate controls to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower within residential units. The acoustical engineer shall verify that appropriate building construction techniques required to meet the interior noise standard, which may include sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, and acoustical caulking are installed in a manner that achieves 45 dBA Ldn.
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
Real Property
18. Please provide a current (within the last 3 months) Preliminary Title Report (including the grant deed and title items) and show all existing easements and other relevant title items on the Site Plan and other plans as appropriate.
19. Please provide a current (within the last 3 months) Preliminary Title Report (including the grant deed and title items) and show all existing easements and other relevant title items on the Site Plan and other plans as appropriate.
Public Works/Engineering
Unless otherwise stated, conditions in this section shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
Improvement Plans. The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied prior to Improvement Plan Approval: General Requirements:
20. The developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for the construction of all public improvements including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, detached sidewalks, parkway strips, signing, striping, streetlights and demolition showing all items to be removed such as vegetation, buildings, well system, septic system, etc. All easements shall be clearly indicated and described. An erosion control plan shall be included. 29 of 261
The plan set and all design and construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Cotati Design Standards, Standard Plans, & Construction Specifications. The submittal shall include an Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the public improvements.
21. All plan sets submitted for improvement plans shall have a sheet printed with all conditions of approval written herein.
22. The Improvement Plans shall include an approval line for the Geotechnical Engineer to sign off on the plans based on their Geotechnical Investigation Report.
23. Improvement Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer, Community Development Director, Police Chief and Rancho Adobe Fire District Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, Grading Permit or Building Permit.
24. The applicant shall enter into a deposit agreement with the City to assure all City project review and inspection costs are reimbursed by the project proponent. A plan check and inspection fee deposit shall be paid prior to the signature of the Improvement Plans.
25. A Construction General Permit is required from the State Water Resources Control Board if construction activity results in a land disturbance of one acre or more.
Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).
26. Mailbox plans and locations shall be approved by the Cotati Postmaster prior to Improvement Plan approval. The developer shall provide a letter and exhibit showing mailbox locations from the Cotati Postmaster approving mailbox locations.
27. Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project street frontages that are in disrepair shall be removed and replaced as part of the improvements for this project.
Also, all nonconforming pedestrian ramps and driveway approaches shall be brought up to current accessibility standards. All as determined by the City Engineer.
28. Deviations from City Standards shall require approval by the City Engineer. The applicant’s engineer shall request all design exceptions in writing.
29. Project benchmark shall be based on a City approved USGS benchmark.
30. A “dry” Utility Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to Improvement Plans approval.
31. Submit a Storm Water Determination Worksheet, and assuming Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are triggered, prepare and submit an Initial SWLIDS along with a Completeness Checklist, pursuant to the City of Santa Rosa 30 of 261
LID Manual, 2017 Storm Water Technical Design Manual Narrative. These resources can be found at the following link: https://srcity.org/1255/Low-Impact-Development.
32. The developer shall follow the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation Report.
33. An Encroachment Permit is required for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right-of-way subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works / City Engineer.
Information on our Encroachment Permit process can be found at:
http://www.cotaticity.org/city_hall/departments/public_works_and_engineering/ encroachments.
34. If the project involves movement of greater than 50CY, a Grading Permit is required prior to commencement of earthwork. Information on the Grading Permit application can be found at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!lCotati14/Cotati1434.html#_14.34. 050.
35. Required Improvement Plan Notes:
a. "Any excess materials shall be considered the property of the contractor and shall be disposed of away from the job side in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations."
b. "All proposed electric utilities, both on-site and along project frontages, shall be placed underground. This does not include surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, which are required to be screened by means acceptable to the City."
c. "If hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the contractor will halt construction immediately, notify the City of Cotati, and implement remediation (as directed by the City or its agent) in accordance with any requirements of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board." d. "The contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction.
The contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the Cal Trans “Manual of Traffic Safety Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.” The City of Cotati emergency service providers shall be notified of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s). The project specifications shall require that the contractor(s) notify emergency service providers in writing at least 24 hours in advance of its proposed schedule of work.
A Traffic Handling Plan shall be provided to the City for City Engineer approval prior to any work occurring within the public right of way." 31 of 261
e. The following notes shall be added to the cover of the plans in bold.
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO DEVELOPER AND ALL CONTRACTORS:
Utility joint trench location shall be field staked and approved by the City PRIOR TO INITIATION OF ANY TRENCHING. This required approval by the City is independent of any authorization granted by the Utility Company, the Developer and/or Contractor. Trench locations within the tree protection zones of any protected trees may not be approved by the City. The City's inspector may require consultation by the City's arborist prior to approval of trench location. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an immediate order to stop work, as well as incurrence of civil penalties as provided by City Ordinance.
NOTE: Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the City Engineer.
Frontage & Roadway Improvements:
36. The Improvement Plans shall include street profiles, typical street sections and calculations for the street design. Said plan shall incorporate the findings and recommendations from the approved Soils Report for the pavement design and the approved Traffic Study. The proposed improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
37. The structural section of all road improvements shall be designed using a soil investigation which provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. If no R-value tests are supplied, roadway structural sections shall be designed using an R-value of 5.0. A copy of a soils report and structural section calculations shall also be submitted with the first Improvement Plan check.
38. Ramps for disabled persons shall be provided at all intersections and crosswalks where sidewalks are proposed.
39. Sidewalk widths shall be provided to allow a minimum clear five-foot walkway at all locations, including but not limited to areas where mailboxes, streetlights, street signs and fire hydrants are to be installed.
40. One-inch chases shall be installed to all parkway strips from adjacent parcels to allow for the installation of irrigation lines.
Lighting, Signing and Striping Plan:
41. Streetlights shall be City Standard Decorative type in accordance with City Design Standards. The developer shall provide additional streetlights for replacement purposes (5% of the total or as otherwise approved).
42. Plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Police Chief. A photometric plan for the project site shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
32 of 261
43. Striping, pavement markings and traffic signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the City Engineer. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Speed limit signs shall be installed at locations determined by the City Engineer.
Drainage Improvements:
44. All project related flooding impacts shall be mitigated by the project developer.
Drainage improvements shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Flood Control Design Criteria. Public and private drainage improvements (including Storm Water Management Plans) shall be shown on the improvement plans and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
45. Plans and Engineer of Record certifications shall be provided by the developer to demonstrate compliance with all improvements, including building pads and finished floor elevations, with the City’s Flood Plain Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer. Pad elevations shall be constructed at a minimum of 1 foot above the 100-year Floodplain / Hydraulic Grade Line as determined by the City and certified by the project engineer.
46. All design and construction shall meet the requirements of the most recent editions of City of Cotati, Phase I MS4 permit and the City of Santa Rosa Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a Final Storm Water Low Impact Development Plan (FSWLID) subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include post-construction storm water treatment and peak reduction measures and shall address maintenance of private and/or public storm water facilities. The FSWLID shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
Also include a three-part program designed to limit direct disposal of contaminants into streets and storm drains: (1) labeling all catch basins - "No Dumping - Drains to Creek"; (2) strictly limiting the use of non-biodegradable fertilizers or pesticides; (3) prohibit the regular washing or maintenance of vehicles in paved areas that drain directly into the storm drain system.
47. Prior to approval of improvement plans and issuance of any Permits the applicant/developer shall submit a Declaration of Covenants Regarding Maintenance of Storm Water Best
Management Practices (BMP) Facilities. The applicant/developer shall obtain the City’s review and approval of the said Declaration and record with the Sonoma County Recorder against the parcel prior to approval of the Grading/Building permit or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy permit, timing subject to the discretion of the City Engineer. The planter and landscape strips adjacent to public streets shall be 33 of 261
included in the Declaration and be maintained by the private property owner(s), subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Grading Improvements:
48. The developer’s engineer shall include a site-grading plan prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California as part of the required improvement drawings. Lots shall be generally designed to drain to the street, unless otherwise approved in the interest of tree preservation or other unusual circumstances.
49. The grading plan shall clearly show all survey monuments and property corners and shall state that they shall be protected and preserved. Should monuments be damaged or destroyed during construction, they shall be replaced by the developer.
50. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, a detailed Soils Report/Geotechnical Investigation prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California and qualified to perform soils work. The grading plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the approved Soils Report and be signed by the project Geotechnical Engineer.
51. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered during grading operations that are different from those anticipated in the Soils Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.
52. All existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks shall be abandoned under permit and inspection of Sonoma County Environmental Health or other designated agency. If there are none, the project engineer shall provide a letter describing the scope of the search done to make this determination.
53. Improvements plans shall include an erosion control (winterization) plan. The plan must include an order of work and staging/scheduling component indicating when facilities must be installed and when they may be removed. A separate Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be required and prepared as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the REAP shall be kept on-site throughout the duration of construction activities.
Utility Improvements:
54. All proposed utilities, both on-site and along project frontages, shall be placed underground. All proposed utilities are to be placed underground per Chapter
17.30.100 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements:
34 of 261
55. The applicant shall submit for City review and approval the domestic water use calculations and meter sizing. Water use calculations shall compare the estimated water use to the water use attributed to the area by the 2010 Water Master Plan.
56. The applicant shall submit for City review and approval the sanitary sewer use study.
The study shall present expected sewer flow generation, a comparison of the expected sewer flows to what was attributed to the area by the 2011 Sewer Master Plan.
In addition, the applicant shall analyze the sewer capacity in Charles Street sewer main from the point of connection to the downstream sewer junction. The applicant shall upgrade this sewer main segment if the capacity is insufficient to meet the City design standards.
57. Verify water pressure at highest point of project is sufficient.
58. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall obtain a letter from the City of Santa Rosa stating their requirements for a sewer use permit have been satisfied.
59. All private storm drains, potable water, fire service and sanitary sewer mains, laterals, and appurtenances, must be located within the private property and clearly identified as private on the design drawings.
60. All irrigation water mains, service laterals, plumbing, valves, pipes, appurtenances, irrigation parts, vaults and boxes must be purple.
Permit Requirements:
61. Provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Two copies of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, encroachment permit or building permit.
62. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to obtain and provide proof of all permits necessary from other local, state and federal agencies. The Applicant shall provide evidence of these permits at the time of grading plan submittal.
Other / Landscape Parcels:
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for plantings shall be submitted at the time of the Improvement Plan submittal package. All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the City Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Said plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
64. The landscape plans shall show underground utilities, and no trees shall be planted over any existing or proposed underground utilities.
65. The landscape plans shall include planting details for BMPs. 35 of 261
Public Improvement Agreement:
66. Prior to permit issuance the developer shall either complete the required construction as shown on the signed improvement plans or enter into a Public Improvement Agreement and post security with the City of Cotati, agreeing to complete the required construction within 24 months of grading permit issuance and prior to a request for occupancy of any structures, or as otherwise established by the City Engineer.
Grading Permit. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the following Conditions shall apply:
67. The Improvement Plans shall be approved by the City Engineer.
68. Submittal of copies of required permits and/or agreement from resource agencies.
Encroachment Permit. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit the following Conditions shall apply:
69. A Traffic Control and Construction Work Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. At a minimum, the Traffic Control Plan shall address ingress and egress, haul route, flagging, and maintenance of the road and identifies a staging area. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief of Police and the Planning Department prior to the start of any sitework.
70. An Encroachment Permit shall be required prior to performing work on public utilities or work within public rights-of-way or public easements.
During Construction Operations the Following Conditions Shall Apply:
71. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as found necessary by the City Engineer.
72. The developer shall be responsible for all damage to existing City streets during construction and shall repair all damaged facilities at no cost to the City.
73. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department, the Fire District, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.
74. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for controlling noise, odors, dust and debris to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and roadways. The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all construction equipment is equipped 36 of 261
with manufacturers approved muffler’s baffles in compliance with all City codes relating to noise and idling equipment. The City Code includes but is not limited to section 17.30.050. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.
75. If grading is to take place between October 15 and April 15, both temporary and permanent erosion control measures, conforming to the project erosion control plans, shall be in place before October 1st. Erosion control measures shall be monitored and maintained continuously throughout the storm season.
76. The following minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be required during construction:
a. Construction crews shall be instructed in preventing and minimizing pollution on the job.
b. Stabilize construction entrance/exit to prevent tracking onto roadway. Only one stabilized construction entrance/exit will be allowed per site. Vehicles entering and leaving construction sites spread pollutants such as sediment, gravel, and other loose particles onto adjacent roads. Pollutants are washed into roadside ditches and are a nuisance to drivers and may cause damage to vehicles. c. Protect exposed slopes from erosion through preventative measures. Cover slopes to avoid contact with storm water by hydro-seeding, mulch, use of plastic sheeting or other approved means.
d. Use brooms and shovels, when possible, to maintain a clean site. Use of a hose is not recommended. Introducing water as a cleanup method adds to water pollution. Designate a concrete washout area, if needed, to avoid wash water from concrete tools or trucks from entering storm drain systems. Maintain the washout area and dispose of concrete waste on a regular basis. e. Establish a vehicle storage, maintenance, and refueling area, if needed, to minimize the spread of oil, gas, and engine fluids. Use of oil pans under stationary vehicles is strongly recommended.
f. Protect drain inlets from receiving polluted storm water through the use of filters such as fabrics, gravel bags or straw wattles.
g. Be prepared for rain and have the necessary materials onsite before the rainy season.
h. Inspect all BMPs before and after each storm event. Maintain BMPs on a regular basis and replace them as necessary, through the entire course of construction.
77. In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities would be suspended for a period to be 37 of 261
determined by a City approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate.
78. In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended, and the following measures shall be undertaken:
a. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted.
b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. c. The project sponsor shall retain a City-approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate. d. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American and shall contact such descendant in accordance with state law. e. The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that human remains and associated grave goods are reburied with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to the most likely descendent.
Prior to Acceptance of Public Improvements and Bond Exoneration, the Following Conditions of Approval Shall Be Satisfied:
79. All improvements shown on the Improvement Plans shall be completed and accepted by the City.
80. Prior to acceptance of improvements or occupancy of buildings, existing curb, gutter and sidewalk to remain shall be inspected by the City. Any curb, gutter and sidewalk which is not in accord with City standards or is damaged before or during construction, shall be replaced.
81. The developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her engineer verifying that the grading and/or drainage improvements are completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and the Building Official.
82. A complete set of As-Built or Record improvement plans showing all constructive changes from the original plans, shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final acceptance of the public improvements.
RANCHO ADOBE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
83. F1. This building is required to be fully sprinklered throughout all areas per 2022 NFPA 13 (CA Amended), also meeting the current Rancho Adobe Fire District (RAFD) Fire Safety Ordinance §903.2.7, §903.2.10, and 2022 CFC §903.2.1, §903.2.7 & §903.2.8. This will be a deferred submittal and a separate permit. 38 of 261
84. F2. This building is required to be equipped with a Class I wet standpipe per 2019 NFPA 14 (CA Amended), also meeting the current RAFD Fire Safety Ordinance §905.3.1 and 2022 CFC §905. This will be a deferred submittal and a separate permit.
85. F3. This building is required to have installed, a fully-automatic and manual fire alarm system and CO detection within the R-2 occupancy stories throughout per 2022 CFC §907.2.9 & §915.2. This will be a deferred submittal and a separate permit.
86. F4. This building shall be constructed without an occupied roof as the construction and egress will not permit any occupancies at that level (or above the 3rd story) per 2022 CBC Ch. 3 & §1004.7.
87. F5. This building is required to be equipped with an emergency responder radio communication system (ERRCS) system throughout or the building is required to be tested periodically throughout the construction process ensuring all emergency responder radio transmission signals can be broadcast and received throughout the entire structure per 2022 CFC §510 & 2019 NFPA 1221. *This system, if required, shall be connected to the building fire alarm system for monitoring all points per 2022 CFC §510.4. This system and interconnection to the building fire alarm will be a deferred submittal and a separate permit
88. F6. This building is required to be equipped with emergency rescue openings (ERO) for the R-2 occupied stories above grade plane meeting all requirements of 2022 CFC §1031. *A collapsible ladder is required and will be located at the level 2 courtyard on the southwest rear of the building. **Fire Chief Veliquette has agreed to this approach during a 5/8/25 call. The type of ladder, the lockable container and specific location shall be shown in the permit drawings and will be more thoroughly reviewed at that time. Additionally, ladder pads are required to be concrete pavers or sidewalk concrete capable of supporting the ladder and meeting NFPA requirements.
89. F7. In addition to the existing fire hydrants present in surrounding infrastructure, two new fire hydrants meeting City of Rancho Adobe Water Department/Utility Standard #857 and RAFD Fire Safety Ordinance §507.5.7 are required, and shall be installed in the following locations (and combined with existing hydrants, shall aggregately provide site fire flow of no less than 3,750 GPM for 3 hours per RAFD Fire Safety Ordinance Appendix B, Table B105.2):
a. (#1) On the north side of the building on Cotati Ave, between La Plaza St. and Charles St., outside the fire pump room, adjacent to the required fire department (FDC)/standpipe connection (This hydrant shall not exceed 100’ to the required FDC/Standpipe Connection).
b. (#2) On the west side of Charles St., south of the corner of Charles St. and Cotati Ave.
39 of 261
90. F8. Due to the building’s configuration and location on site, a 150’ exterior hose reach from the designated fire apparatus access roadway fronting the building is not possible. An AMMR was submitted and method approved as follows:
a. (#1) In addition to the building interior required Class I wet standpipes, an additional Class I outside wet standpipe with two (2), 2.5” hose valve outlets is required to be installed and located at the rear yard on the south side of the building, along the exterior wall intersection (north-east) on the exterior portion of the water treatment area and accessible by fire department personnel (See AMMR dated March 24, 2025).
b. (#2) The east La Plaza St. and west Charles St. entries to the rear portion of the building as proposed in the AMMR shall be marked “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE” per RAFD Fire Safety Ordinance 503.3 and the California Vehicle Code (CVC) §22500.1 for fire department access to rear of building and deployment of ground ladders for ERO access.
91. F9. This building is required to be provided with minimum 12” high and 1” stroke internally or externally illuminated premises identification (address), meeting the RAFD Fire Safety Ordinance §505.1.2 and placed on building along E. Cotati Ave. meeting §505.1.4 for location and shall be visible and legible from the road on which the address is located.
BUILDING DIVISION
92. Provide in the plan set plan sheet(s) with conditions of approval from all departments.
93. The proposed building will propose multiple occupancies; assembly A occupancy, a commercial (typically B or M occupancy) and apartment building (R-2 occupancy) in accordance with the California Building Code. Include in the construction drawings a code analysis to confirm the occupancy classification, type of construction allowable area and building height are in conformance with requirements of chapter 5 & 6.
94. Provide exit plans delineating the path of travel for all occupants on each level.
Verify width of corridors, doors openings, travel distance as required by CBC chapter
10. 95. Detail disabled accessible paths of travel on all levels and usage features are required to be detailed on the construction documents. Parking, entrances, and all features within the building are required to be disabled compliant. 2022 CBC Chapter 11A & 11B.
96. The project requires a Geotechnical Report. The report shall provide design recommendations based upon the engineer’s findings and shall comply with the currently adopted CBC Section 1803. [107.2 CBC]
40 of 261
97. The project requires a grading permit. Provide complete grading plans for the site.
Provide cut and fill calculations.
98. Submit a site plan to include all the following. Show dimensioned property lines, public streets, and dimensions of yards and setbacks. Show North arrow, scale, legal description, and/or street address. At building locations indicate finish slab elevation and/or finish floor elevation for all buildings. Indicate the location and route of connections to public utilities for water and sewer and electric. No part of these systems shall be located on or cross over any lot other than the lot that is the subject of this permit application, unless plans clearly show a legally dedicated easement for such purpose. Provide drainage away from foundations with a fall of not less than 6 inches in the first 10 feet (2% allowed if recommended by a currently valid geotechnical report). If obstructions or lot lines prohibit the 10’ horizontal distance, provide approved alternative method of diverting water. (Swale may be used)
99. Identify all fire rated conditions and occupancy separations as required by CBC chapters 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10.
100. Include the completed City of Cotati Special Inspection Structural Observation form.
The form needs to be completed and signed by the Engineer of Record identifying all special inspections and/or observation are required for this project. This document must be included within your plan set and identified on the drawing index. 101. The project Soils Engineer shall confirm that the grading plans, foundation plans, and associated details and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated in the plans. [1803.6 CBC]
102. Provide complete dimensioned floor plans for all unit types and identify the use of all spaces on the floor plans for all rooms, spaces, hallways, passages, etc. [107.2 CBC] 103. Provide complete structural plans and calculations coordinated with the architectural plans and geotechnical requirements.
104. Provide plans gridlines coordinated with all related plans. 105. Provide Title 24 Energy Documentation for Lighting (interior and exterior), Building envelope, heating, and cooling appliances.
106. Provide water supply, building drain and gas supply sizing calculations for the building in accordance with the California Plumbing code. Provide water supply system design based on system pressure and runs. Provide sanitary drainage system design and size. Provide isometric plumbing plans for water supply (cold and hot) drains and vent systems for the building. All plumbing systems are required to be designed in accordance with the current California Plumbing Code. 41 of 261
107. Provide Electrical plans showing equipment and provide Load Calculations to address the demands of the building and units.
108. Units shall be provided with fire rated construction separating unit to unit for vertical and horizontal conditions. Sound transmission ratings of not less than 50 is required between units. Rated assemblies are required to be approved by a recognized testing agency. Provide referenced construction details and assembly source and reference number.
109. The project is required to comply with current CALGreen requirements plus tier 1. A certified CALGreen Inspector is required to review the plans and provide on-site inspections to confirm compliance. The CALGreen worksheets are located on the city’s website and are required to be printed on plan sheet(s) in the plan set. 110. Before approval of the foundation inspection: A licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer with proper certification shall conduct a survey of the (front, sides, rear, all) property lines and install property line markers that can be readily verified by Building Inspection staff. A written confirmation by the licensed surveyor (stamped) to the Building Department that the staking of the property lines has been completed and are accurate is required.
*****
42 of 261
43 of 261
44 of 261
45 of 261
46 of 261
47 of 261
48 of 261
49 of 261
50 of 261
51 of 261
52 of 261
53 of 261
54 of 261
55 of 261
56 of 261
57 of 261
58 of 261
59 of 261
60 of 261
61 of 261
62 of 261
63 of 261
64 of 261
Balancing Functionality and Livability since 1995
w-trans.com
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
April 3, 2025
Prepared for the City of Cotati
Submitted by
W-Trans
Transportation Impact Study for the
120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project
65 of 261
66 of 261
i Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Transportation Setting............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Project Data ..............................................................................................................................................................................13 Circulation System ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).............................................................................................................................................. 18 Safety Issues..............................................................................................................................................................................19 Emergency Access.................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Capacity Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Parking........................................................................................................................................................................................30 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 32 Study Participants and References................................................................................................................................... 34 Figures
1. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations.................................................................................................................. 7
2. Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................................................................14
3. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................................................25
4. Project Traffic Volumes...........................................................................................................................................................27 Tables
1. Bicycle Facility Summary .......................................................................................................................................................10
2. Transit Routes............................................................................................................................................................................11
3. Collision Rates for the Study Intersections......................................................................................................................12
4. Trip Generation Summary.....................................................................................................................................................13
5. Trip Distribution Assumptions.............................................................................................................................................13
6. Maximum Queues in Dedicated Left-Turn Lanes..........................................................................................................21
7. Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 23
8. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service.........................................................................................................24
9. Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...........................................................................................................26
10. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................28
11. Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................28
12. Parking Analysis Summary....................................................................................................................................................30 67 of 261
ii Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Plates
1. Existing Cross-Section Midblock on East Cotati Avenue.............................................................................................16
2. Existing Cross-Section on East Cotati Avenue at the Median Island.......................................................................16
3. Proposed Cross-Section Mid-Block on East Cotati Avenue........................................................................................17
4. Proposed Cross-Section on East Cotati Avenue at the Median Island ...................................................................17 Appendices
A. Collision Rate Calculations
B. Queueing Calculations
C. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
68 of 261
1 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Executive Summary
The proposed mixed-use development would be located at 120 East Cotati Avenue in the City of Cotati; the project site is currently vacant. The project would result in the construction of a three-story apartment complex with ground-floor retail and a parking garage. In addition, a new sidewalk would be installed on Charles Street and the existing sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue would be expanded to ten feet along project frontage. The project would be expected to generate an average of 277 daily trips, with 19 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour.
A review of the collision history indicates that one of the three study intersections had a collision rate above the statewide average for similar facilities. The intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street, which had an aboveaverage collision rate, had a pattern of rear-ends involving vehicles stopped at the intersection. However, no remedial action is recommended asthis type of incident is due to driver violations so cannot be addressed through any physical changes to the intersection. There were no collisions involving either pedestrians or bicyclists at any of the study intersections during the five-year study period.
Existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities along project frontage and in the vicinity of the project site would provide adequate access. The project would improve pedestrian access by widening the existing sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue and constructing a new sidewalk on Charles Street. Widening the sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue would reduce roadway width, requiring restriping of East Cotati Avenue to provide the additional width needed for the sidewalk. With lane restriping, the project would not conflict with any policies for these transportation modes and therefore have a less-than-significant impact.
The project would screen out as having the presumption of a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Potential access schemes were analyzed based on several safety criteria. Sight distances at the proposed project driveway locations would meet or exceed recommended minimums. The lane merge on East Cotati Avenue for eastbound traffic would not present an issue as drivers would be fully in a single lane prior to reaching the driveway location and would therefore have sufficient time to react to vehicles entering or exiting the project driveway on East Cotati Avenue. Volumes on Charles Street may exceed expectations for a local road, likely due to the street being used as bypass for the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway. Though project volumes may contribute to increased traffic, traffic from the proposed project should be accommodated as the site’s frontage on Charles Street could reasonably be anticipated to generate trips on this street.
The project would not cause any intersection to queue beyond storage lane capacity so would have a less-thansignificant impact as regards safety and would also have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response.
An analysis of operation of the study intersections indicates that all study intersections are operating acceptably.
Operation at the northbound Charles Street approach is projected to deteriorate to an acceptable LOS F under future volumes. Upon the addition of project-generated volumes, no intersection would deteriorate to an unacceptable level. The northbound Charles Street approach would operate at an LOS F with or without project volumes. The project would therefore not have an adverse effect on operation based on City policy.
The proposed parking supply of 54 on-site parking spaces is adequate given the parking reductions due to the State Density Bonus Law and the inclusion of supportive units. It is recommended that parking spaces not be assigned to individual units to allow maximum flexibility in use of the parking supply by both the residential and retail components.
69 of 261
2 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts and adverse operational effects that would be associated with development of a proposed mixed-use project to be located at 120 East Cotati Avenue in the City of Cotati. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Cotati and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential transportation impacts of a proposed project, and any associated improvements that would be required to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level under CEQA, the City’s General Plan, or other policies. This report provides an analysis of those items that are identified as areas of environmental concern under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that, if significant, require an EIR. It is noted that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA analysis as it is being processed through a streamlined ministerial approval procedure under the provisions of Assembly Bill 2162. However, CEQA items were analyzed for information purposes. Potential impacts associated with access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project; potential safety concerns such as increased queuing in dedicated turn lanes, adequacy of sight distance, need for turn lanes, and need for additional right-ofway controls; and emergency access are addressed in the context of the CEQA criteria. While no longer a part of the CEQA review process, vehicular traffic service levels at key intersections were evaluated for consistency with General Plan policies by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the effect the new traffic would be expected to have on the study intersections and need for improvements to maintain acceptable operation. Adequacy of parking is also addressed as a policy issue.
Applied Standards and Criteria
The report is organized to provide background data that supports the various aspects of the analysis, followed by the assessment of CEQA issues and then evaluation of policy-related issues. The CEQA criteria evaluated are as follows.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The project was also evaluated against the City’s policies, which provide guidance relative to traffic impacts for CEQA issues as well as the effects caused by traffic associated with new development. Based on the most recent criteria published by the City, the project would have a significant impact or an adverse effect on traffic operation if it results in any of the following conditions.
70 of 261
3 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Cotati General Plan
GOAL CI 1
Create a Circulation Network That Reinforces the Desired Land Use Pattern for Cotati, and Provides for the Safe and Efficient Movement of People and Goods to All Parts of the City Objective CI 1A
Maintain Safe and Efficient Operating Conditions on the Citywide Circulation Network Policy CI 1.2
Ensure that the City’s circulation network is a well-connected system of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, and bicycle/pedestrian paths that effectively accommodates vehicular and non-vehicular traffic in a manner that considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all roadway users.
Policy CI 1.3
Establish a minimum motor vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standard of LOS D at intersections. The following shall be taken into consideration in applying LOS standards:
• Levels of service shall be calculated using the average hourly delay for all vehicles entering the intersection, and assessed for the entire peak hour (60 minutes) rather than the peak 15- minute period (PHF=1.0). • At unsignalized intersections, levels of service shall be determined for both controlled movements and for the overall intersection. Controlled movements operating at LOS E or LOS F are allowable if 1) the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or better overall, and 2) the projected traffic volume on the controlled movement is 30 vehicles or less per hour on approaches with single lanes, or on multi-lane approaches, 30 vehicles or less per hour on lanes serving left turns and through movements. • Level of service standards shall not apply to minor intersections comprised of only local streets. • For projects within the City limits that are consistent with the General Plan, a standard of LOS E is considered to be acceptable for intersections within the boundaries of the Downtown Cotati Specific Plan. • Intersection queuing shall be evaluated in tandem with LOS. Projected 95th percentile queues at signalized intersections shall not extend through upstream signalized intersections.
Policy CI 1.6
When analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all users including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are considered at an equal level to the needs of automobile drivers.
Policy CI 1.11
Retain the viewpoint of pedestrians and bicyclists as the primary perspective when identifying Hub-related traffic improvements.
Policy CI 1.12
Enhance the safety of pedestrian crossings in the Hub area while ensuring a delightful downtown experience.
Policy CI 1.17
Consider alternatives to traffic signals where appropriate conditions exist to maximize intersection efficiency, maintain traffic flow, reduce accident severity, and enhance pedestrian and bicyclist circulation.
Policy CI 1.18
Intersections shall be designed to provide adequate and safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities.
71 of 261
4 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Action CI 1l: Monitor residential streets as needed to ensure that traffic volumes do not exceed a maximum of 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles per day on improved streets (those with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and well-conditioned pavement), and a maximum of 1,000 to 1,500 vehicles per day on streets which are more rural in nature (typified by poorly-conditioned pavement and the absence of pedestrian walkways). If traffic volumes exceed these criteria, the City shall consider implementing traffic calming measures to reduce through traffic volumes.
Action CI 1m: Require developers to design local roadways (i.e., streets other than arterials and collectors) for speeds of 25 miles per hour or less.
Action CI 1n: Review plans for new or modified intersections to ensure that lane configurations are limited where possible to provide for moderate speeds and pedestrian and cyclist safety, and that curb extensions are installed where appropriate to reduce driving speeds and shorten pedestrian crossing distances.
Objective CI 1C
Ensure that New Development Contributes to the City’s Desired Circulation Network Policy CI 1.19
Require new development to include effective linkages to the surrounding circulation system for all modes of travel, to the extent feasible.
Policy CI 1.20
Require new development to contribute its proportional share cost of circulation improvements necessary to address cumulative transportation impacts on roadways throughout the City as well as the bicycle and pedestrian network.
Policy CI 1.21
Require development projects to provide land dedications or pay fees in order to provide bike paths, sidewalks, and walkways.
Action CI 1o: Prepare an Impact Fee Study to support an updated development impact fee that requires new development to pay its proportional share of circulation improvements, including but not limited to the improvements shown on Figure 2.1, identified as actions in this section, and/or identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report or the Traffic Impact Fee Study, as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as those included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and those described in this Circulation Element.
Action CI 1r: As part of the development review process, require new development to mitigate circulation impacts by making improvements to the motorized and non-motorized circulation networks as necessary, and in a fair manner with an established nexus between the level of impact and required improvements and/or contributions.
Action CI 1s: As part of the development review process, ensure that new development facilitates walking, biking, and transit modes; incorporates streets that are designed to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow; constructs or (if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer) contributes funds toward construction of off-site improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts; provides adequate emergency vehicle access; and pays development impact fees that contribute to cumulative circulation improvements.
GOAL CI 2
Maintain and Expand a Safe and Efficient Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network That Connects Neighborhoods With Key Destinations to Encourage Travel by Non-Automobile Modes While Also Improving Public Health Objective CI 2A
Maintain and Develop a Network of Sidewalks and Pathways to Provide for Safe and Convenient Pedestrian Travel 72 of 261
5 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Policy CI 2.1
Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities and crossing enhancements that are consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy CI 2.2
Support establishment of special assessments of affected property owners in order to provide funding to install walkways and fill gaps in the existing pedestrian network.
Policy CI 2.3
Require development projects to construct sidewalks and walkways on and off-site in order to maintain consistency with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and as dictated by the location of transit stops and common pedestrian destinations.
Policy CI 2.6
Create an accessible circulation network that is consistent with guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allowing mobility-impaired users such as the disabled and elderly to safely and effectively travel within and beyond the City.
Policy CI 2.10
Continue to provide secure bicycle racks in the Hub, future and existing commercial areas, park-and-ride transit facilities, schools, and multiple unit residential developments.
Action CI 2a: As part of the development process, review development applications to ensure compliance with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Objective CI 2B
Provide a Citywide Network of Bicycle Routes, Multi-Use Paths, and Facilities to Accommodate Travel by Bicycle Policy CI 2.11
Establish and maintain bicycle facilities that are consistent with the network depicted in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy CI 2.13
Bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks, bike lockers, and secure bike corrals shall be provided at locations where there is a concentration of residents, visitors, students, or employees.
GOAL CI 3
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Order to Reduce Congestion and Help Achieve Regional Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Objective CI 3A
Reduce the Levels of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Created by Automobile Traffic in Cotati GOAL CI 4
Maintain Efficiency of the Circulation Network through Coordination With Regional Planning Efforts Objective CI 5B
Maintain Parking Requirements and Practices that Complement the Desired Land Use Pattern while Minimizing Neighborhood Impacts
73 of 261
6 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Policy CI 5.4
Ensure that the parking demand associated with future development does not adversely impact adjacent residential areas due to spillover parking demand.
Project Profile
The project as proposed includes 43 below-market-rate dwelling units, a manager’s unit, and 4,000 square feet of retail space. The project site is located at 120 East Cotati Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. 74 of 261
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project cot092-4.ai 2/25
North
Not to Scale
Old Redwood Hwy
E Cotati Ave
Arthur St
Charles
St
La
Plaza
1 2 3
Project Site
Figure 1 – Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations
Study Intersection
LEGEND
CLEAR
KEEP KEEP
CLEAR
1 2 3
75 of 261
8 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Transportation Setting
Study Area and Periods
The study area varies depending on the topic. For pedestrian trips it consists of all streets within a half mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of pedestrian travel, or those leading to nearby generators or attractors. For bicycle trips it consists of all streets within one mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of bicycle travel. For the safety and operational analyses, it consists of the project frontage and the following intersections:
1. East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway
2. East Cotati Avenue/La Plaza
3. East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute. Counts were obtained for the study intersections January 28, 2025.
Existing Transportation Facilities
Study Intersections
East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway is a four-legged, signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches except the westbound approach, where left turns are prohibited except by transit buses. There are marked pedestrian crosswalks on each leg.
East Cotati Avenue/La Plaza is an unsignalized four-legged intersection with stop controls on the northbound and southbound approaches, both of which are restricted to right turns only. Marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided on the south and north legs. The southern leg is one-way in the northbound direction.
East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street is a tee intersection, unsignalized, with a stop control on the northbound approach. Marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided on the west and south legs. The crosswalk on the west leg is supplemented with a pedestrian refuge median within the center two-way left-turn lane.
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1.
Study Roadways
East Cotati Avenue is designated as a major arterial by the City of Cotati. The 2.35-mile long corridor connects Old Redwood Highway at the Cotati “Hub” to Petaluma Hill Road, serving residential neighborhoods in Cotati and Rohnert Park, as well as the southern entrance to Sonoma State University.
La Plaza is a local road that bounds the hexagonal plaza in Downtown Cotati. The segment on the project frontage is one way in the northbound direction to East Cotati Avenue, with one 12-foot travel lane and angled parking on the west side of the roadway.
Charles Street is a local street, approximately 25 feet wide. 76 of 261
9 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the proposed project site • East Cotati Avenue – Continuous sidewalk coverage is provided on East Cotati Avenue from Old Redwood Highway to Charles Street and beyond along all frontages of the project site. Marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided on each leg of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway, on the south leg of East Cotati Avenue/La Plaza, and a midblock striped pedestrian crossing with a center refuge is provided on the west leg of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street. Curb ramps are provided at each leg of the study intersections. • La Plaza – Continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of La Plaza between East Cotati Avenue and Main Avenue.
• Charles Street – A continuous sidewalk is provided only on the east side of the street. The project frontage along Charles Street does not have any sidewalk. In general, Charles Street is a local street that provides access to residences and some commercial parking near Old Redwood Highway.
The City of Cotati Active Transportation Plan (ATP), Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2024 describes planned future facilitiesin the City. In the project vicinity, the plan describes filling in existing sidewalk gaps on La Plaza and streets of the outer hexagon of the plaza, the Loop, including Charles Street.
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2020, classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
• Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on East Cotati Avenue between Old Redwood Highway and Petaluma Hill Road. A Class II bike lane is also provided on Old Redwood Highway between Commerce Boulevard and the City of Petaluma, though a segment between East Cotati Avenue and McGinnis Circle is currently designated a Class III bike route. A Class I multi-use path is located approximately 500 feet east of the proposed project, known as the Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail. This trail extends for approximately 2.24 miles from Liman Avenue to Avram Avenue. There is a gap along the trail, south of East Cotati Avenue, that will be filled upon implementation of the Cotati Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. Several roads in the area are designated as Class III Bike Boulevards which are proposed to be redesignated as Class IIIB bike boulevards and extended in multiple locations. Table 1 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. 77 of 261
10 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Table 1 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Location
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail1 I 1.34 E Cotati Ave Avram Ave Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail1 I 0.90 Marsh Wy Liman Wy
Myrtle Ave II 0.68 Old Redwood Hwy Lancaster Dr
Old Redwood Hwy II 0.50 Commerce Blvd E Cotati Ave
Old Redwood Hwy2 II 3.75 Petaluma City Limit McGinnis Cir W Sierra Ave/E Cotati Ave1 II 3.30 Cotati City Limit Petaluma Hill Rd Benson Ln III 0.17 Park Ave Loretto Ave
Charles St III 0.11 Old Redwood Hwy E Cotati Ave
La Plaza3 III 0.33 E Cotati Ave E Cotati Ave
Lasalle Ave III 0.38 Loretto Ave E Cotati Ave
Lincoln Wy1 III 0.41 Loretto Ave Lancaster Dr
Loretto Ave III 0.13 Benson Ln Lincoln Ave
Marsh Wy III 0.11 Laguna de Santa Rosa
Trail
E Cotati Ave
Old Redwood Hwy III 0.23 McGinnis Cir E Cotati Ave
Planned
Burton Ave/E Cotati Ave Trail I 0.10 E Cotati Ave Burton Ave Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail I 0.10 Lincoln Ave E Cotati Ave E School St II 0.27 SR-101 Undercrossing W Sierra Ave
Benson Ln IIIB 0.17 Park Ave Loretto Ave
Lasalle Ave IIIB 0.38 Loretto Ave E Cotati Ave
Lincoln Wy1 IIIB 0.68 Loretto Ave Cotati SMART Station
Loretto Ave IIIB 0.13 Benson Ln Lincoln Ave
Marsh Wy IIIB 0.11 Laguna de Santa Rosa
Trail
E Cotati Ave
Myrtle Ave IV 0.68 Old Redwood Hwy Lancaster Dr
W Sierra Ave IV 0.67 Cotati City Limit Old Redwood Hwy
Note: 1All or portions of these bikeways are located within the City of Rohnert Park; 2All or portions of these bikeways are located in unincorporated County of Sonoma; 3La Plaza is a loop road Source: City of Cotati Active Transportation Plan (ATP), Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2024 Existing Transit Facilities
Sonoma County Transit (SCT), Golden Gate Transit, and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) are the transit providers in the City of Cotati. SCT Routes 10, 26, and 48 provide service to destinations throughout the City and surrounding communities. Golden Gate Transit provides intercity connections between the North Bay and San Francisco. Bus routes are served by stops on Old Redwood Highway between La Plaza and East Cotati Avenue 78 of 261
11 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
referred to as the “Cotati Hub.” Sonoma-Marin Area Rail transit (SMART) provides passenger rail service to communities in Sonoma and Marin County. Existing transit routes and their operation are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 – Transit Routes
Transit
Agency
Route
Distance
to Stop
(mi)1
Service Connection
Days of
Operation
Time Frequency
Golden Gate Transit
Route 101 0.1 Daily 4:08 a.m. – 10:34 a.m. 60 min San Francisco Sonoma County Transit
Route 10 0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat-Sun
6:15 a.m. – 6:15 p.m.
7:55 a.m. – 5:15 p.m.
50 min
50 min
Cotati SMART Station, Rohnert Park,
Sonoma State University
Route 26 0.1 School Days 8:07 a.m. 1 EB bus Sonoma State University Route 48 0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat-Sun
6:29 a.m. – 10:52. p.m.
7:18 a.m. – 8:08 p.m.
8 buses
5 buses
Coddington/N Santa Rosa, Santa
Rosa Transit Mall, Rohnert Park,
Penngrove, Petaluma Transit Mall
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
Fixed 0.7 Mon-Fri
Sat-Sun
5:11 a.m. – 11:49 p.m.
7:38 a.m. – 8:40 p.m.
30-60 min
2 hours
Sonoma County Airport to Larkspur
Ferry Terminal Building
Note: 1 Defined as the shortest walking distance between the project site and the nearest bus stop Source: Goldengate.org; sctransit.com; sonomamarintrain.org Two to three bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis.
Additional bicycles or foldable bicycles are allowed on SCT buses based on size and the discretion of the driver.
Golden Gate Transit only permits bicycles on the front-loading racks with capacity for two to three bicycles. SMART allow bicycles to be carried onboard, with each two-car train having capacity for up to 24 bicycles.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability within three-quarters of a mile from existing routes. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Cotati and the County of Sonoma.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2024.
As presented in Table 3, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2022 Crash Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). These average rates statewide are for intersections in the same environment (urban, suburban, or rural), with the same number of approaches (three or four), and the same controls (all-way stop, two-way stop, or traffic signal). The intersections of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway and East Cotati Avenue/La Plaza both had collision rates below the statewide averages for similar facilities, indicating no concerning patterns. The intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street had a higher rate of both collisions and injuries compared to the statewide average for similar facilities. 79 of 261
12 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Table 3 – Collision Rates for the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2020-2025)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1. East Cotati Ave/Old Redwood Hwy 9 0.22 0.33
2. East Cotati Ave/La Plaza 3 0.11 0.20
3. East Cotati Ave/Charles St 6 0.19 0.13
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering; bold indicates a rate that exceeds the Statewide average Because the collision rate for East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street exceeded the Statewide average, though nominally, the individual incidents were further reviewed. Four out of the six collisions were reported as drivers rear-ending a vehicle stopped at the intersection, and three of these were on the stop-controlled northbound approach. Of the rear-end collisions, two were attributed to driving at an unsafe speed, one to the driver following too closely, and the last to unsafe starting. The remaining collisions were reported as a hit-and-run (leaving the Primary Collision Factor unknown) where the driver ran off the road and hit an object, and a sideswipe collision due to unsafe merging. Although there was a pattern of similar collisions at this intersection, they were attributed to driver violations not influenced by the intersection itself. It is noted that the stop sign is clearly visible to approaching drivers. Six collisions during a five-year period does not constitute a pattern of underlying issues at this intersection so no remedial action is suggested.
The collision rate calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Pedestrian Safety
The five-year period was reviewed for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue for pedestrians. During the five-year study period there were no reported collisions involving pedestrians at the study intersections.
Bicyclist Safety
There were no reported collisions involving a bicyclist at any of the study intersections during the same five-year period, indicating no prevalent safety issues for bicyclists. 80 of 261
13 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Project Data
The project consists of a three-story mixed-use building with 44 dwelling units, a manager’s unit, and approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. The dwelling unit supply would be composed of 11 studios, 10 one-bedroom, 12 two-bedroom, and 11 three-bedroom apartments. The site would be accessible via two driveways, one on East Cotati Avenue and another on Charles Street, leading into the parking garage. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 2.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 for “Low-Rise Residential with Ground Floor Commercial GFA (1-25k)” (ITE LU #230). Based on application of these assumptions, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 277 trips per day, including 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 16 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 4.
Table 4 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed
Apartments w/Ground
Floor Commercial
44 du 6.30 277 0.44 19 4 15 0.36 16 11 5
Note: du = dwelling unit
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined by reviewing existing turning movements at the study intersections as well as regional knowledge of the study area. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent Daily Trips AM Trips PM Trips
To/from north via Old Redwood Hwy 30% 83 6 5
To/from south via Old Redwood Hwy 25% 69 4 4
To/from east via E Cotati Ave 30% 83 6 5
To/from west via E Cotati Ave 15% 42 3 2
TOTAL 100% 277 19 16
81 of 261
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project cot092-4.ai 2/25
Figure 2 – Site PlanSource: HKIT Architects 2/11
=
:+2
9 9
9
352-(&7'$7$
)/225 %5 $5($
6)
68%727$/
3$5.,1*
727$/
%5
%5
678',2
6)
6)
727$/81,76
727$/%8,/',1*$5($
6)
3523(57</,1(
/2%%<
3$5.,1*
63$&(6
9 (9
9$1
0$,/
%,.(50
6)
75$6+
6)
5
6(59
6)
75$6+
6)
(/(&
6)
0$,17
6)
5(7$,/
6)
3523
0*07
6)
(/(9
(;,67,1* 6,'(:$/.
/$3/$=$67
&+$5/(667
&27$7, $9(
(9(9(9(9(9(9(9
(9(9(9(9(9(9
5
SDUNLQJVSDFHV
0(&+6) 5(7$,/ 6)
7 )3803
':
*$5$*(
&
VSDFHV
&23<5,*+7
+.,7$5&+,7(&76
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
%\
5HIHUHQFH
1,17+675((768,7(2$./$1'&$
7
)
:::+.,7&20
6
/(9(/ &27$7,&200216
(&27$7,$9(&27$7,&$
$/5
758(
1257+
/(9(/
.(<127(6
(;,67,1*%866723(;,67,1*%8,/',1*9(+,&8/$5(175$1&(%,.(/$1(23(163$&(:$7(575($70(17$5($ 82 of 261
15 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Circulation System
This section addresses the first transportation bullet point on the CEQA checklist, which relates to the potential for a project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Pedestrian Facilities
Project Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of the Downtown Cotati area and Sonoma State University to the site, it is reasonable to assume that some project patrons and employees will want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit from the project site. Sidewalks exist along the project frontage. A sidewalk exists along the western and northern project frontages. There is no sidewalk on Charles Street along the project frontage. No other pedestrian paths currently exist. The project would include installation of a sidewalk on Charles Street where there currently is none and a new 10-foot-wide sidewalk along East Cotati Avenue. This would include a driveway ramp and the elimination of two to three parking spaces at each of the proposed project driveway locations. The project would improve pedestrian facilities by adding a sidewalk where none currently exists as well as expanding the width of the sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue.
Finding – The project would not conflict with any policies related to pedestrian facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
Project Impacts on Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including the Class II bicycle lane on the project frontage, together with shared use of minor streets provide adequate access for bicyclists. The site plan indicates the project would not affect existing or planned bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Storage
The project site plan does not identify the provision for short-term bicycle parking. Long-term bicycle parking would be provided by a bike room on the ground floor with capacity for 104 bicycles. The City of Cotati Municipal Code requires multifamily uses to include one bicycle parking space for every four units with at least 75 percent of the total spaces meant for long-term parking if the building includes more than 14 total units, or 11 spaces for the 44 units. The proposed supply of 104 spaces therefore exceeds City Code requirements.
Finding – The project would not conflict with applicable policies regarding bicycle facilities.
Transit Facilities
Impact on Transit Facilities
Multiple bus stops exist near the project site within acceptable walking distance, including a stop on the east side of La Plaza. Based on estimates from the City of Cotati Active Transportation Plan, 2024, four percent of City residents use public transportation. As such, current facilities are expected to be adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips.
83 of 261
16 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Finding – The project would be consistent with policies related to transit facilities.
Roadway Facilities
Impact on Roadway Facilities
The project identifies widening the sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue to ten feet wide. Currently, East Cotati Avenue has an approximate width of 71.5 feet curb to curb according to City striping and pavement marking plans. The cross sections of the existing configuration of East Cotati Avenue at the midblock and near the intersection with Charles Street are presented in Plate 1 and Plate 2.
Plate 1 Existing Cross-Section Midblock on East Cotati Avenue Plate 2 Existing Cross-Section on East Cotati Avenue at the Median Island To accommodate an additional five feet of sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue, the following changes to the existing striping are recommended,
1. Reduce the bicycle lane width to five feet;
2. Reduce the parking lane width to seven feet; and
3. Restripe the eastbound travel lane and reduce width from 12.5 to 11 feet. 84 of 261
17 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
The cross sections for the proposed reconfiguration of East Cotati Avenue at the midblock and near the intersection with Charles Street are presented in Plate 3 and Plate 4.
Plate 3 Proposed Cross-Section Mid-Block on East Cotati Avenue Plate 4 Proposed Cross-Section on East Cotati Avenue at the Median Island The sidewalks would otherwise not impact roadway facilities if built to City Standards including features such as drainage and curb dimensions.
Finding – The widening of sidewalk by the project would require restriping on East Cotati Avenue.
Recommendation – Restripe the lanes East Cotati Avenue between the two-way left-turn lane/refuge island and project frontage to accommodate a wider sidewalk along the project frontage.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would not conflict with any plans or policies for transportation facilities and would improve pedestrian access near the project site. 85 of 261
18 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) was evaluated based the project’s anticipated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Senate Bill (SB) 743 established the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of a project as the basis for determining California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts with respect to transportation and traffic.
The project-related VMT was assessed by applying the City of Cotati’s Guidelines for Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), adopted in 2020. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018, was also referenced. Per the City’s policy, VMT for mixed use projects was assessed by applying the significance threshold for each use.
Residential VMT
For residential projects, VMT is assessed using vehicle miles traveled per capita as estimated in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) travel demand model. VMT per capita measures home-based trips, or trips that have the place of residence as one of the trip ends. Based on data from the February 2022 update of the SCTA model, the City of Cotati has a baseline average residential VMT of 18.3 miles per capita. Applying the City guidelines, a residential project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 15.5 miles per capita or less, would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The SCTA model includes traffic analysis zones (TAZ) covering geographic areas throughout Sonoma County, and the Cotati Village project site is located within TAZ 433, which has a baseline VMT per capita of 14.9 miles. The residential component would therefore screen out as being presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Retail VMT
The City VMT guidelines state that a retail project is considered to have a significant VMT impact if it would result in a net increase in regional total VMT. The policy notes that local-serving retail up to 10,000 square feet would be screened from VMT analysis. The OPR guidance recommends screening local-serving retail from VMT analysis since they introduce a greater mix of services into the urban fabric, resulting in improved proximity of retail to many residents and thereby resulting in shorter trips and a reduction in total VMT. By contrast, regional-serving retail uses would tend to draw customers from longer distances, thereby increasing VMT.
The project as proposed would include approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space. Given the size of this use and the location of the site, it is expected that the retail would be local serving, as it would primarily cater to residents of the project and other existing and future residents within walking distance of the site as well as drivers traveling to Downtown Cotati. Since the proposed retail uses would be local serving, it is assumed that they would not result in an increase in total VMT and could therefore be screened from a more detailed VMT analysis.
Significance Finding – The project would screen out from quantitative analysis and is presumed to have a lessthan-significant impact on VMT. 86 of 261
19 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Safety Issues
The potential for the project to impact safety was evaluated in terms of the adequacy of sight distance and need for turn lanes at the project access as well as the adequacy of stacking space in dedicated turn lanes at the study intersections to accommodate additional queuing due to adding project-generated trips and need for additional right-of-way controls. This section addresses the third transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist which is whether or not the project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Site Access
The project as proposed would be accessed via two new driveways, including one on East Cotati Avenue and one on Charles Street. Both are proposed with full access, with the one on East Cotati Avenue having the benefit of the existing two-way left-turn lane. Per staff’s request, potential alternative access schemes that include eliminating one or the other driveway and/or limiting movements at the East Cotati Avenue driveway were evaluated.
Sight Distance
Sight distance along East Cotati Avenue at the project driveway was evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. There is no recommended sight distance for urban driveways; however, stopping sight distance was evaluated for safety reasons, with the approach travel speeds used as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Additionally, the stopping sight distance needed for a following driver to stop if there is a vehicle waiting to turn into a side street or driveway was evaluated based on stopping sight distance criterion and the approach speed on the major street. Based on a design speed of 30 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 200 feet. Based on field measurements, drivers traveling east have 200 feet or more of sight distance to vehicles slowing to turn into the project driveway.
Stopping sight distance is not applicable to westbound traffic as vehicles turning left into the project driveway could use the two-way left-turn lane on East Cotati Avenue. Sight distance would therefore be adequate to allow all movements at the driveway, though parked vehicles could impede sight lines. Parking should therefore be prohibited within 25 feet of the driveway if egress at this location is permitted.
Though Charles Street has no posted speed limit, it has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph as a local residential street. The stopping sight distance for vehicles traveling north is greater than the 150 feet minimum. For vehicles traveling south on Charles Street, the available stopping sight distance of approximately 125 feet would be adequate due to vehicles approaching at a lower speed after making the turn onto Charles.
Lane Merge
Eastbound traffic on East Cotati Avenue merges from two lanes at Old Redwood Highway to one lane at La Plaza.
While the merge is proximate to the project site, vehicles must enter a single lane prior to reaching the project’s frontage and the proposed driveway location. As a result, drivers approaching the proposed driveway location would typically be focusing on the road ahead of them rather than looking to the side for merging traffic. Given that the merge would be complete prior to driveway, the driveway can reasonably be expected to operate acceptably and in a manner similar to that of nearby driveways on both sides of the street.
It is noted that staff has indicated a preference for limiting access to right-turns in and out. However, to ensure that turns are eliminated typically requires physical measures such as a median or delineators and such devices would affect turns in both directions, effectively eliminating left turns into and out of the properties on the north side of East Cotati Avenue as well. Given the lack of a demonstrated need to prohibit left turns, this approach is not recommended.
87 of 261
20 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Increased Volumes
Consideration was also given to the volume of traffic that would be added to Charles Street by the project. While it is generally a local residential street, most of the traffic associated with the project would be due to residents, so consistent with the use of the roadway. It is noted that volumes on Charles Street exceed what would be expected given the development served, likely due to drivers bypassing the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway. The use of the road by drivers who should not be using the street should not, however, negate the rights of a property owner to access a site along the street, such as the proposed project.
Recommended Access Scheme
Based on the evaluation performed, it is anticipated that both proposed driveways can reasonably be expected to operate acceptably with full access, similar to other driveways on the two fronting streets. By allowing access to both streets the volume of project traffic will be spread between the two streets, thereby having a lesser effect on either. There does not appear to be a nexus for limiting access at the East Cotati Avenue driveway as the location is beyond the end of the merge from two lanes to one, so would not be affected by this movement.
Queuing
The City of Cotati does not prescribe thresholds of significance regarding queue lengths for unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, the City identifies only those wherein the queue length would extend into upstream signalized intersections, an inapplicable standard for the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway due to all nearby intersections being unsignalized. However, an increase in queue length due to project traffic was considered a potentially significant impact if the increase would cause the queue to extend out of a dedicated turn lane into a through traffic lane, or the back of queue into a visually restricted area, such as a blind corner. If queues would already be expected to extend past a dedicated turn lane or into a visually restricted area without project traffic, the addition of project traffic was considered to constitute a potentially significant impact only if it would cause a new unacceptable condition; in other words, if the queue were already beyond the turn lane and the project would cause it to stack into an adjacent intersection or a visually restricted area, and that would not occur without the project, that would be considered an impact.
Under each scenario, the 95th percentile queue length projected by Synchro was used for signalized intersections.
Queues for unsignalized intersections were calculated using the methodology published in the ITE Journal, “Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections,” John T. Gard, 2001. Summarized in Table 6 are the predicted queue lengths for the study intersections with turning lanes. Copies of the Synchro projections and unsignalized intersection queue calculations are contained in Appendix B. 88 of 261
21 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Table 6 – Maximum Queues in Dedicated Left-Turn Lanes
Study Intersection
Turn Lane
Available
Storage
Maximum Queues
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
E E+P F F+P E E+P F F+P
E. Cotati Ave/ORH
NB Left turn 95 21 16 16 16 21 21 23 23
SB Left turn 290 149 157 239 239 215 218 261 262
EB Left turn 160 87 84 84 84 114 114 118 118
E. Cotati Ave/Charles St
WB Left turn 280 100 125 150 150 75 75 100 125
Notes: Maximum Queue based on the Synchro HCM6 Queueing; all distances are measured in feet; E = Existing Conditions; E+P = Existing plus Project Conditions; F = Future Conditions; F+P = Future plus Project Conditions Queues would not exceed storage capacity at the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway with or without project volumes under for any scenario evaluated.
Finding – The project does not cause any queues to exceed available storage, so the impact is considered lessthan-significant.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would not create any new hazards or introduce incompatible uses to the roadway system, so its impact on safety would be less than significant. 89 of 261
22 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Emergency Access
The final transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist requires an evaluation as to whether the project would result in inadequate emergency access or not.
Adequacy of Site Access
Three sides of the project would be accessible to emergency vehicles via the surrounding street network, including East Cotati Avenue, La Plaza, and Charles Street. According to the site plan, the driveways and drive aisles would be designed to a minimum width of 25 feet. The addition of sidewalk and parking on Charles Street would not reduce available space to the point where emergency vehicles such as fire trucks could not access the site. It is anticipated that all aspects of the site would be constructed in accordance with applicable standards and would be reviewed by the Fire Department; therefore, access would be expected to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles.
Off-Site Impacts
While the project would be expected to result in a minor increase in delay for traffic on East Cotati Avenue or Charles Street, emergency response vehicles can claim the right-of-way by using their lights and sirens; therefore, the project would be expected to have a nominal effect on emergency response times.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles and would not impede emergency responders, resulting in a less-than-significant impact on emergency response. 90 of 261
23 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2010. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for individual movements together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.
The study intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway is controlled by a traffic signal so was evaluated using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using signal timing obtained from the City of Cotati. The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 7.
Table 7 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily available for drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive
during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are
somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but
no queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to
stop.
C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic are less frequent, and drivers may approach while
another vehicle is already waiting to exit the side
street.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or two vehicles on the side street.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of
congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to
stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in
traffic are available, and longer queues may form on
the side street.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles
must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait for
long periods before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets, creating long queues.
Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait
through more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 91 of 261
24 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Traffic Operation Standards
According to the Cotati General Plan, Policy C1 1.3, the minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard for intersections is LOS D. At unsignalized intersections, levels of service shall be determined for both controlled movements and for the intersection overall. An adverse traffic-related effect would occur if implementation of the project would cause an intersection to operate below the General Plan’s standard of LOS D, or LOS E for intersections within the boundaries of the Downtown Cotati Specific Plan, which includes the project site and study intersections.
At unsignalized intersections, controlled movements operating at LOS E or LOS F are allowable if
1. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or better overall, and
2. The projected traffic volume on the controlled movement is 30 vehicles or less per hour on approaches with single lanes, or on multi-lane approaches, 30 vehicles or less per hour on lanes serving left turns and through movements.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections are operating at an overall LOS of C or higher. While the northbound approach of Charles Street currently operates at LOS E during the evening peak hour, this is acceptable as the site is within the Downtown Cotati Specific Plan area. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is contained in Table 8, and copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Table 8 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Cotati Ave/Old Redwood Hwy/ 26.7 C 22.8 C
2. E. Cotati Ave/La Plaza 0.1 A 0.2 A
Northbound (La Plaza) Approach 10.2 B 11.8 B
Southbound (La Plaza) Approach 15.4 C 12.0 B
3. E. Cotati Ave/Charles St 2.0 A 4.7 A
Northbound (Charles St) Approach 15.2 C 37.5 E
Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Future Conditions
Segment volumes for the horizon year of 2040 were obtained from the County’s gravity demand model and translated to turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections using a combination of the “Furness” method and factoring, depending on how the model was configured at each intersection. The Furness method is an iterative process that employs existing turn movement data, existing link volumes and future link volumes to project likely turning future movement volumes at intersections. Segment growth rates for La Plaza and Charles 92 of 261
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project cot092-4.ai 2/25
North
Not to Scale
Old Redwood Hwy
E Cotati Ave
Arthur St
Charles St
La Plaza
1 2
3 Project Site
Figure 3 – Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
24(9)795(542)
(876)552
2(4)
(21)9
2 Existing
820(549)179(89)
(7)5
(888)554
(2)1
(191)110
3 Existing
480(565)380(270)
(4)3
(357)303
(82)64
44(66)
341(344)
578(660)
(13)8
(401)323
(107)31
1 Future
412(313)377(232)
(4)3
(350)226
(82)64
44(66)
285(344)
322(519)
(13)8
(357)323
(10)1
1 Existing
27(11)940(859)
(1118)915
2(5)
(28)10
2 Future
960(850)205(135)
(63)37
(1107)894
(17)5
(218)133
3 Future
93 of 261
26 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Street were developed based on those for East Cotati Avenue due to the County model lacking values for minor streets in the gravity demand model.
Under the anticipated future volumes, the unsignalized study intersections are expected to operate similarly though with an increase in delay and the controlled approaches experiencing deterioration in LOS. The signalized intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway would be expected to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Future volumes are shown in Figure 3 and operating conditions are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9 – Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Cotati Ave/Old Redwood Hwy 32.6 C 58.0 E
2. E. Cotati Ave/La Plaza 0.1 A 0.2 A
Northbound (La Plaza) Approach 11.7 B 13.1 B
Southbound (La Plaza) Approach 16.6 C 15.4 C
3. E. Cotati Ave/Charles St 2.8 A 12.9 B
Northbound (Charles St) Approach 27.1 D 123.3 F
Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation Operation at the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway would deteriorate from LOS C to LOS E; however, because the intersection lies within the Downtown Cotati Specific Plan area, this would be considered acceptable. The controlled northbound approach of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F with future volumes, resulting in unacceptable operation per the City’s standards. It is noted that the delay is associated primarily with the 17 left turns; prohibition of left turns at this location would decrease delay but the approach would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. The City may wish to monitor this location as volumes increase to determine when the left-turn prohibition should be implemented. It is noted that the right-turning volume on this approach results from northbound drivers on Old Redwood Highway bypassing the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway. Should future volumes meet projections and delay increase as projected, drivers may cease use of Charles Street if it results in longer travel times.
Project Conditions
Existing plus Project Conditions
Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same service levels though with some increase in delay at each intersection. These results are summarized in Table 10. 94 of 261
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project cot092-4.ai 2/25
North
Not to Scale
Old Redwood Hwy
E Cotati Ave
Arthur St
Charles St
La Plaza
1 2
3 Project Site
Figure 4 – Project Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
6(2)
(5)2
2 1(3)
(2)5
(2)6
(191)110
3 4(1)
2(1)
(2)1
1(3)
1 95 of 261
28 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Table 10 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Cotati Ave/Old Redwood Hwy 26.7 C 22.8 C 24.3 C 23.0 C
2. E. Cotati Ave/La Plaza 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A
Northbound (La Plaza) Approach 10.2 B 11.8 B 10.2 B 11.8 B Southbound (La Plaza) Approach 15.4 C 12.0 B 15.5 C 12.0 B
3. E. Cotati Ave/Charles St 2.0 A 4.7 A 2.3 A 5.0 A
Northbound (Charles St) Approach 15.2 C 37.5 E 17.0 C 38.9 E Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
It should be noted that with the addition of project-related traffic volumes, average delay at the intersection of East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway decreases during the a.m. peak hour. While this is counter-intuitive, this condition occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and lower overall average delay. The project adds traffic predominantly to the westbound right-turn movement, which has an average delay that is lower than the average for the intersection as a whole, resulting in a slight reduction in the overall average delay. The conclusion could incorrectly be drawn that the project actually improves operation based on this data alone; however, it is more appropriate to conclude that the project trips are expected to make use of excess capacity, so drivers will experience little, if any, change in conditions as a result of the project.
Finding – The study intersections would continue operating acceptably upon adding project-generated trips to existing volumes.
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated future volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate similarly, with no further deterioration in LOS. The Future plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 11.
Table 11 – Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Future Conditions Future plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Cotati Ave/Old Redwood Hwy 32.6 C 58.0 E 33.1 C 58.3 E
2. E. Cotati Ave/La Plaza 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A
Northbound (La Plaza) Approach 11.7 B 13.1 B 11.7 B 13.1 B Southbound (La Plaza) Approach 16.6 C 15.4 C 16.7 C 15.4 C
3. E. Cotati Ave/Charles St 2.8 A 12.9 B 3.1 A 13.5 B
Northbound (Charles St) Approach 27.1 D 123.3 F 31.1 D 129.5 F Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation 96 of 261
29 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
The northbound approach of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak period without or with project volumes. Project volumes would, however, increase the average delay by 6.2 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. As noted for Future Conditions, prohibiting left turns from Charles Street would decrease delay but not improve LOS to an acceptable level.
Finding – The project would not cause intersection delay to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS E or F and therefore would not have an adverse effect on operation based on City policy, though delay would increase. 97 of 261
30 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Parking
The project was analyzed to determine whether the proposed parking supply would be sufficient for the anticipated parking demand. The project site as proposed would include a garage on the first floor with a total of 54 standard parking spaces. For on-street parking, two to three spaces would be removed on both East Cotati Avenue and Charles Street to accommodate the project driveways. Four on-street parking spaces on Charles Street would be formalized through the construction of the sidewalk, resulting in a net loss of zero to two on-street parking spaces.
Parking supply requirements are based on the Downtown Cotati Specific Plan, 2009. Based on the project’s different uses, the site would require 100 spaces. However, the project qualifies for California Government Code 65915, also known as the State Density Bonus Law, and as such the requirement is a maximum of one space per studio or onebedroom unit, one and one-half spaces per two- and three-bedroom units, and no parking minimum for retail. In addition, the project would be entitled to a reduced number of required parking spaces based on Assembly Bill 2162. Based on application of these various policies, a total of 42 parking spaces would be required, which is 12 spaces less than the supply as proposed.
The proposed parking supply and City requirements are shown in Table 12.
Table 12 – Parking Analysis Summary
Land Use Units Supply
(spaces)
City Requirements State Density Bonus
Law
AB 2162
Rate Spaces
Required
Rate Spaces
Required
Rate Spaces
Required
Studio & 1 bdr 21 du 54 2.0 spaces
per unit
42 1.0 spaces
per unit
21 1.0 spaces
per unit*
13 2 bdr & 3 bdr 23 du 0 2.0 spaces
per unit
26 1.5 spaces
per unit
35 1.5 spaces
per unit*
29 Retail 3.85 ksf 0 3.0 spaces
per 1.0 ksf
12 n/a 0 n/a 0
Total 54 100 56 42
Note: *12 supportive units do not require parking; du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet While parking for the retail component is not required, it is noted that residential and retail parking can both be served by the same supply during much of the time as residents are typically not at home during the day when retail activity is at its peak. To achieve the most efficient use of the proposed parking supply, consideration should be given to not assigning any parking spaces to individual units. This would be expected to make parking spaces available for retail use.
The site plan shows that out of the 54 spaces proposed for residential use, there would be four accessible stalls and thirteen EV stalls. The City of Cotati Municipal Code, Chapter 21.28; Parking and Loading, requires that parking spaces for the disabled must be provided in compliance with the uniform building code and the Federal Accessibility Guidelines. Based on requirements stipulated by the Federal Accessibility Guidelines, the required number of accessible stalls is three stalls for the residential portion of the project. The proposed accessible stall supply is adequate to meet this requirement.
98 of 261
31 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
City parking stall sizes are based on the City of Cotati Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36; Parking and Loading. Required parking stall sizes for the City of Cotati are 9 feet by 18 feet. According to the site plan, regular parking stall sizes as proposed would be approximately 9 feet by 20 feet, which would meet the City’s requirement.
Finding – The proposed parking supply would be adequate based on the State Density Bonus Law and its inclusion of supportive units.
99 of 261
32 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• Existing pedestrian facilities would be enhanced through the improvement of sidewalks on East Cotati Avenue and the addition of sidewalk on Charles Street.
• The project would not affect bicycle right-of-way for either existing or planned bicycle facilities. Sufficient bicycle parking would be provided based on City Code.
• The project would not conflict with any policies regarding transportation facilities and thus would have a lessthan-significant impact on these facilities. • Roadway facilities would not be impacted by the addition and improvement of sidewalk on East Cotati Avenue. Restriping on East Cotati Avenue would be required to accommodate the wider sidewalk proposed as part of the project.
• Based on a five-year study period, two of the three study intersections had collision rates lower than the statewide average. The one location with an above-average crash rate had a pattern of rear-end crashes, three out of four of them occurred on the stop-controlled northbound approach, so no remedial action appears necessary. No crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists were reported during the study period. • The project as proposed is expected to generate an average of 277 new daily trips with 19 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 16 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. • The project would screen out from quantitative analysis and is therefore presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact on VMT. • Sight lines at the project driveways on East Cotati Avenue and Charles Street are adequate. • The project would not cause any queues to exceed available stacking space, so the project’s impact on safety would be less than significant.
• Assuming it is designed to meet applicable codes and policies, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact on emergency response. • The study intersections are currently operating acceptably. The project would not cause study intersections’ service level to decrease due to adding project-generated trips to existing volumes. • The northbound approach of East Cotati Avenue/Charles Street would experience increases in delay and deterioration of LOS under future volumes. The addition of project-generated trips would not cause the service level to decrease at any of the study intersections to an unacceptable level. • Based on the State Density Bonus Law and the inclusion of supportive units, the proposed parking supply is sufficient.
Recommendations
• Reconfigure East Cotati Avenue to accommodate the additional sidewalk width. 100 of 261
33 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
• The City may wish to consider prohibiting left turns from Charles Street to East Cotati Avenue in the future if volumes reach the level projected by the model.
• Consideration should be given to having no spaces designated for specific users to make more efficient use of the parking supply.
101 of 261
34 Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 3, 2025
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge Dalene J. Whitlock, PE (Civil, Traffic), PTOE Assistant Engineer Gabriel Ramos, EIT
Graphics Jessica Bender
Editing/Formatting Rebecca Mansour
Quality Control Dalene J. Whitlock, PE (Civil, Traffic), PTOE References
“Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections,” ITE Journal, John T. Gard, November 2001 2022 Crash Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2024 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways Revision 6, California Department of Transportation, 2021
City of Cotati Active Transportation Plan, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2024 Cotati Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2014 Cotati General Plan, De Novo Planning Group, 2015
Cotati Hotel Project Transportation Impact Analysis, TJKM, 2019 Cotati Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company, 2017
Downtown Cotati Specific Plan, City of Cotati, 2009
Golden Gate Transit, http://goldengatetransit.org/schedules/current/ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, California Department of Transportation, 2002 Guidelines for Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), City of Cotati, 2020 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2020 Intersection Channelization Design Guide, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 279, Transportation Research Board, 1985
Method for Prioritizing Intersection Improvements, Washington State Transportation Center, 1997 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021
Sonoma County Transit, http://sctransit.com/
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/ Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2020-2024 Traffic Impact Fee Study, W-Trans, 2015
Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021 COT092
102 of 261
A Transportation Impact Study for the East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 2025
Appendix A
Collision Rate Calculations
103 of 261
104 of 261
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 9
Number of Injuries: 4
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 22900
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
9 x
22,900 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.22 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.33 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2022 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 3
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 14600
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
3 x
14,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.11 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.20 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2022 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans East Cotati Avenue Residential Project
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
47.5%
Number of Collisions x 1 Million Collision Rate =
1:
Collision Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
January 1, 2020
December 31, 2024
Intersection # Old Redwoody Hwy & E Cotati Ave
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
E Cotati Ave & La Plaza
47.7%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection January 1, 2020
365
Intersection #
December 31, 2024
Collision Rate =
365
2:
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.6%
Collision Rate =
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
44.4%
1,000,000
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
0.0%
0.0%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
0.0%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
1.1%
W-Trans
3/13/2025
105 of 261
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 6
Number of Injuries: 4
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 17300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
6 x
17,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.19 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.13 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2022 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
47.3%
365
Collision Rate
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Injury Rate
0.0%
East Cotati Avenue Residential Project
January 1, 2020
3: E Cotati Ave & Charles St
Collision Rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
December 31, 2024
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
1.3%
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
66.7%
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
W-Trans
3/13/2025
106 of 261
B Transportation Impact Study/Analysis for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 2025
Appendix B
Queueing Calculations
107 of 261
108 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
1. Existing AM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 243 3 408 443 9 348 346 353
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.32 0.00 0.78 0.59 0.04 0.44 0.58 0.70
Control Delay 39.7 16.0 0.0 36.8 6.5 37.2 27.2 34.6 31.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 16.0 0.0 36.8 6.5 37.2 27.2 34.6 31.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 62 0 159 0 4 70 73 138
Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 162 0 #379 76 21 128 149 243
Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 232 1155 968 795 901 414 1625 992 966 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.21 0.00 0.51 0.49 0.02 0.21 0.35 0.37 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
109 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
2. Existing PM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 361 4 242 323 13 378 535 423
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.52 0.01 0.56 0.54 0.10 0.50 0.79 0.51
Control Delay 59.5 17.5 0.0 25.4 6.5 30.9 22.3 35.4 14.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.5 17.5 0.0 25.4 6.5 30.9 22.3 35.4 14.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 88 0 70 0 4 58 87 85
Queue Length 95th (ft) #114 189 0 151 56 21 103 #215 223 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 126 897 807 628 726 126 1259 673 887 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.40 0.00 0.39 0.44 0.10 0.30 0.79 0.48 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
110 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
3. Future AM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 303 3 383 480 8 354 578 387
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.00 0.71 0.65 0.06 0.49 0.87 0.48
Control Delay 47.5 15.3 0.0 29.2 8.6 30.8 22.9 42.7 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.5 15.3 0.0 29.2 8.6 30.8 22.9 42.7 15.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 71 0 121 15 3 60 109 96
Queue Length 95th (ft) #84 156 0 #276 104 16 94 #239 202 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 124 885 798 622 786 124 1235 664 872 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.34 0.00 0.62 0.61 0.06 0.29 0.87 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
111 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
4. Future PM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 357 4 273 565 13 508 660 413
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.53 0.01 0.61 0.81 0.12 0.64 0.84 0.46
Control Delay 77.8 20.5 0.0 29.3 17.3 35.8 25.4 38.7 14.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 77.8 20.5 0.0 29.3 17.3 35.8 25.4 38.7 14.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 112 0 99 44 5 92 137 98
Queue Length 95th (ft) #118 203 0 182 #221 23 143 #261 220 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 108 796 726 566 763 108 1070 786 910 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.45 0.01 0.48 0.74 0.12 0.47 0.84 0.45 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
112 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
5. Existing plus Project AM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 244 3 411 447 9 348 347 352
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.31 0.00 0.71 0.62 0.06 0.45 0.85 0.49
Control Delay 42.7 11.6 0.0 25.8 8.9 28.0 20.6 49.8 16.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.7 11.6 0.0 25.8 8.9 28.0 20.6 49.8 16.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 44 0 112 22 3 55 60 84
Queue Length 95th (ft) #84 110 0 #272 111 16 86 #157 184 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 139 995 854 698 790 139 1400 407 796 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.59 0.57 0.06 0.25 0.85 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
113 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
6. Existing plus Project PM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 363 4 243 324 13 378 538 424
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.52 0.01 0.56 0.54 0.10 0.50 0.80 0.51
Control Delay 59.5 17.5 0.0 25.4 6.5 30.9 22.3 35.7 14.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.5 17.5 0.0 25.4 6.5 30.9 22.3 35.7 14.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 88 0 70 0 4 58 88 86
Queue Length 95th (ft) #114 190 0 152 55 21 103 #218 224 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 126 897 807 627 727 126 1259 673 886 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.40 0.00 0.39 0.45 0.10 0.30 0.80 0.48 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
114 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
7. Future plus Project AM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 304 3 385 484 8 354 579 387
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.00 0.72 0.66 0.06 0.49 0.87 0.48
Control Delay 47.6 15.3 0.0 29.3 8.8 30.8 22.9 43.0 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.6 15.3 0.0 29.3 8.8 30.8 22.9 43.0 15.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 71 0 122 17 3 60 110 96
Queue Length 95th (ft) #84 157 0 #277 108 16 94 #239 202 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 124 884 797 621 786 124 1234 664 871 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.34 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.06 0.29 0.87 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
115 of 261
Queues
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/19/2025
8. Future plus Project PM Synchro 11 Report
Transportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 359 4 274 566 13 508 663 413
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.53 0.01 0.61 0.82 0.12 0.64 0.84 0.46
Control Delay 78.3 20.5 0.0 29.3 17.4 35.8 25.4 38.9 14.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.3 20.5 0.0 29.3 17.4 35.8 25.4 38.9 14.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 113 0 99 45 5 92 138 98
Queue Length 95th (ft) #118 205 0 183 #222 23 143 #262 220 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 194 945 784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 145 200 95 290
Base Capacity (vph) 107 795 725 565 762 107 1069 785 909 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.45 0.01 0.48 0.74 0.12 0.48 0.84 0.45 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
116 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Existing AM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
554
Eastbound
820
5 179 Northbound
1 0 110
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 4
1 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
117 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Existing PM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
888
Eastbound
549
7 89 Northbound
2 0 191
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 3
1 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
118 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Future AM
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
894
Eastbound
960
37 205 Northbound
5 0 133
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 6
2 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
119 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Future PM
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
1107
Eastbound
850
63 135 Northbound
17 0 218
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 4
2 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
120 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Existing plus Project AM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
559
Eastbound
820
5 180 Northbound
7 0 110
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 5
2 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
121 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Existing plus Project PM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
890
Eastbound
549
7 92 Northbound
4 0 191
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 3
1 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
122 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Future plus Project AM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
899
Eastbound
960
37 206 Northbound
11 0 133
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 6
2 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
123 of 261
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: East Cotati Avenue Scenario: Future plus Project PM Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 30 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Charles Street Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
0 0
East Cotati Avenue
0 Westbound
East Cotati Avenue
0 0
1109
Eastbound
850
63 138 Northbound
19 0 218
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
#NUM! 0
0 Westbound
- -
- 5
2 0
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 East Cotati AvenueEast Cotati Avenue
- -
124 of 261
C Transportation Impact Study for the East Cotati Avenue Residential Project April 2025
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
125 of 261
126 of 261
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20251. Existing AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 64 226 3 3 377 412 8 323 1 322 285 44Future Volume (veh/h) 64 226 3 3 377 412 8 323 1 322 285 44Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 243 3 3 405 443 9 347 1 346 306 47Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 147 858 705 50 610 499 194 876 3 440 406 62Arrive On Green 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.26Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1537 3 1866 1525 1781 3634 10 3456 1568 241Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 243 3 408 0 443 9 170 178 346 0 353Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1537 1869 0 1525 1781 1777 1868 1728 0 1809Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.3 5.9 5.9 7.1 0.0 13.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 5.9 0.1 13.8 0.0 20.2 0.3 5.9 5.9 7.1 0.0 13.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 147 858 705 661 0 499 194 428 450 440 0 469V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.28 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.89 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.75Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 1015 834 747 0 570 364 712 749 872 0 821HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 12.4 10.8 21.2 0.0 23.4 29.3 23.4 23.4 31.0 0.0 25.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.9Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.2 2.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 8.7 0.1 2.4 2.5 3.0 0.0 5.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 12.4 10.8 22.0 0.0 36.7 29.3 23.6 23.6 32.2 0.0 25.9LnGrp LOS C B B C A D CCCCACApproach Vol, veh/h 315 851 357 699Approach Delay, s/veh 16.9 29.7 23.7 29.1Approach LOS B C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.5 23.6 9.6 28.6 12.8 22.3 38.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 4.6 3.5 4.6 * 4.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 33 8.4 27.4 18.5 29.4 * 40Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 15.2 4.7 22.2 9.1 7.9 7.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.5Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 2010 TWSC2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20251. Existing AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 552 0 0 795 24 0 0 9 0 0 2Future Vol, veh/h 0 552 0 0 795 24 0 0 9 0 0 2Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 600 0 0 864 26 0 0 10 0 0 2Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 300 - - 877 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 697 0 0 347 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 697 - - 347Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.2 15.4HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 697 - - - 347HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.006HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - - 15.4HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 127 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20251. Existing AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 554 5 179 820 1 110Future Vol, veh/h 554 5 179 820 1 110Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 596 5 192 882 1 118Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 612 0 1887 620 Stage 1 - - - - 610 - Stage 2 - - - - 1277 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 967 - 77 488 Stage 1 - - - - 542 - Stage 2 - - - - 262 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 958 - 61 479Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 158 - Stage 1 - - - - 537 - Stage 2 - - - - 208 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 15.2HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 470 - - 958 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.254 - - 0.201 -HCM Control Delay (s) 15.2 - - 9.7 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.7 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20252. Existing PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 82 350 4 3 232 313 13 357 10 519 344 66Future Volume (veh/h) 82 350 4 3 232 313 13 357 10 519 344 66Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 361 4 3 239 323 13 368 10 535 355 68Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 108 757 621 65 511 416 23 711 19 642 565 108Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1535 5 1861 1517 1781 3530 96 3456 1511 290Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 361 4 242 0 323 13 185 193 535 0 423Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1535 1866 0 1517 1781 1777 1849 1728 0 1801Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 8.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.4 5.3 5.4 8.6 0.0 11.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 8.2 0.1 6.2 0.0 11.3 0.4 5.3 5.4 8.6 0.0 11.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 757 621 575 0 416 23 358 373 642 0 674V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.48 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.78 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.83 0.00 0.63Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 876 719 678 0 500 124 617 642 660 0 844HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 12.7 10.2 17.4 0.0 19.3 28.3 20.5 20.5 22.6 0.0 14.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.3 19.4 1.2 1.1 8.8 0.0 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.8 3.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.4 0.3 2.2 2.3 4.1 0.0 4.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 13.1 10.2 17.9 0.0 25.5 47.6 21.7 21.6 31.5 0.0 15.7LnGrp LOS D B B B A C DCCCABApproach Vol, veh/h 450 565 391 958Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 22.3 22.5 24.5Approach LOS C C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.3 4.8 25.6 7.5 19.8 14.7 15.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 4.0 27.0 4.0 19.0 11.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 2.4 13.1 4.7 13.3 10.6 7.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.8HCM 6th LOS C 128 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20252. Existing PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 876 0 0 542 9 0 0 21 0 0 4Future Vol, veh/h 0 876 0 0 542 9 0 0 21 0 0 4Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - -0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 92Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 913 0 0 565 9 0 0 22 0 0 4Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 457 - - 570 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 551 0 0 520 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 551 - - 520Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.8 12HCM LOS B BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 551 - - - 520HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - - 0.008HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - - - 12HCM Lane LOS B - - - BHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0 HCM 2010 TWSC3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20252. Existing PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 4.7Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 888 7 89 549 2 191Future Vol, veh/h 888 7 89 549 2 191Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 935 7 94 578 2 201Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 953 0 1727 960 Stage 1 - - - - 950 - Stage 2 - - - - 777 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 721 - 97 311 Stage 1 - - - - 376 - Stage 2 - - - - 453 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 714 - 83 306Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 212 - Stage 1 - - - - 373 - Stage 2 - - - - 390 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 37.5HCM LOS EMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 305 - - 714 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.666 - - 0.131 -HCM Control Delay (s) 37.5 - - 10.8 -HCM Lane LOS E - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.4 - - 0.5 - 129 of 261
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20253. Future AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 64 303 3 3 380 480 8 323 31 578 341 44Future Volume (veh/h) 64 303 3 3 380 480 8 323 31 578 341 44Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 303 3 3 380 480 8 323 31 578 341 46Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 81 797 654 61 587 480 15 630 60 630 587 79Arrive On Green 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1536 3 1865 1524 1781 3266 311 3456 1602 216Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 303 3 383 0 480 8 174 180 578 0 387Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1536 1868 0 1524 1781 1777 1800 1728 0 1818Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 6.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.3 5.3 5.4 9.9 0.0 10.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 6.7 0.1 10.7 0.0 19.0 0.3 5.3 5.4 9.9 0.0 10.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.12Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 797 654 648 0 480 15 343 347 630 0 667V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.38 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.00 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.92 0.00 0.58Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 837 687 648 0 480 118 589 596 630 0 813HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 11.9 10.0 17.8 0.0 20.7 29.8 21.8 21.8 24.2 0.0 15.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 41.3 27.2 1.2 1.2 18.5 0.0 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.3 2.5 0.0 4.4 0.0 11.7 0.2 2.2 2.3 5.5 0.0 4.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.6 12.2 10.0 19.3 0.0 62.0 57.0 23.0 23.0 42.8 0.0 16.2LnGrp LOS D B A B A F E C C D A BApproach Vol, veh/h 370 863 362 965Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 43.0 23.8 32.1Approach LOS B D C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 4.5 26.1 6.7 23.0 15.0 15.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 4.0 27.0 4.0 19.0 11.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 2.3 12.3 4.1 21.0 11.9 7.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.6HCM 6th LOS C HCM 2010 TWSC2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20253. Future AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 915 0 0 940 27 0 0 10002Future Vol, veh/h 0 915 0 0 940 27 0 0 10 0 0 2Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 915 0 0 940 27 0 0 10 0 0 2Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 458 - - 954 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 551 0 0 313 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 551 - - 313Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.7 16.6HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 551 - - - 313HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - - 0.006HCM Control Delay (s) 11.7 - - - 16.6HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0 130 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20253. Future AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 894 37 205 960 5 133Future Vol, veh/h 894 37 205 960 5 133Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 894 37 205 960 5 133Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 942 0 2305 934 Stage 1 - - - - 924 - Stage 2 - - - - 1381 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 728 - 42 322 Stage 1 - - - - 387 - Stage 2 - - - - 233 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 721 - 30 316Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 117 - Stage 1 - - - - 384 - Stage 2 - - - - 165 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 2.1 27.1HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 298 - - 721 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.463 - - 0.284 -HCM Control Delay (s) 27.1 - - 12 -HCM Lane LOS D - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.3 - - 1.2 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20254. Future PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 82 357 4 3 270 565 13 401 107 660 344 66Future Volume (veh/h) 82 357 4 3 270 565 13 401 107 660 344 66Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 357 4 3 270 565 13 401 107 660 344 69Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 101 745 611 53 530 432 23 600 158 737 627 126Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.42 0.42Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1534 4 1863 1519 1781 2759 727 3456 1499 301Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 357 4 273 0 565 13 256 252 660 0 413Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1534 1867 0 1519 1781 1777 1709 1728 0 1799Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 10.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.5 9.3 9.5 13.1 0.0 12.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 10.0 0.1 8.6 0.0 20.0 0.5 9.3 9.5 13.1 0.0 12.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 745 611 583 0 432 23 387 372 737 0 752V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.48 0.01 0.47 0.00 1.31 0.57 0.66 0.68 0.89 0.00 0.55Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 745 611 583 0 432 101 506 486 737 0 794HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 15.7 12.8 21.1 0.0 25.1 34.5 25.1 25.2 26.9 0.0 15.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 154.1 20.7 2.1 2.4 13.5 0.0 0.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 4.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 25.3 0.3 4.0 4.0 6.6 0.0 4.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.6 16.2 12.8 21.7 0.0 179.2 55.2 27.2 27.7 40.4 0.0 16.2LnGrp LOS E B B C A F E C C D A BApproach Vol, veh/h 443 838 521 1073Approach Delay, s/veh 26.1 127.9 28.1 31.1Approach LOS C F C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.0 4.9 33.4 8.0 24.0 19.0 19.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 4.0 31.0 4.0 20.0 15.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 2.5 14.2 5.2 22.0 15.1 11.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 58.0HCM 6th LOS E 131 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20254. Future PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 1118 0 0 859 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Future Vol, veh/h 0 1118 0 0 859 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - -0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 1118 0 0 859 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 559 - - 865 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 473 0 0 352 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 473 - - 352Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.1 15.4HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 473 - - - 352HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - - 0.014HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - - - 15.4HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0 HCM 2010 TWSC3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20254. Future PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 12.9Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1107 63 135 850 17 218Future Vol, veh/h 1107 63 135 850 17 218Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 1107 63 135 850 17 218Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1181 0 2281 1160 Stage 1 - - - - 1150 - Stage 2 - - - - 1131 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 591 - 44 238 Stage 1 - - - - 302 - Stage 2 - - - - 308 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 586 - 33 234Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 135 - Stage 1 - - - - 299 - Stage 2 - - - - 235 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 123.3HCM LOS FMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 222 - - 586 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.059 - - 0.23 -HCM Control Delay (s) 123.3 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 10.2 - - 0.9 - 132 of 261
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20255. Existing plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 64 227 3 3 379 416 8 323 1 323 285 44Future Volume (veh/h) 64 227 3 3 379 416 8 323 1 323 285 44Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 244 3 3 408 447 9 347 1 347 306 46Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 86 864 710 69 631 517 17 728 2 389 478 72Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.30 0.30Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1537 3 1866 1527 1781 3634 10 3456 1575 237Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 244 3 411 0 447 9 170 178 347 0 352Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1537 1869 0 1527 1781 1777 1868 1728 0 1811Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.3 4.5 4.5 5.3 0.0 9.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 4.3 0.1 9.9 0.0 14.6 0.3 4.5 4.5 5.3 0.0 9.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 864 710 700 0 517 17 356 374 389 0 550V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.28 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.87 0.54 0.48 0.48 0.89 0.00 0.64Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 948 779 734 0 544 134 667 701 389 0 748HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 8.9 7.7 14.9 0.0 16.5 26.3 18.8 18.8 23.3 0.0 16.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.7 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 13.2 24.5 1.0 0.9 21.8 0.0 1.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.2 1.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 6.4 0.2 1.8 1.9 3.2 0.0 3.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.8 9.0 7.7 16.1 0.0 29.7 50.7 19.8 19.8 45.2 0.0 17.3LnGrp LOS D A A B A C D B B D A BApproach Vol, veh/h 316 858 357 699Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 23.2 20.6 31.1Approach LOS B C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.6 4.5 20.2 6.6 22.0 10.0 14.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 4.0 22.0 4.0 19.0 6.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 2.3 11.0 4.0 16.6 7.3 6.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.3HCM 6th LOS C HCM 2010 TWSC2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20255. Existing plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 554 0 0 801 24 0 0 9 0 0 2Future Vol, veh/h 0 554 0 0 801 24 0 0 9 0 0 2Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 602 0 0 871 26 0 0 10 0 0 2Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 301 - - 884 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 696 0 0 344 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 696 - - 344Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.2 15.5HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 696 - - - 344HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.006HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - - 15.5HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 133 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20255. Existing plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.3Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 559 5 180 820 7 110Future Vol, veh/h 559 5 180 820 7 110Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 601 5 194 882 8 118Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 617 0 1896 625 Stage 1 - - - - 615 - Stage 2 - - - - 1281 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 963 - 76 485 Stage 1 - - - - 539 - Stage 2 - - - - 261 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 954 - 60 477Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 157 - Stage 1 - - - - 534 - Stage 2 - - - - 206 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 17HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 425 - - 954 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.296 - - 0.203 -HCM Control Delay (s) 17 - - 9.7 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 0.8 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20256. Existing plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 82 352 4 3 233 314 13 357 10 522 344 66Future Volume (veh/h) 82 352 4 3 233 314 13 357 10 522 344 66Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 363 4 3 240 324 13 368 10 538 355 69Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 108 757 621 65 511 417 23 711 19 643 564 110Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1535 5 1861 1517 1781 3530 96 3456 1507 293Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 363 4 243 0 324 13 185 193 538 0 424Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1535 1866 0 1517 1781 1777 1849 1728 0 1800Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 8.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.4 5.4 5.4 8.7 0.0 11.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 8.3 0.1 6.3 0.0 11.4 0.4 5.4 5.4 8.7 0.0 11.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 757 621 575 0 417 23 358 372 643 0 674V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.48 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.78 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.84 0.00 0.63Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 875 718 676 0 499 123 615 640 658 0 842HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 12.7 10.3 17.5 0.0 19.3 28.3 20.6 20.6 22.6 0.0 14.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.4 19.4 1.2 1.1 9.1 0.0 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.9 3.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.4 0.3 2.2 2.3 4.1 0.0 4.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.5 13.2 10.3 18.0 0.0 25.7 47.7 21.7 21.7 31.7 0.0 15.8LnGrp LOS D B B B A C DCCCABApproach Vol, veh/h 452 567 391 962Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 22.4 22.6 24.7Approach LOS C C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.4 4.8 25.6 7.5 19.9 14.8 15.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 4.0 27.0 4.0 19.0 11.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 2.4 13.1 4.7 13.4 10.7 7.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.0HCM 6th LOS C 134 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20256. Existing plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 881 0 0 544 9 0 0 21 0 0 4Future Vol, veh/h 0 881 0 0 544 9 0 0 21 0 0 4Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - -0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 918 0 0 567 9 0 0 22 0 0 4Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 459 - - 572 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 550 0 0 519 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 550 - - 519Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.8 12HCM LOS B BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 550 - - - 519HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - - 0.008HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - - - 12HCM Lane LOS B - - - BHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0 HCM 2010 TWSC3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20256. Existing plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 890 7 92 549 4 191Future Vol, veh/h 890 7 92 549 4 191Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 937 7 97 578 4 201Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 955 0 1735 962 Stage 1 - - - - 952 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 720 - 96 310 Stage 1 - - - - 375 - Stage 2 - - - - 450 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 713 - 82 305Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 210 - Stage 1 - - - - 372 - Stage 2 - - - - 385 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 38.9HCM LOS EMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 302 - - 713 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.68 - - 0.136 -HCM Control Delay (s) 38.9 - - 10.8 -HCM Lane LOS E - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.6 - - 0.5 - 135 of 261
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20257. Future plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 64 304 3 3 382 484 8 323 31 579 341 44Future Volume (veh/h) 64 304 3 3 382 484 8 323 31 579 341 44Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 304 3 3 382 484 8 323 31 579 341 46Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 81 797 654 61 587 480 15 630 60 630 587 79Arrive On Green 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1536 3 1865 1524 1781 3266 311 3456 1602 216Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 304 3 385 0 484 8 174 180 579 0 387Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1536 1868 0 1524 1781 1777 1800 1728 0 1818Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 6.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.3 5.3 5.4 9.9 0.0 10.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 6.7 0.1 10.7 0.0 19.0 0.3 5.3 5.4 9.9 0.0 10.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.12Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 797 654 648 0 480 15 343 347 630 0 667V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.38 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.01 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.92 0.00 0.58Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 837 687 648 0 480 118 589 596 630 0 813HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 11.9 10.0 17.8 0.0 20.7 29.8 21.8 21.8 24.2 0.0 15.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 43.4 27.2 1.2 1.2 18.8 0.0 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.3 2.6 0.0 4.4 0.0 11.9 0.2 2.2 2.3 5.5 0.0 4.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.6 12.2 10.0 19.3 0.0 64.1 57.0 23.0 23.0 43.0 0.0 16.2LnGrp LOS D B A B A F E C C D A BApproach Vol, veh/h 371 869 362 966Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 44.3 23.8 32.3Approach LOS B D C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 4.5 26.1 6.7 23.0 15.0 15.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 4.0 27.0 4.0 19.0 11.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 2.3 12.3 4.1 21.0 11.9 7.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.1HCM 6th LOS C HCM 2010 TWSC2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20257. Future plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 917 0 0 946 27 0 0 10002Future Vol, veh/h 0 917 0 0 946 27 0 0 10 0 0 2Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 917 0 0 946 27 0 0 10 0 0 2Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 459 - - 960 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 550 0 0 310 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 550 - - 310Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.7 16.7HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 550 - - - 310HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - - 0.006HCM Control Delay (s) 11.7 - - - 16.7HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0 136 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20257. Future plus Project AM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 899 37 206 960 11 133Future Vol, veh/h 899 37 206 960 11 133Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 899 37 206 960 11 133Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 947 0 2312 939 Stage 1 - - - - 929 - Stage 2 - - - - 1383 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 725 - 42 320 Stage 1 - - - - 385 - Stage 2 - - - - 233 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 718 - 29 314Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 116 - Stage 1 - - - - 382 - Stage 2 - - - - 164 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 2.1 31.1HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 278 - - 718 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.518 - - 0.287 -HCM Control Delay (s) 31.1 - - 12 -HCM Lane LOS D - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 - - 1.2 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Old Redwood Highway & West Sierra Avenue/East Cotati Avenue 02/17/20258. Future plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 82 359 4 3 271 566 13 401 107 663 344 66Future Volume (veh/h) 82 359 4 3 271 566 13 401 107 663 344 66Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 359 4 3 271 566 13 401 107 663 344 69Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 101 745 611 53 530 432 23 600 158 737 627 126Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.42 0.42Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1534 4 1863 1519 1781 2759 727 3456 1499 301Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 359 4 274 0 566 13 256 252 663 0 413Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1534 1867 0 1519 1781 1777 1709 1728 0 1799Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 10.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.5 9.3 9.5 13.1 0.0 12.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 10.0 0.1 8.6 0.0 20.0 0.5 9.3 9.5 13.1 0.0 12.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 745 611 583 0 432 23 387 372 737 0 752V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.48 0.01 0.47 0.00 1.31 0.57 0.66 0.68 0.90 0.00 0.55Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 745 611 583 0 432 101 506 486 737 0 794HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 15.7 12.8 21.1 0.0 25.1 34.5 25.1 25.2 26.9 0.0 15.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 155.1 20.7 2.1 2.4 14.0 0.0 0.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 4.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 25.4 0.3 4.0 4.0 6.6 0.0 4.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.6 16.2 12.8 21.7 0.0 180.2 55.2 27.2 27.7 40.9 0.0 16.2LnGrp LOS E B B C A F E C C D A BApproach Vol, veh/h 445 840 521 1076Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 128.5 28.1 31.4Approach LOS C F C CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.0 4.9 33.4 8.0 24.0 19.0 19.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 4.0 31.0 4.0 20.0 15.0 20.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 2.5 14.2 5.2 22.0 15.1 11.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 58.3HCM 6th LOS E 137 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: La Plaza & East Cotati Avenue/East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20258. Future plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 2IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 1123 0 0 861 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Future Vol, veh/h 0 1123 0 0 861 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - - - - - -0 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 0 1123 0 0 861 11 0 0 28 0 0 5Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 562 - - 867 Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Critical Hdwy -------- 6.93 - - 6.23Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - - - - 3.319 - - 3.319Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 471 0 0 351 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - - - - 471 - - 351Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---------- Stage 2 - - ----------Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.1 15.4HCM LOS B CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT WBR SBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 471 - - - 351HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - - 0.014HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - - - 15.4HCM Lane LOS B - - - CHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0 HCM 2010 TWSC3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/17/20258. Future plus Project PM Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 3IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 13.5Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1109 63 138 850 19 218Future Vol, veh/h 1109 63 138 850 19 218Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 1109 63 138 850 19 218Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1183 0 2289 1162 Stage 1 - - - - 1152 - Stage 2 - - - - 1137 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 590 - 43 237 Stage 1 - - - - 301 - Stage 2 - - - - 306 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 585 - 32 233Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 133 - Stage 1 - - - - 298 - Stage 2 - - - - 232 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 129.5HCM LOS FMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 220 - - 585 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.077 - - 0.236 -HCM Control Delay (s) 129.5 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 10.6 - - 0.9 - 138 of 261
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/25/20259. Future PM Charles No NB Left Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 8.7Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1107 63 135 850 0 218Future Vol, veh/h 1107 63 135 850 0 218Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - - 0Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 1107 63 135 850 0 218Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1181 0 - 1160 Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ----Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - - 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - - 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 591 - 0 238 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 586 - - 234Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ----Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 86.8HCM LOS FMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 234 - - 586 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.932 - - 0.23 -HCM Control Delay (s) 86.8 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.1 - - 0.9 - HCM 2010 TWSC3: Charles Street & East Cotati Avenue #3 02/25/202510. Future plus Project PM Charles No NB Left Synchro 11 ReportTransportation Impact Study for the 120 East Cotati Avenue Residential Project Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 8.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1109 63 138 850 0 218Future Vol, veh/h 1109 63 138 850 0 218Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 11 10 0 11 10Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 85 - - 0Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 1109 63 138 850 0 218Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1183 0 - 1162 Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ----Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - - 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - - 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 590 - 0 237 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 585 - - 233Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ----Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 87.9HCM LOS FMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 233 - - 585 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.936 - - 0.236 -HCM Control Delay (s) 87.9 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.2 - - 0.9 - 139 of 261
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDER A FIRE IMPACT FEE AND DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH THE RANCHO
ADOBE FIRE DISTRICT
Date: August 12, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a fire impact fee and development coordination agreement with the Rancho Adobe Fire District.
Background
The Rancho Adobe Fire District (RAFD) provides fire protection and prevention services to the City of Cotati, unincorporated areas of Sonoma County around the City, as well as Sonoma State University. Currently, RAFD is in the process of implementing development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new development and the increased demand for services it creates. To ensure appropriate mitigation of impacts, the RAFD Board of Directors directed their staff to develop a nexus study and appropriate mitigation impact fees.
On June 19, 2024, the RAFD Board of directors approved the nexus study and fees. However, RAFD does not have the legal authority to impose the fees and must rely on the land use authorities within its service area. Therefore, RAFD staff reached out to City and the County of Sonoma to request that both agencies consider adoption of their fee program within our respective jurisdictional limits.
On December 10, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and introduced an ordinance to implement fire impact fees on behalf of RAFD. Subsequently, the City adopted Ordinance 931 at the duly noticed City Council meeting on January 14, 2025, which will take effect upon City Council approval of a Coordination Agreement or March 14, 2025, whichever is later and is at least sixty (60) days after its adoption, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. 140 of 261
Analysis/Discussion
Following the adoption of the Ordinance 931, staff from the City and RAFD began developing an impact fee and development coordination agreement (Agreement) to govern handling of the fire impact fee revenue and related reporting requirements, as well as general development review coordination.
The fire impact fees are fees assessed on new development, under the legal authority of the City.
To simplify accounting and coordination, the Agreement provides that RAFD will directly collect and account for the fire impact fees. Similar to the process for school impact fees, the City will not issue building permits until the applicant provides proof of payment of the fees.
With RAFD directly collecting and accounting for the fire impact fees, the Agreement obligates RAFD to provide timely accounting to the City for publishing annual and five year reports of mitigation fees. As mentioned earlier, the fire impact fees are established under the City’s authority, so the City is obligated to publish the associated mitigation fee reports. RAFD will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the mitigation fee act (other than City posting of fees reports).
The Agreement also memorializes the commitment that RAFD is aligned with the City if the City opts to lower or eliminate fees. Essentially, the Agreement states that if the City lowers development impact fees, the fire fees would be lowered or eliminated in a similar manner as other City fees.
The City does not have a municipal fire department, so the Agreement also establishes review timelines for development review by RAFD, to ensure timely reviews and a good customer service experience when building in Cotati.
Financial Considerations
There will be minor staff time related to coordinating and posting the fire fee mitigation fee reports (AB 1600 reports) when the City posts reports on the other City mitigation fees. If the fee collection shifts to the City, there is a 5% administrative fee that the City would collect to manage and account for the impact fees.
If the City reduces or eliminates impact fees, the City would be committing to handling the fire impact fees in a similar manner as other City impact fees. This could include some backfill of impact fee revenue. In the event of litigation around the fire impact fee, the Agreement will indemnify the City.
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 141 of 261
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.
142 of 261
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)
APPROVING A FIRE IMPACT FEE AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE RANCHO ADOBE FIRE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the provision of fire protection and suppression services, including emergency medical response is a vital and necessary service public agencies must provide for their communities; and
WHEREAS, funding for the provisions of these services is limited and therefore public agencies rely upon development impact fees, such as the Fees, as a source of funding to provide such services to communities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the benefit of the residents, businesses, and visitors within the City to have such services readily available; and
WHEREAS, RAFD is a duly qualified fire district established pursuant to the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 of the Health and Safety Code, section 13800 et seq. and has retained SCI Consultants, experienced in the preparation of fire mitigation impact fee nexus studies and related services; and
WHEREAS, RAFD has prepared a fire mitigation impact fee nexus study and is taking all steps necessary to ensure full compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000-66025) (the “Mitigation Fee Act” or the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the City introduced Ordinance 931 on December 10, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, to establish the Fees within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City on behalf of RAFD; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance 931 at the duly noticed City Council meeting on January 14, 2025, which will take effect upon City Council approval of an impact fee and development coordination agreement (Agreement) or March 14, 2025, whichever is later and is at least sixty (60) days after its adoption, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act; and 143 of 261
WHEREAS, the City and RAFD desire to enter into this Agreement to effectively coordinate the payment of the Fees and the timely review and issuance of development permits.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cotati finds:
1. The above recitals true and correct.
2. Approves the Agreement, attached as Exhibit A.
3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement, subject to final review of form by the City Attorney.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on August 26, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
144 of 261
CITY OF COTATI-RANCHO ADOBE FIRE DISTRICT IMPACT
FEE AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AGREEMENT
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of August_________, 2025 (“Effective Date”) is by and between the City of Cotati, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "City"), and the Rancho Adobe Fire District (hereinafter "RAFD"), to the understanding between the City and RAFD regarding coordination on development permits and the setting, collection, transfer, and use of Fire Impact Fees (“Fees”). The City and RAFD are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the provision of fire protection and suppression services, including emergency medical response is a vital and necessary service public agencies must provide for their communities; and
WHEREAS, funding for the provisions of these services is limited and therefore public agencies rely upon development impact fees, such as the Fees, as a source of funding to provide such services to communities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the benefit of the residents, businesses, and visitors within the City to have such services readily available; and
WHEREAS, RAFD is a duly qualified fire district established pursuant to the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 of the Health and Safety Code, section 13800 et seq. and has retained SCI Consultants, experienced in the preparation of fire mitigation impact fee nexus studies and related services; and
WHEREAS, RAFD has prepared a fire mitigation impact fee nexus study and is taking all steps necessary to ensure full compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000-66025) (the “Mitigation Fee Act” or the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the City introduced Ordinance 931 on December 10, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, to establish the Fees within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City on behalf of RAFD; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance 931 at the duly noticed City Council meeting on January 14, 2025, which will take effect upon City Council approval of this Agreement or March 14, 2025, whichever is later and is at least sixty (60) days after its adoption, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City and RAFD desire to enter into this Agreement to effectively coordinate the payment of the Fees and the timely review and issuance of development permits. 145 of 261
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
A G R E E M E N T
l. Scope of Services.
1.1 Specified Services. The Parties shall perform the services described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Scope of Work"), and within the times or by the dates provided for in Exhibit “A.” In the event of a conflict between the body of this Agreement and Exhibit “A,” the provisions in the body of this Agreement shall control.
1.2 Cooperation. The Parties agree each shall cooperate with the other in the performance of all work hereunder.
1.3 Performance Standard. The Parties agree to perform all work hereunder in a manner consistent with the level of competency and standard of care normally exercised by staff of a public agency.
2. Payment.
2.1 Responsibility for Collecting Payment. Pursuant to the Act, local agencies may establish Fees in connection with the approval of a development project to offset the costs of new public facilities that become necessary as a result of development. Under existing state law, RAFD cannot directly adopt mitigation fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code, sections 13800-13970, but the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes the City to adopt Fees on behalf of RAFD to offset the impacts of new development on fire equipment and fire capital facilities. Both Parties desire that RAFD collect and administer the Fees subject to this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed to pursuant to this agreement.
Collection of payments by RAFD will reduce the administrative burden on the City and is not expected to be a cause of undue hardship. If there is an identified undue hardship to either Party or the customers paying the Fees, the Parties will meet and confer on potential changes to the collection of the Fees. In the event that both Parties decide the City shall take over collection and disbursement of the Fees on behalf of RAFD, the Parties shall confirm this decision in writing and City shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, with inclusion of the additional term that the City may withhold five percent of the total fees recovered before distributing the proceeds to RAFD to pay for the City’s staff time to administer, collect, and forward the Fees to RAFD.
2.2 City Procedure to Remitting Payment to RAFD. In the event the City takes over collection of the Fees, the City shall create and maintain a dedicated general ledger fund into which all Fees received by the City will be recorded. At the end of each calendar month, the City shall prepare a copy of the fund balance as of the last day of the month, and a check to RAFD representing the 146 of 261
total Fees received for the month, both to be sent to RAFD no later than the 20th day of the subsequent month.
3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date and shall remain in force and effect for as long as the Fees are being imposed unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement.
4. Termination.
4.1 Termination Without Cause. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, at any time and without cause, either Party shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by giving 60 calendar days written notice to the other Party.
4.2 Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, should either Party fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner herein provided, or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Agreement, either Party may provide written notice to the other Party to cure such default within sixty (60) calendar days. In the event the default is not cured within sixty (60) calendar days, and an agreement is not reached for additional time to cure such default, the non-defaulting Party may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving the other Party written notice of such termination, including the reason for termination.
4.3 Payment Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by either Party, and if the City is collecting Fees on behalf of RAFD, the City shall provide all Fees collected and held by the City to RAFD within ten (10) working days of the termination of this Agreement.
Upon the effective date of termination, neither Party will have any obligation to the other regarding this Agreement.
4.4 Authority to Terminate. The City Council has the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of the City. In addition, the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of the City. The RAFD Board of Directors has the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of RAFD. In addition, the Fire Chief shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of RAFD.
5. Indemnification. Each Party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Party and its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all costs, losses, claims, damages, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) ("Losses") incurred or suffered by the indemnified Party resulting from a failure by the indemnifying Party to perform its obligations under or comply with the terms of this Agreement, or resulting from the negligence, or any violation of law (including the Mitigation Fee Act), of the indemnifying Party or its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives, except to the extent such Losses arise from the indemnified Party's fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct. This Section 5 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
147 of 261
6. Prosecution of Work. The execution of this Agreement shall constitute each Party’s authority to proceed immediately with the performance of this Agreement. Performance of the obligations hereunder shall be completed within the time required herein, provided, however, that if the performance is delayed by earthquake, flood, high water, or other Act of God or by strike, lockout, or similar labor disturbances, the time for each Party’s performance of this Agreement shall be extended by a number of days equal to the number of days each Party has been delayed.
7. Representations of the Parties.
7.1 Standard of Care. Each Party hereby agrees that all its work will be performed and that its operations shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted and applicable professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws.
7.2 Status of the Parties. The Parties intend, as obligated herein, to act as an independent contractor and shall not control the work and the manner in which it is performed. Each Party is not to be considered an agent or employee of the other Party and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, worker’s compensation plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits provided to each Party’s employees. In the event either Party exercises its right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 4 herein, each Party expressly agrees that it shall have no recourse or right of appeal under rules, regulations, ordinances, or laws applicable to employees.
7.3 No Suspension or Debarment. Each Party warrants that it is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in covered transactions by any federal department or agency. Each Party also warrants that it is not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds as listed in the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non-procurement Programs issued by the General Services Administration. If either Party becomes debarred, each Party has the obligation to inform the other Party.
7.4 Records Maintenance. Each Party shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records concerning the collection and expenditure of the Fees under this Agreement and shall make such documents and records available to the other Party for inspection at any reasonable time. If the City collects Fees, the City shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation of accounting records of Fees collected under this Agreement. RAFD and City shall maintain such records for a period of five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement, or as otherwise required under law and in accordance with their respective record retention schedules.
7.5 Conflict of Interest. Each Party covenants to the other Party that it presently has no interest and that it will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that represents a financial conflict of interest under state law or that would otherwise conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement. Each Party further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any such interests shall be employed with such Party.
148 of 261
7.6 Statutory Compliance. The Parties agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, statutes and policies applicable to the Fees collected pursuant to this Agreement as they exist now and as they are changed, amended or modified during the term of this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each Party expressly acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement is subject to the provisions of the City Municipal Code and all RAFD rules, regulations, and policies. Noncompliance during the term of the Agreement will be considered a material breach and may result in termination of the Agreement or pursuit of other legal or administrative remedies.
7.7 Authority. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that he or she has authority to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of each Party.
8. Further Assurances. Upon the reasonable request of either Party, the other Party shall take such actions, and execute such certificates, documents or instruments, necessary or appropriate to fulfill the obligations under this Agreement, the Mitigation Fee Act, and the collection of the Fees thereof.
9. Assignment and Delegation. Neither Party hereto shall assign, delegate, sublet, or transfer any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other, and no such transfer shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other Party shall have so consented.
10. Method and Place of Giving Notice and Payments. All notices shall be made in writing and shall be given by personal delivery or by U.S. Mail or courier service. Notices shall be addressed as follows:
TO CITY:
City Manager
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 792-4600
TO RAFD:
Rancho Adobe Fire District 1
11000 Main Street
Mailing: P.O. Box 1029
Penngrove CA 94951
(707) 795-6011
When a notice is given by a generally recognized overnight courier service, the notice shall be deemed received on the next business day. When a copy of a notice is sent by facsimile or email, the notice shall be deemed received upon transmission as long as (1) the original copy of the notice is promptly deposited in the U.S. mail and postmarked on the date of the facsimile or 149 of 261
email, (2) the sender has a written confirmation of the facsimile transmission or email, and (3) the facsimile or email is transmitted before 5 p.m. pacific time. In all other instances, notices shall be effective upon receipt by the recipient. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to whom notices are to be given by giving notice pursuant to this paragraph. If the Parties are making payments to each other, the method of payment shall be mutually agreed upon in writing.
11. Miscellaneous Provisions.
11.1 No Waiver of Breach. The waiver by either Party of any breach of any term or promise contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or provision or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or promise contained in this Agreement.
11.2 Construction. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, ordinance, regulation, or law. The Parties covenant and agree that in the event that any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. The Parties acknowledge that they have each contributed to the making of this Agreement and that, in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of this Agreement, the language of the Agreement will not be construed against one Party in favor of the other. The Parties further acknowledge that they have each had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement.
11.3 Consent. Wherever in this Agreement the consent or approval of one Party is required to an act of the other Party, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
11.4 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create and the Parties do not intend to create any rights in third parties.
11.5 Applicable Law and Forum. This Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Any action arising from or brought in connection with this Agreement shall be venued in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Sonoma, State of California.
11.6 Captions. The captions in this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference. They are not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect on its construction or interpretation.
11.7 Merger. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856.
No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by both Parties.
150 of 261
11.8 Survival of Terms. All express representations, waivers, indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in this Agreement will survive its completion or termination for any reason.
11.9 Time of Essence. Time is and shall be of the essence of this Agreement and every provision hereof.
11.10 Successor Agency. In the case of a merger or consolidation of RAFD by successor agency, all terms and agreements set forth in this Agreement shall carry forward to the successor agency.
[Signatures on Following Page]
151 of 261
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
For City of Cotati: For Rancho Adobe Fire District:
Damien O’Bid Jeff Veliquette
City Manager Fire Chief
Approved As to Form: Approved As to Form:
John Bakker RAFD Counsel
City Attorney
152 of 261
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
A. Compliance with Mitigation Fee Act. RAFD shall ensure that any Fee imposed by the City and collected on its behalf, complies with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 66001, 66006, 66007, 66008, 66011 and 66018. If any Fee is owed by a particular developer and is not paid, RAFD shall bear full responsibility for collection of Fees owed. However, in such event RAFD notifies the City in writing of nonpayment, City shall withhold all final development project approvals until such time as RAFD confirms in writing that all Fees are paid in full.
B. Deposit, Investment and Disbursement of Fees. If the City agrees to the collection of Fees on behalf of RAFD, pursuant to this Agreement or subsequent amendments, City shall deposit collected Fees in accordance with Government Code, section 66006(a). The City must only invest the Fees in suitable accounts commonly used by public agencies which guarantee the principal balance of such account. To that end, City shall be solely and financially responsible to ensure the principal amount of all Fees it has collected is provided to RAFD for use in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Furthermore, all interest earned must be credited to the Fee account pursuant to Government Code, section 66006(a). If the City collects Fees, the City shall transfer Fees to RAFD as described in Section 2.2 of this Agreement. City and RAFD agree to work in good faith to resolve any issues within a reasonable time. However, City may not withhold disbursement of any Fees during the duration of any unresolved issues or otherwise.
C. Accounting and Audit. RAFD shall account for and expend Fees in compliance with Government Code sections 66006, 66008, and 66011, including ensuring that the requisite public notice is provided. RAFD has the sole responsibility to account for the expenditure of Fees and, subject to the terms of section 66023, perform at its own expense any audit required under the Mitigation Fee Act. To the extent RAFD needs information from City to comply with subdivision 66006(b), RAFD shall request the information from City in writing and provide City with no less than twenty calendar (20) days to respond.
If any audit relating to City’s creation, collection or disbursement of Fees on behalf of RAFD is requested under subdivision 66006(d) or section 66023, City, shall consult with RAFD and shall give RAFD the right to address such audit in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. RAFD may, in its sole discretion and subject to the terms of section 66023, elect to (1) perform the audit; or (2) contract with an independent auditor for any audit related to Fees collected or disbursed under this Agreement if a deposit is paid by the requesting party for such audit pursuant to section 66023(c). The Parties agree to promptly respond to each other regarding all requests for information made in relation to any audit.
D. Nexus Study and Government Code section 66001 findings. RAFD shall ensure compliance with the finding requirements under California Government Code section 66001. RAFD shall submit any necessary supporting documentation and proposed findings required no later than sixty (60) days before findings are required under that subdivision and shall take the necessary steps to ensure the findings will be considered by City in the time required (See RAFD’s Nexus Study and Fire District Board Resolution with the necessary findings attached as Exhibit B). 153 of 261
Prior to requesting City to make Government Code section 66001 findings, the RAFD’s Board of Directors shall independently consider and approve any such necessary supporting documentation and proposed findings and submit its action and findings with its request to the City. RAFD shall promptly provide any additional information City requests relevant to the fiveyear findings. Based on the information RAFD provides, City shall consider the information and make findings, if appropriate, under subdivision 66001(d)(1).
E. Annual Reporting Government Code § 66006 (AB 1600 reports). RAFD shall ensure compliance with the annual reporting and finding requirements under California Government Code subdivision 66006. RAFD shall submit any necessary supporting documentation required by the AB 1600 annual report no later than forty five calendar (45) days before the public meeting required under that section and shall take the necessary steps to ensure the AB 1600 report will be considered by City in the time required. Prior to requesting City to hold a public meeting to consider the annual AB 1600 report, the RAFD’s Board of Directors shall independently consider and approve any such necessary supporting documentation and submit its action and findings with its request to the City. RAFD shall promptly provide any additional information City requests relevant to the AB 1600 report. Based on the information RAFD provides, City shall consider the information and the RAFD’s AB 1600 report, under section 66006. City shall post on its website all required AB 1600 reports, provided by RAFD, including all other documentation required pursuant to Government Code, section 65940.1, and specifically Section 65940.1, subdivisions (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(D), and (a)(1)(E). RAFD shall provide and City shall post updated information within 30 days if any changes pursuant to Section 65940.1(a)(2). Except in the event of RAFD’s failure to timely provide the required reports, any costs or remedies for the failure to comply with such posting requirements shall be the sole responsibility of the City.
F. Five-Year Findings. RAFD shall ensure compliance with the five-year reporting and finding requirements under California Government Code subdivision 66001(d). RAFD shall submit any necessary supporting documentation and proposed findings required no later than forty-five (45) calendar days before findings are required under that subdivision and shall take the necessary steps to ensure the findings will be considered by City in the time required. Prior to requesting City to make the five-year findings, the RAFD’s Board of Directors shall independently consider and approve any such necessary supporting documentation and proposed findings and submit its action and findings with its request to the City. RAFD shall promptly provide any additional information City requests relevant to the five-year findings. Based on the information RAFD provides, City shall consider the information and make findings, if appropriate, under subdivision 66001(d)(1).
G. New Obligations and Updated Data. RAFD shall stay informed of and ensure compliance with any new obligations arising from the collection of Fees on its behalf, including but not limited to amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act and court decisions interpreting it or any new City ordinance(s) governing the collection of Fees on behalf of special districts. RAFD shall regularly update its nexus studies to support its Fees pursuant to Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
154 of 261
H. Disputes as to Fees. If the City does withhold any portion of the Fees without RAFD written approval, the Parties agree to the remedies described herein. If the City, pursuant to this Agreement or a subsequent amendment, agrees to collect Fees on behalf of RAFD, then RAFD shall be entitled to the following remedy in any action to recover Fees it claims City should have disbursed to RAFD, including any untimely disbursement. RAFD shall be entitled to the amount of the undisbursed Fees, plus the interest that has accrued and received by the City, where the City wrongfully withheld any portion of the Fees from RAFD. In the event the Fees did not earn interest during the duration of any dispute, RAFD is entitled to interest on the balance owed at a rate the City has earned for the same period on its own development impact fee accounts. The Parties acknowledge interest is required to be reported and is commonly earned with the Fees pursuant to Section 66001(a) of the Mitigation Fee Act.
In the event of any application to reduce or appeal a Fee by a developer, disagreement regarding the amount or application of any Fees collected by City on behalf of RAFD by a third party, or protest under Government Code sections 66020 or 66021, City may refer the matter to RAFD, and within the time requested by City, RAFD shall advise the City in writing as to how RAFD recommends the City proceed. Any disagreement as to the amount or application of any Fees or any protest are included in the RAFD’s covenant to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless as detailed in Article 5 of this Agreement.
I. Fee Reductions. If the City Council approves a reduction or elimination of certain development impact fees to further City policy goals, and such reduction or elimination is supported with sufficient findings in compliance with all applicable laws, RAFD understands that the City may make the same reduction or elimination of the Fees described herein, under similar terms as other City fees.
J. Coordination of Project and Permit Reviews. To streamline reviews, provide responsive customer service, and ensure that all stakeholders review the appropriate project plans and permits, the City is the single point of submittal for all project or permit plans. The City will circulate projects and building permits to RAFD for review, comment and approval. RAFD agrees to provide complete written comments using a qualified reviewer no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after City makes the referral. The City will incorporate and coordinate all comments received by all stakeholders.
K. Assigned Personnel.
1. RAFD shall assign only competent personnel to perform work hereunder. In the event that the City or RAFD desires to discuss any potential issues, the parties shall immediately meet and confer to resolve the issue. Both parties agree to work in good faith to resolve any issues in a timely manner.
2. In the event that any of RAFD’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Agreement become unavailable due to resignation, sickness or other factors outside of RAFD’s control, RAFD shall be responsible for timely provision of adequately qualified replacements.
155 of 261
L. Issuance of Permits. The City agrees to hold the issuance of building permits until the applicant provides written proof of payment of RAFD Fees. 156 of 261
Exhibit B
Fire District Board Resolution and Nexus Study
157 of 261
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS TO ELIMINATE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN INCLUSIONARY MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS, HIGH-QUALITY LODGING PROJECTS
AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE POLICIES
Date: August 26, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt resolutions 1) eliminating development impact fees for certain types of lodging, 2) eliminating development impact fees for deed restricted affordable units in multi-family inclusionary projects, subject to funding availability, and 3) clarifying policies for the application of development impact fees generally.
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.
On August 12, 2025, the City Council became the first jurisdiction in Sonoma County to adopt development impact fees based on square footage, rather than by unit. When these fees go into effect on October 13, 2025, aside from regular building permit fees, the City will assess 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) 197 of 261
• Bed Tax
• Linkage Fee (Only applicable to commercial, industrial, retail developments) • Parks and Recreation 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, most residential and commercial developments are required to pay School Impact Fees to the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District.
At the August 12, 2025 public hearing, the City Council also reviewed policy options to reduce or eliminate development impact fees (DIFs) for affordable housing and high-quality lodging. In summary, the City Council requested that staff return within 60 days with developed policies, with the following feedback on the policy options that were presented:
- Affordable Housing
o How are DIFs calculated with expansions/renovations of existing buildings? o Preference for eliminating DIFs by policy for deed restricted affordable units in inclusionary multifamily developments.
o A cap of a 1,500 square foot unit size for DIF elimination. o Provide DIF elimination assurance at time of entitlement, provide 24 months (subject to discussion with housing developers) to pull a building permit. If the building permits are not pulled for the affordable units, this assurance expires and is only extendable by the City Council.
o Provide a 3-year sunset on the affordable housing DIF elimination to check in on the effectiveness of the policy.
- Lodging
o Analyze the payback time horizon and total estimated cost for lodging with DIFs eliminated.
Analysis/Discussion
The following is a summary of draft policies developed for DIFs organized by resolution Elimination of Impact Fees for Deed Restricted Affordable Housing in Inclusionary MultiFamily Development Over a Three-Year Pilot Term.
Based on City Council feedback that multi-family development has been more difficult to build than single family housing, this policy only applies to multifamily inclusionary development.
Units must be deed restricted, fulfill a part of the City‘s outstanding RHNA requirement and only apply to the City‘s inclusionary requirement (15%, rounded) to preserve available backfill funding. Multifamily development of 10 units or more was selected as the lower threshold 198 of 261
because developments with 9 units or less can ”fee out” rather than building affordable units. To avoid subsidizing overly large units, the DIF elimination is capped at 1,500 square feet of conditioned space. Lastly, the DIF elimination assurance would be tied to entitlement and run for 24 months, concurrent with the term of the entitlement.
Staff will report out annually on the program success and the policy would expire in three years unless extended by the City Council. Given the limited funding currently available for this program, if adopted by the City Council, staff will also further explore options to increase funding to the inclusionary housing and/or linkage funds and return to the City Council to discuss options.
Targeted Development Impact Fee Elimination for High Quality Lodging Projects As part of a comprehensive economic development strategy, the City has been seeking to bring in high quality lodging options for visitors to Cotati, as overnight lodging brings visitors into the community that support local businesses, helps diversify the economy and supports local services and infrastructure through incremental increases in sales and property taxes as well as a local transient occupancy tax (TOT).
The City of Cotati is the only city in Sonoma County with no overnight lodging options or TOT revenue and given the economic imperative to diversify revenue sources and continue to grow revenue to provide high quality services and infrastructure for our residents, staff explored options to incentivize the construction of quality lodging through the impact fee program.
Based on these considerations and feedback from the City Council, the DIF elimination targets only high-quality lodging projects, as defined as 3 diamond equivalent or better by the American Automobile Association (AAA), attached to the resolution. Lodging projects, if built, will not pay City impact fees but will also create a new on-going General Fund revenue source for community infrastructure and services. In the early years of operation, this new revenue is proposed to backfill the impact fee revenue that was eliminated to make the impact fee funds ”whole”. This would be accomplished through an internal loan, structured and approved by the City Council prior to occupancy.
Only lodging projects with 25 rooms or more would be eligible, primarily to avoid home conversions and ensure adequate TOT to backfill the eliminated DIFs in a timely manner.
Exempting Development Impact Fees on Certain Development Activities and Provide General Guidelines
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council asked how the new DIFs applied to renovations or expansions of existing structures.
199 of 261
Currently, most of the City's DIFs 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 square foot-based fee (first jurisdiction to do this in Sonoma County), it raises new questions of applicability. Given that the City is the first jurisdiction in Sonoma County to move to a square foot based DIF, there are no direct examples to follow. However, staff was able to find two parallel examples in Sonoma County; one in Santa Rosa and one with the Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD).
For existing permitted residential units, Santa Rosa does not charge DIFs for expansions up to 400 square feet. The CRPUSD does not charge school impact fees for expansions up to 500 square feet.
The intent behind both policies is that it allows a homeowner to build a new space for a new child or elderly parent, or any other reason, without the added cost of paying impact fees. The square footage is based on permitting experience, intended to allow for adding a new bedroom, expanding a kitchen, etc without triggering impact fee payments for relatively small expansions.
Additionally, under State Law, Junior or Accessory Dwelling Units up to 750 square feet are not required to pay DIFs to encourage this type of development.
The policy proposes a 5-year period where impact fees would not apply, simply because most home renovations would not extend over this long of a time period, but short enough that it would be relatively easy for staff to verify.
Under this policy, nonresidential development can alter, remodel or reconstruct a building, as long as it doesn’t increase the gross floor area previously approved. DIF’s would apply to any increase in gross floor area.
Finally, the policy includes some general clarifications around prior payment of DIFs and the ability for review of special cases, if presented by the developer. These policies are parallel to existing policy in Santa Rosa.
Financial Considerations
The recommendations proposed are cost neutral to the impact fee funds.
Lodging
The impact fee elimination for certain hotel projects would be repaid by TOT revenues through an internal loan over time, typically within 5 years of project occupancy.
As requested by the City Council, staff reviewed the equivalent DIF and payback time for the Cotati Hotel. The combined square footage of the market hall and hotel is approximately 85,000 square feet, which equates to a combined total impact fee of approximately $2.2M.
To calculate the expected TOT revenue, staff pulled data from the development proposal and also reviewed current data from Sonoma County Tourism (SCT). It is expected that the first 3 200 of 261
years of the hotel operations will be the ”ramp up” phase, followed by two years of ”stabilization”. By year 6, the hotel is generally considered stabilized.
Based on the latest data from SCT, as of July 2025, overall occupancies were at 68.8% and the average daily rate was $227.93. Both have been higher in the 5-year prior trend, as this industry is cyclical, but hotel growth forecasts in the United States are lower at this time. Based on data provided as described above, the following TOT projection was developed:
Based on this, the equivalent DIF revenue could be recovered during the 3rd year of operation.
Although the Cotati Hotel is expected to be a higher end product, to be more conservative, if the ADR is at a flat $228 (current countywide average ADR), the equivalent TOT revenue would be collected by the end of the 3rd year of operation, as indicated below:
Affordable Housing
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 201 of 261
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.
Lastly, based on prior commitments in the current Housing Element, approximately $150-$200k in Inclusionary Housing Funds would need to be committed to fulfill these obligations.
Therefore, for planning purposes, it is expected that the combined funds available in the Inclusionary Housing and Linkage Funds of $1.0M, as of July 1, 2025.
Based on the protypes used in the Nexus Study fee comparison, using the multifamily prototype (1,000 square feet), if all impact fees are set to zero it would eliminate impact fees on approximately 37 deed restricted affordable units.
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.
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.
202 of 261
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING
ELIMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, OVER A THREEYEAR PILOT TERM WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (Nexus Study) on August 12, 2025 at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, the adopted Nexus Study updated a variety of Development Impact Fees (DIF), including the Parks and Recreation Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Water and Sewer Connection Fees, adding a General Plan fee and rescinding the Downtown Specific Plan Fee; and WHEREAS, the adopted DIFs are now uniformly square footage based, in accordance with prior City Council direction and recent State law; and WHEREAS, at the DIFs were adopted at the maximum justifiable rates to ensure that new development continues to pay their fair share for the infrastructure needed to accommodate the development, set to go into effect 60 days following the adoption of the Nexus Study (October 13, 2025), in accordance with State law; and
WHEREAS, as part of the adoption of the Nexus Study, the City Council had a lengthy discussion about options for lowering or eliminating DIFs as a tool to achieve long-standing policy objectives for economic development, specifically as it relates to new high quality lodging projects and also options to encourage inclusionary housing projects to move from entitlement to construction; and
WHEREAS, statewide and locally, there is a critical shortage of housing, including the affordable housing options necessary to keep younger adults and families in the community; and WHEREAS, the City has a 15% inclusionary housing program and has entitled or reentitled numerous market rate housing developments, many of which have not yet gone into construction, presenting a significant challenge in meeting the City’s housing goals, including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements; and WHEREAS, housing development has been lackluster for a variety of reasons, but most importantly the total cost of development versus the expected return on the investment; and WHEREAS, the City Council provided direction to return prior to the new DIFs becoming effective (within 60 days) with a refined policy proposal to eliminate DIFs for lodging 203 of 261
of a defined quality and eliminate DIFs for affordable housing with a three-year pilot period that focused on multi-family inclusionary projects; 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 that the City of Cotati City Council, 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 eliminates (set to zero) the following DIFs for certain qualifying deed restricted affordable housing units (Affordable Units), as defined below:
Land Use Parks &
Recreation
Water
Capacity
Sewer
Capacity
Traffic General
Plan
Water
Conserv.
Fire
Impact
Affordable
Units
$0.00/SF $0.00/SF $0.00/SF $0.00/SF $0.00/SF $0.00/unit $0.00/SF SF: Square feet
Narrative Criteria
• Eligible Development Type:
Inclusionary multi-family dwelling (MFD) projects with a minimum of 10 or more residential units, including the MFD portions of mixed-use projects. Single family and 100% affordable housing projects are not eligible under this policy. Limited to no more than approximately 15% of the total number of Affordable Units in a project (included rounding of fractional Units). Must be deed restricted affordable for a minimum of 55 years. If the unit is converted to market rate at the end of the term of the deed restriction, the relevant impact fees, at the then current rate, shall be due. This provision is subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney.
Up to 1,500 square feet of conditioned space per eligible Affordable Unit. Larger Affordable Units pay the incremental cost of applicable DIFs. • Term:
Policy effective for permits issued on or after October 13, 2025, for up to a three (3) year pilot period.
24-month program commitment by the City from the date of a project’s final entitlement. All building permits must be issued to complete the Affordable Units within the program commitment term to guarantee the impact fee elimination.
The term of the program commitment can only be extended by the City Council. 204 of 261 • General Conditions:
Must satisfy an unmet need in the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
There are sufficient funds in the Inclusionary Housing or Linkage Funds to backfill the loss of impact fees. This includes City fire impact fees, collected on behalf of the Rancho Adobe Fire District.
Fees eliminated on a unit-by-unit basis (not by project). Value of eliminated fees accounted for by the City at time of building permit issuance (vertical construction).
Each year, concurrent with the housing Annual Production Report, staff will provide a summary of the program to the City Council, including recommendations to adjust, extend or end the pilot program as applicable.
Section 3. The City Council directs the City Manager to create administrative procedures, as needed, to implement these programs.
Section 4. 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.
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 26th day of August, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
205 of 261
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
206 of 261
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING A
TARGETED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ELMINATION FOR HIGH QUALITY
LODGING PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (Nexus Study) on August 12, 2025 at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, the adopted Nexus Study updated a variety of Development Impact Fees (DIF), including the Parks and Recreation Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Water and Sewer Connection Fees, adding a General Plan fee and rescinding the Downtown Specific Plan Fee; and WHEREAS, the adopted DIFs are now uniformly square footage based, in accordance with prior City Council direction and recent State law; and WHEREAS, the DIFs were adopted at the maximum justifiable rates to ensure that new development continues to pay their fair share for the infrastructure needed to accommodate the development, set to go into effect 60 days following the adoption of the Nexus Study (October 13, 2025), in accordance with State law; and
WHEREAS, as part of the adoption of the Nexus Study, the City Council had a lengthy discussion about options for lowering or eliminating DIFs as a tool to achieve long-standing policy objectives for economic development, specifically as it relates to new lodging projects; and
WHEREAS, as part of a comprehensive economic development strategy, the City has been seeking to bring in high quality lodging options for visitors to Cotati, as overnight lodging brings visitors into the community that support local businesses, helps diversify the economy and supports local services and infrastructure through incremental increases in sales and property taxes as well as a local transient occupancy tax (TOT); and WHEREAS, the City of Cotati is the only city in Sonoma County with no overnight lodging options or TOT revenue and given the economic imperative to diversify revenue sources and continue to grow revenue to provide high quality services and infrastructure for our residents, staff explored options to incentivize the construction of quality lodging through the impact fee program; and
WHEREAS, given the new local revenue source available from TOT, this development type can realistically self-fund the eliminated DIFs in a relatively short period of time through an internal payback process effectively deferring the impact fees internally; and 207 of 261
WHEREAS, the City Council provided direction to return prior to the new DIFs becoming effective (within 60 days) with a refined policy proposal to eliminate DIFs for lodging of a defined quality; 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 that the City of Cotati City Council, 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 adopts the following DIF elimination for certain lodging project types, with the primary criteria as follows:
All applicable City development impact fees, as indicated in the table below, are eliminated (set to zero) for any new Lodging Project in Cotati, that meet the indicated Narrative Criteria. Water Conservation Water Capacity Sewer Capacity Traffic General Plan Linkage Fee Fire Impact Lodging
Project
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Narrative Criteria
• “Lodging Project” includes the hotel structure and any additional structures on the same parcel that are intended to serve the hotel guests with amenities. • Minimum of 25 room hotel.
• Must be a 3-diamond equivalent or better product, as defined by the American Automobile Association (AAA), attached as Exhibit A.
• The City shall track the value of all eliminated development impact fees, which are to be calculated at issuance of vertical building permit(s).
• Extended stay hotels not eligible.
• Effective immediately and remains in effect until repealed by the City Council.
A portion of the Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) revenue, equivalent to the eliminated development impact fees, shall backfill the respective impact fee funds through an internal loan, 208 of 261 established at the time of the hotel certificate of occupancy. This includes City fire impact fees, collected on behalf of the Rancho Adobe Fire District. Interest earnings, at the then current rate applied to City pooled funds, shall be applied to the outstanding balance.
Section 3. The City Council directs the City Manager to create administrative procedures, as needed, to implement this program.
Section 4. 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.
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 26th day of August, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
209 of 261
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING A
POLICY TO EXCEMPT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ON CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDE GENERAL GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council has adopted a variety of Development Impact Fees (DIFs) that apply to both residential and non-residential development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested a policy clarifying how DIFs would apply to minor expansions, additions and remodels of existing structures; and WHEREAS, some local agencies in Sonoma County, such as the City of Santa Rosa and the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District, provide for limited DIF exemptions that were considered as potential models; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa makes the following exemptions to its’ Capital Facilities Fee (CFF), which was created to fund, “street widening, traffic signals, freeway interchanges, bike paths, and storm drains”, but does not include water and sewer related impact fees:
1. Alteration, remodeling, or reconstruction of a nonresidential structure which does not increase the gross floor area above what was in existence and in use on the effective date of this chapter.
2. A development project which the developer establishes to the City’s satisfaction will not generate any additional need for public facilities, services or amenities, or any other impact for which a mitigation and/or fee is otherwise required. The burden of establishing by satisfactory proof the applicability and elements of this subsection shall be on the developer. No exemption or limit shall be granted pursuant to this section unless a finding is made, based on satisfactory factual proof provided by the developer, that the requirements of this subsection have been satisfied.
3. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) measuring 750 Square Feet or smaller are exempt from the CFF.
4. No CFF shall be due if the CFF was previously paid in full for a particular property, and no refund has been issued.
5. Alteration, remodeling or reconstruction to an existing residential unit creating 400 square feet or more of additional living space is no longer subject to the CFF.
WHEREAS, the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District exempts residential additions under 500 square feet, cumulatively, from payment of a school impact fee; and 210 of 261
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 that the City of Cotati City Council, 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 adopts the following DIF policies clarifying the application of these fees for existing building stock, accessory or junior accessory dwelling units (J/ADU) and other general policies:
1. Existing Building Stock:
a. Alteration, remodeling, or reconstruction of an existing nonresidential structure which does not increase the gross floor area above what was in existence and in use on the effective date of this Resolution is not subject to DIFs.
b. Alteration, remodeling or reconstruction to an existing residential structure creating up to an additional 400 square feet of additional living space is not subject to DIFs. Any living space added in excess of 400 square feet, over the prior 5 years, will be assessed the incremental cost of the DIFs.
2. Accessory or Junior Dwelling Units:
a. J/ADU’s measuring 750 Square Feet or smaller are exempt from any DIF.
3. General DIF Policies:
a. If the DIF was previously paid in full for a particular development, and no refund has been issued, then no DIF is due provided there is no change to the development.
b. A development project which the developer establishes to the City’s satisfaction will not generate any additional need for public facilities, services or amenities, or any other impact for which a mitigation and/or fee is otherwise required. The burden of establishing by satisfactory proof the applicability and elements of this subsection shall be on the developer. No exemption or limit shall be granted pursuant to this section unless a finding is made, based on satisfactory factual proof provided by the developer, that the requirements of this subsection have been satisfied.
211 of 261
Section 3. The City Council directs the City Manager to create administrative procedures, as needed, to implement these policies.
Section 4. 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.
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 26th day of August, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
Approved:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
212 of 261
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL UPDATE - UNAUDITED FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2025
Date: August 26, 2025
Written by: Angela Courter, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive the presentation on the un-audited financial position for the City as of June 30, 2025, covering the Fiscal Year of 2024/25 and by motion adopt the budget amendment for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27.
Background
City staff are committed to continued financial updates to report on receipts of key revenues, management of expenditures, overall City cash position, summary of investment management, and a financial resilience evaluation.
Analysis/Discussion
General Fund:
Revenues:
Overall Revenues for the General Fund are $257K or 2.2% below the same period in fiscal year 2023/24. These balances are based on known balances as of August 21, 2025, and as such exclude certain additional payments that are pending to the City. These additional payments will be properly accrued as adjustments for the annual audited financial statements.
The City of Cotati’s main revenue sources as a percent of total General Fund Sources are Sales Taxes at 23.7%, Voter Approved Local Revenue (Measure S) at 26.2%, Property Taxes at 18.6% then other Taxes, Charges for Services, Permits and Licenses for a combined 17.6%.
Significant changes to the total revenues for the General Fund were:
213 of 261
· Sales Tax revenues are approximately 1.3% or $75K less than last year’s cumulative year-end balance. This is due to continued post COVID correction during 2024 and in 2025 was more due to economic uncertainty. The fiscal uncertainty is projected to continue and has been reflected in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2025/26.
· Licenses Permits and Franchises are primarily reduced due to pending Q4 receipts or accrual adjusting entries for franchise agreements for both Cable TV and Gas. · Charges for Services decreased by 15.8% or $79K due to a reduced combination of (1) reduced dollar value and number of permits need of engineering plan checks for development projects, (2) reduced development project cost reimbursement.
· Other Revenues received to date increased almost 27.5% or by $81K primarily due to reimbursements due from damage to City property, EV Charging Fees, and Insurance Payments for damaged vehicles.
Expenditures:
City Council adopted the amended fiscal year 2024/25 budget in June. The overall General Fund expenditures decreased from the previous year by approximately 6.4% or $844K. This change was due to decreased transfers out offset by increases in Repairs and Maintenance, Utilites, Salaries and Benefits, and Contract Services.
Overall spending by General Fund Departments have decreased in both the Police Department and Community Development Department. These decreases were due to decreased contract services for one-time special projects for each department. These decreases were offset by increases in City Managers Department and City Council which increased due to one-time contract services for those departments, and the Public Works Department which had increased salaries and benefits due to staffing demands for field crew and the Interim PW Supervisor. The City Manager’s office includes the legal costs pertaining to the mobile home park litigation and the City Council department had a contract for the facilitated strategic planning meeting.
Enterprise Funds:
The revenues for the Water Funds and Wastewater have continued to increase primarily related to the move to monthly billing, better matching the period of service with the revenues derived and expenditures incurred. Additional factors that increased revenues are the increases applied based on the adopted rate schedule and increased interest earnings on investments.
For Fiscal Year 2024/25, most of the expenses are in line with the budget at year-end. Significant differences between fiscal years are primarily related to Aqueduct Water Purchases, Wastewater Treatment, Salaries & Benefits, and Contract Services which include Legal and Insurance.
During fiscal year 2024/25 the City completed the SCADA System Hardware Resiliency Project, some Well 1A improvements.
City-Wide Cash and Investments:
Cash and Investments remain stable at $18.0M, where funds are held in US Bank Trust laddered investments (34.2%), liquid pooled investment funds at California Asset Management Program (59.1%), Local Agency Investment Funds (LAIF) and Sonoma County Investment Pool (SCIP) both with less than 1.1%, and the remaining held in operating cash within the City’s Operating Checking account held at Exchange Bank (5.5%). The balances within the checking accounts are 214 of 261
managed very closely to match availability of funding requirements while optimizing investments to earning more return.
Budget Reclass for Fiscal Years 2025/26 and 2026/27:
After the adoption it was noted that the FTE allocation of staffing costs for Code Enforcement was not properly applied across the allocated salaries and benefits or allocated city-wide expenses. These budget adjustments will not appropriate any funds but rather reallocated the expenditures between two different departments within the General Fund. The total impact is a decrease of $34,370 and $35,555 for the Community Development Department for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27 respectively. This is then a direct increase in the Code Enforcement Department for the same amounts for the same years.
Financial Considerations
There is no immediate fiscal impact based on the reporting presented. City Staff will continue to report to Council and the community quarterly and will bring forward the audited financial statements for the fiscal year.
For fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27 it was noted that the allocated expenses and adjusted allocated payroll for Code Enforcement based on the newly allocated FTE was not applied for both years. As such staff are proposing the adjustment as attached which reclass the expenses from Community Development (Dept 17) to Code Enforcement (Dept 25). There is no adjustment to fund balance or impact on other funds.
Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
215 of 261
Fiscal Year Financial Report
Un-Audited Fiscal Year July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025
Administrative Services 8/21/25 Q4 2024/25
216 of 261
Fiscal Year End Report
Fiscal Year 2024/25
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 1 of 7
Introduction This financial report provides an overview of where we are within the budget cycle, then a summary of the City’s financial position through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 (July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025) for (1) Citywide Revenues and Expenses, (2) the General Fund, (3) Enterprise Funds, and (4) Summary of Cash and Investments. Notable cumulative year-end to year-end and preliminary amended budget to actual comparisons are included in this report.
The following factors should be taken into consideration when analyzing year-end data:
∗ Revenues reported herein are calculated based on actual receipts through June 30, 2025, but received through August 15, 2025. Some revenues for the Fiscal year are still being received and will be properly accrued for the audited financial statements. ∗ Construction projects, specifically street improvements, have a different project cycle which is offset from the Fiscal Year. As such, major projects are typically funded across two or more Fiscal Years.
Standard Budget Process Cycle - Where We Are Now & Next Steps:
Tentative Schedule for Financial Reporting:
∗ September 2nd – Start of 2024/25 Fiscal Year end audit fieldwork. ∗ October 28th – Present the Q1 2025/26 financial summary to Council. ∗ November 12th – Present audited financial statements and community annual financial report to the Council for Fiscal Year 2024/25
February
Year-end & Financial
Performance Review
March
Year-end & Financial
Performance Review
Internal Budget Review,
Strategic/Long-Term and
Capital Planning
April - May
Draft Budget
Budget Workshops
June
Budget Adoption
NOW** July - December
Financial Evaluations
Budget Adjustments as
Approved by Council
November-December
City Manager and Admin.
Services Budget
Planning Meetings
217 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 2 of 7
Citywide Revenues and Expenses
∗ Other Special Revenues consist of the following funds: Gas Tax, RMRA, Public Safety, K-9 Program, Traffic Mitigation, CDBG Grants, Inclusionary Housing, Linkage Affordable Housing, MTC Streets, Measure M Parks, PEG, In-Lieu Tree Fund, and Bed Tax.
City-wide Significant Variances
Fund type variances where revenues were less than 95 % or expenditures are greater than 95% of budget as of year-end were evaluated as follows:
• Capital Projects’ revenues are currently less than the budget due to the timing of the projects in place and pending transfers from other funds to cover expenditure as of the fiscal year end. • Internal Services Funds had lower revenues and expenditures than budgeted primarily due to the pending year end closing entries and transfers of funds for compensated absences as well as accounting for depreciation expense within the vehicle replacement fund. • Wastewater Fund has higher than 95% in expenditures as of the fiscal year end primarily due to the full accounting of 100% of the expense and budget for Wastewater treatment at $2.5M and approximately 60% of the total budget for the combined Wastewater funds.
Overall actual revenues and expenditures for all funds are anticipated to be aligned with the adopted budget, with the proposed adjustments, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. 218 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 3 of 7
General Fund: Operating Revenues
The following table includes cumulative revenue comparisons of Fiscal Year 2022/23 and Fiscal Year 2023/24, and revenue budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
General Fund operating current revenues are $257,124, or 2.2% below the same period in FY 2023/24.
The most significant reason for these decreases was primarily due to the decreased Transfers In, Sales Taxes, Charges for Services and Investment Earnings, offset by increases in Property Tax and Other Taxes and Other Revenues. There are additional accrued payments still pending receipt and will be properly accrued for using the modified cash basis of accounting. To properly depict the revenue for sales tax the City has included the known final payment of $512K in Sales Tax receipts expected to be received by August 26, 2025.
The following is an explanation of the notable variances:
- Sales Tax revenues are approximately 1.3% or $75K less than last year’s cumulative year-end balance. This change is primarily due to reduced spending on Cotati goods and services as more consumers in the prior calendar year moved to spend more on experiences postponed during Covid and in 2025 were adjusting spending due to economic uncertainty. Industries that improved during the Covid Crisis included Home Improvement, Service Stations, Liquor Stores, and General Food and Drug. These industries are seeing corrections to more normal functions. - Licenses Permits and Franchises are primarily reduced due to pending Q4 receipts or accrual adjusting entries for franchise agreements for both Cable TV and Gas. - Charges for Services decreased by 15.8% or $78K due to a combination of (1) reduced dollar value and number of permits need of engineering plan checks for development projects, (2) reduced development project cost reimbursement.
- Investment Earnings have decreased due to decreased interest earnings in the prior year we had a weighted Yield to Maturity of 4.55% and as of June 03, 2025, the same rate has declined to 4.21%.
Additionally, as the City continues to utilize general fund balances towards capital work, the fund balance has decreased and the proportionate allocation of the interest earnings across all funds has decreased.
- Transfers-In are decreased due to prior years one time transferred back to the general fund for one time grant project reimbursements for the REAP grant and close out of the excess bond proceeds fund back to the General Fund.
219 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 4 of 7
General Fund: Operating Expenditures
The following table includes cumulative actual expenditure comparisons by department and again by expenditure type for Fiscal Year 2023/24 and Fiscal Year 2024/25 and an expenditure budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25.
Expenditures by Type
Expenditures by Department
Evaluating the expenditures, overall spending by General Fund Departments have decreased in both the Police Department and Community Development Department these decreases were due to decreased contract services for one-time special projects for each department. These decreases were offset by increases in City Managers Department and City Council which increased due to one-time contract services for each department, and the Public Works Department which had increased salaries and benefits due to staffing demands for field crew and the Interim PW Supervisor. See below for details based on the Costs for all other departments were primarily driven by the following:
- Salaries & Benefits have increased over the last year primarily related to negotiated MOU increases as well as increased one-time staffing coverage for the Interim Public Works Superintendent. - Contract Services, including Legal and Insurance, have increased due to continued insurance costs for the City’s general liability and workers comp. insurance premiums. Additionally, the City Manager’s office includes the legal costs pertaining to the mobile home park litigation and the City Council department had a contract for the facilitated strategic planning meeting. - Utilities have increased primarily due to increased rates for electric charges from PG&E as well as some increased water consumption with establishment of new landscaping in the parks along with increased rates.
Reviewing the costs comparison to budget for the General Fund, by department and by type, most expenditures are aligned with expectations.
220 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 5 of 7
Enterprise Funds: Operating and Capital Revenues and Expenses The following table includes cumulative revenue and expenses comparisons of Fiscal Year 2023/24 and Fiscal Year 2024/25, and a revenue budget to actual comparison for Fiscal Year 2024/25 for the Enterprise Funds.
The Water and Wastewater Fund revenues are made up of charges for services, connection fees other revenues, and development fees. The revenues for the Water Funds have increased in the current year to increase in consumption and rates as well as increased investment earnings. This is consistent with the Wastewater fund, which also has an increase in revenue due to increased consumption and rates as well as increased investment earnings. Total revenues for Water and Wastewater funds increased $392K or
16.2% and $122K or 3.5% respectively over the prior year.
For Fiscal Year 2024/25, most of the expenses are in line with the budget at year-end. Significant differences between fiscal years are primarily related to Aqueduct Water Purchases, Wastewater Treatment, Salaries & Benefits, and Contract Services which include Legal and Insurance. During fiscal year 2024/25 the City completed the Scada System Hardware Resiliency Project, some Well 1A improvements.
221 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 6 of 7
Cash and Investments
The tables below show the cash and investments held by the City as of June 30, 2025. The current cash and investment balances are in line with the City adopted investment policy and as budgeted are enough to meet the City’s expenditure requirements for the next six months.
OPERATING CASH,
$999,089 , 6%
LAIF, $6,508 , 0%
US BANK, $6,167,760 ,
34%
CAMP, $10,661,481 , 59%
SCIP, $203,654 , 1%
Investment Portfolio Composition - $18.0 Million
Gen. Operating, $4,083,430
Special Revenues, $3,294,534
Successor Agency, $1,901,208
Water Operating and Capital,
$4,049,812
Wastewater Operating and
Capital, $2,583,981
Capital Projects Internal Service Funds, $633,481 , $1,493,116 Deposit Accounts, $(2,033) Cash and Investment Value By Funds - $18.0 Million
222 of 261
FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT | PAGE 7 of 7
Cash and Investment Detail by Composition
Conclusion
Except for identified variances, expenditures and revenues are mostly in line with budget. Continued budgetary strategic planning for future years along with capital project planning will continue to improve the City’s position going forward. Staff will provide the Council and community financial reporting for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 annual audited financial statements as well as Fiscal Year 2025/26 quarterly budget-to-actual reports.
223 of 261
UN-AUDITED
FISCAL YEAR END
BUDGET &
ACTUALS REVIEW
Fiscal Year 2024/25
Un-Audited Year ending
June 30, 2025
City of Cotati
224 of 261
FINANCIAL
REPORTING
Citywide Overview
General Fund
Enterprise Funds
Cash and Investments Portfolio
225 of 261
CITYWIDE
226 of 261
Revenues and Expenses On Target
•Wastewater – Pending Operating Transfer
of Funds from the operations fund to the
capital fund of $80K.
•Other Special Revenues – Due to Timing of
Receipts for Revenues and year end
accrual adjustments (exp. sales tax pass
through from the county).
•Capital Projects – Pending Transfers in Trueups as well as final year end grant receipt accruals.
•Internal Services – Pending final transfers
required for compensated absences and
equipment replacement.
Revenues are at 96.4% of Budget
•General Fund – Utilities is pending final
PG&E adjustment billing for all utilities
typically received in September, R&M is
missing transferred required for internal
service funds. Possible budget adjustment
proposed to reduce expenditures.
•Capital Projects and Special Revenue
Funds– are subject to timing of the projects
in place and related activity incurred
during the fiscal year.
•Internal Service- Pending true-up of vehicle
replacements and compensated absences
use of funds
Expenses are at 86.5% of Budget
CITYWIDE - REVENUES & EXPENSES
227 of 261
GENERAL FUND
228 of 261
COMPARATIVE
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
229 of 261
DETAILED REVENUES
230 of 261
Rent,
$127,971
Other
Agencies,
$278,755
Other Revenues,
$373,449
Property Tax, $2,170,267
Sales Tax, $5,825,251
Other Taxes,
$891,183
Licenses,
Permits &
Franchises
, $745,975
Community
Developme
nt Charges,
$263,203 Public Works Charges,
$81,268 Public Safety
Charges,
$75,260
Investment
Earnings,
$223,794 Contributions, $18,521 Transfers
In,
$606,550
PROPORTION OF
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
231 of 261
DETAILED EXPENDITURES
232 of 261
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
S U M M A R Y O F W A T E R A N D W A S T E W A T E R F U N D S 233 of 261
ENTERPRISE FUNDS ANALYSIS
Revenues and Expenses On Target
• Increased revenues due to increased
water consumption during Q4 period
and increased rates over prior year in
line with the adopted rate study.
• Wastewater increase due to rate
increases offset by decreased average
sewer consumption averaging with over
the prior year.
Revenues are at 108% and 101% of Annual
Budget
• Increased expenditures consistent with
general fund across salaries and benefits
and legal and insurance.
• Increased Aqueduct Charges due to
increased consumption and rates.
Expenses are at 93% and 96% of Annual Budget
234 of 261
CASH &
INVESTMENTS
As of June 30, 2025
235 of 261
SUMMARY OF CASH
AND INVESTMENTS AT
JUNE 30, 2025
• Total approximately $18.0M. • In line with the City updated adopted investment policy. • Investments for quarter earned $160K in returns • Sufficient Cash for 6+ Months of operational needs
236 of 261
237 of 261
FISCAL RESILIENCE EVALUATION
F.
Total Revenues To
6/30/2024
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2024
Revenues to
Expenses Goal
Operating Revenues to Operating Expenditures 3,505,418 $ 3,411,775 $ 103% > 110% Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2023
Prior Fiscal Year
Expenditures
06/30/2023
Prior Year
Revenues to
Expenses
Prior Year Revenues to Operating Expenditures 2,986,863 $ 3,416,391 $ 87% Note: This item is improving over prior year and aligned with the utility rate study. Revenues have improved in part due to the move to monthly billing which more closely ties to the cost of services rendered. This will continue to be monitored for increased risk.
E. Supporting Agency Change In Rates
1-Jul-24 Goal
Budgeted Rate Agency Rate Difference < 2%
Sonoma County Water Agency (65% of supply) 6.00% 9.98% 3.9800% All sections are green except for the following two which are continued known items for water and sewer fund. The staff are moving forward with a rate study refresh for both funds and will report back to council during future quarterly evaluations. 238 of 261
CONCLUSION
Fiscal Year was primarily on
track with Budget with
increases in both overall
Revenues and Expenditures
compared Prior Year.
Proposed final budget
amendment in general fund
and capital projects. Requests
for Adjustments outlined in
staff report.
City staff will continue to
update the Council with
quarterly financial reports as
well as the audited financial
reports for Fiscal Year 2023/24
City staff are committed to
exercising prudence and
integrity in the management
of public funds and provide
transparent accountability for
its use
239 of 261
City of Cotati
Summary of Fiscal Resilience Enterprise Fund Factors
As of:
General Fund:
Cash*
Budget Operating
Expenses Cash Coverage Goal
A. Cash Coverage Ratio = $ 4,083,430 $ 9,813,548 41.61% > 25% Cash* Current Liabilities** Quick Ratio Goal
B. Liquidity Ratio = $ 4,083,430 $ 387,819 10.53 > 2.00 Twelve Month
Rolling Revenues To
6/30/2025
Twelve Month
Rolling Budget
Revenues
Revenues to
Budget Goal
C.1 Rolling Twelve Months Revenue to Budget = $ 11,681,447 $ 11,401,128 2% > - 10% Fiscal Year Total
Revenues To
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues *
6/30/2024
Revenues to Prior
Year
C.2 Current Fiscal Year Revenue to Prior Fiscal Year = $ 11,681,447 $ 11,938,572 -2% D. Increase in Expenditures
Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2024
Budget Expenditures
(12 Months)
Expenditures to
Budget Goal
Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget $ 9,198,410 $ 9,813,548 -6% < 10% Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2024
Prior Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Expenditures to
Prior Year
Operating Expenditures Compared to Prior Year $ 9,198,410 $ 8,903,214 3% E. Significant Revenue Sources Changes
Current Fiscal Year
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
6/30/2024 % Change Goal
Bradley Burns $ 2,768,865 $ 2,814,696 -1.6% > - 10%
Measure S $ 3,056,386 $ 3,085,487 -0.9%
Combined Sales Tax $ 5,825,251 $ 5,900,184 -1.3%
Property Tax $ 2,170,267 $ 2,070,441 4.8%
Current Fiscal Year
6/30/2025
Budget
(12 Months) % Change Goal
Bradley Burns $ 2,768,865 $ 2,727,500 1.5% > - 10%
Measure S $ 3,056,386 $ 3,040,000 0.5%
Combined Sales Tax $ 5,825,251 $ 5,767,500 1.0%
Property Tax $ 2,170,267 $ 2,138,512 1.5%
Monday, June 30, 2025
240 of 261
City of Cotati
Summary of Fiscal Resilience Enterprise Fund Factors
As of:
General Fund:
Monday, June 30, 2025
F. Community Event Identification: None Noted
Fiscal Year Total
Revenues To
6/30/2025
Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Current Year
Revenues to
Expenses Goal
G. Current Fiscal Year Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 11,681,447 $ 9,198,410 127% > 110% Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2024
Prior Fiscal Year
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Prior Year
Revenues to
Expenses
Prior year Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 11,938,572 $ 8,903,214 134% Ref:
* Cash incudes the pooled cash attributable to the evaluated fund which consists of all liquid available cash and investments held including CD's and Treasury notes. ** Current Liabilities are the total of all liabilities for the evaluated fund, as of the reporting date, that are due and payable within one year.
Due to timing of some revenue sources, it is consistent that the coverage for revenues would be lower through this period to date. This will continue to be monitored for risk.
Though no indicator was noted, this will continue to be monitored. 241 of 261
City of Cotati
Summary of Fiscal Resilience Enterprise Fund Factors
As of:
Water Enterprise Fund
Cash*
Budget Operating
Expenses Cash Coverage Goal
A. Cash Coverage Ratio = $ 4,049,812 $ 2,148,476 188.50% > 33% Cash* Current Liabilities** Quick Ratio Goal
B. Liquidity Ratio: = $ 4,049,812 $ 186,360 21.73 > 2.0 Twelve Month
Rolling Revenues To
6/30/2025
Twelve Month
Rolling Budget
Revenues Revenues to Budget Goal
C.1 Rolling Twelve Months Revenue to Budget = $ 2,805,659 $ 2,340,724 20% > - 10% Fiscal Year Total
Revenues To
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2023
Revenues to Prior
Year
C.2 Current Fiscal Year Revenue to Prior Fiscal Year = $ 2,805,659 $ 2,414,032 16% D. Increase in Expenditures Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Budget Expenditures
(12 Months)
Expenditures to
Budget Goal
Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget $ 2,116,941 $ 2,148,476 -1% < 10% Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Expenditures to
Prior Year
Operating Expenditures Compared to Prior Year $ 2,116,941 $ 1,967,212 8% E. Supporting Agency Change In Rates
1-Jul-24 Goal
Budgeted Rate Agency Rate Difference < 2%
Sonoma County Water Agency (65% of supply) 6.00% 9.98% 3.9800% F.
Fiscal Year Total
Revenues To
6/30/2025
Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Revenues to
Expenses Goal
Operating Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 2,805,659 $ 2,116,941 133% > 110% Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2024
Prior Fiscal Year
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Prior Year Revenues
to Expenses
Prior Year Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 2,414,032 $ 1,967,212 123% Monday, June 30, 2025
* Cash incudes the pooled cash attributable to the evaluated fund which consists of all liquid available cash and investments held including CD's and Treasury notes. ** Current Liabilities are the total of all liabilities for the evaluated fund, as of the reporting date, that are due and payable within one year. 242 of 261
City of Cotati
Summary of Fiscal Resilience General Fund Factors
As of:
Sewer Enterprise Funds
Cash*
Budget Operating
Expenses Cash Coverage Goal
A. Cash Coverage Ratio = $ 2,583,981 $ 3,328,553 77.63% > 33% B. Cash* Current Liabilities** Quick Ratio Goal
Liquidity Ratio: = $ 2,583,981 $ 66,656 38.77 > 2.0
C.1 Twelve Month
Rolling Revenues To
6/30/2025
Twelve Month
Rolling Budget
Revenues Revenues to Budget Goal
Rolling Twelve Months Revenue to Budget = $ 3,603,624 $ 3,563,727 1% > - 10% C.2 Fiscal Year Total
Revenues To
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2024
Revenues to Prior
Year
Current Fiscal Year Revenue to Prior Fiscal Year = $ 3,603,624 $ 3,481,968 3% D. Increase in Expenditures Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Budget Expenditures
(12 Months)
Expenditures to
Budget Goal
Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget $ 3,724,991 $ 3,753,506 -1% < 10% Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Prior Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Expenditures to
Prior Year
Operating Expenditures Compared to Prior Year $ 3,724,991 $ 3,328,553 12% Ref:
E. Supporting Agency Change In Rates
1-Jul-24 Goal
Budgeted Rate Agency Rate Difference < 2%
Santa Rosa Wastewater Treatment 9.00% 6.38% -2.6200%
F.
Total Revenues To
6/30/2025
Operating
Expenditures
6/30/2025
Revenues to
Expenses Goal
Operating Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 3,603,624 $ 3,724,991 97% > 110% Prior Fiscal Year
Revenues
6/30/2024
Prior Fiscal Year
Operating
Expenditures
06/30/2024
Prior Year Revenues
to Expenses
Prior Year Revenues to Operating Expenditures $ 3,481,968 $ 3,328,553 105% Ref:
Monday, June 30, 2025
* Cash incudes the pooled cash attributable to the evaluated fund which consists of all liquid available cash and investments held including CD's and Treasury notes. ** Current Liabilities are the total of all liabilities for the evaluated fund, as of the reporting date, that are due and payable within one year.
Increase in expenditures are in line with budget for operations. These funds are continuing to be closely monitored and every expenditure evaluated critically for and risk.
Revenues have improved in part due to the move to monthly billing and increased rates. Expenditures continue to increase and are closely monitored as noted in section D. above. This will continue to be monitored for increased risk. 243 of 261
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 21, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Damien O’Bid, City Manager
FROM: Angela Courter, Administrator Services Director
SUBJECT: INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 2025
Attached for your information is the quarterly report of investments as of June 30, 2025.
The total cash and investment portfolio book value (cost) held by the City as of June 30, 2025 was $18,075,454.
The cash and investments held by the City include the following components:
Managed Investment Portfolio ($6,167,760), State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund ($6,508), California Asset Management Program (CAMP) Pooled Investment Fund ($10,661,481), Sonoma County Investment Pool ($203,654), Cash/Time Deposits ($999,089), and accrued interest on investments ($36,963). (Earned interest is the interest earned on investments over a specific time period, accrued interest is the interest that an investment has earned, but hasn’t yet been received, and paid interest is the interest that has already been received as payment).
Cash and investments held by the City and the trustees continue to be invested in accordance with the Government Code and the Council Investment Policy as adopted on May 9, 2023.
244 of 261
Council Information
FY 2024-25 4th Quarter Investment Report
June 30, 2025