Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, September 23, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

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, September 23, 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/87876461604?pwd=ErnaD65tf1UEYb5rWGBsyXJDmzktZC.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: 878 7646 1604 Passcode: 120436
+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 September 23, 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 – SEP 9, 2025

3. PRESENTATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION OF LIZ RUSSELL, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE FOR SENATOR Cotati City Council Agenda September 23, 2025

CHRISTOPHER CABALDON
It is recommended that the City Council be introduced to and receive a brief presentation from Liz Russell, the district representative for State Senator Cabaldon. No action will be taken.

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 (30) seconds remaining, and red when time has expired.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2025 GIRASOL COLLECTIVE

DAY OF THE DEAD EVENT IN LA PLAZA PARK
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Girasol Collective Day of the Dead event in La Plaza Park.

B. CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF THE CITY'S SEWER

LIFT STATIONS AND WELL SITES
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf and Wheeler to prepare condition assessments of the City’s sewer lift stations and well sites and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement.

C. RESPONSE TO THE 2024-25 CIVIL GRAND JURY, ANIMAL SERVICES It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to send the proposed response to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury regarding the 2024-25 report on animal services.

D. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED PARK AND RIDE

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Park and Ride Project as being complete and directing the City Clerk to file a notice of completion then, after 35 days with no protests, release the project construction retention.

E. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT TO UPDATE THE NEXUS STUDY FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Willdan to update the Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Development Impact Fees and appropriate funds as outlined.

F. APPROVAL TO CANCEL THE NOVEMBER 11, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion canceling the November 11, 2025 City Council meeting and scheduling a special meeting on November 18, 2025.

7. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
Cotati City Council Agenda September 23, 2025
A. SANTERO WAY AND TOC REZONING WORKSHOP
It is recommended by the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department that the City Council consider the proposed policy changes identified by staff as necessary to implement the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy requirements from ABAG/MTC, provide input and direction, and make a recommendation regarding their method of implementation and adoption to inform drafting of a future ordinance.

B. DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT LEASE RENEWAL
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment, with the terms described herein, to temporarily extend the lease for public parking in the downtown parking lot, amend the budget to account for the remaining fiscal year of lease payments, and to direct staff to place an item on the future agenda at midyear to consider adding parking management as a project on the City’s workplan.

C. APPOINTMENT OF A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO THE 2025

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (LOCC) ANNUAL CONFERENCE
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a motion appointing the Mayor as the voting delegate and the Vice Mayor and City Manager as alternates to the 2025 League of California Cities (LOCC) Annual Conference.

D. APPROVAL OF AN EXTENDED COUNCILMEMBER LEAVE OF ABSENCE It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion approving the requested temporary leave of absence for Councilmember Sparks from January 26 – May 11, 2026.

9. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9) NAME OF CASE: CITY OF COTATI V. COUNTRYSIDE MHP LLC, SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 24CY07691

12. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

13. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

14. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before September 19, 2025.

Cotati City Council Agenda September 23, 2025
/s/ Kevin Patterson, 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, September 09, 2025
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

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

Attendee Name Title Status
Ben Ford Mayor Present
Sylvia Lemus Vice Mayor Present
Susan Harvey Councilmember Present
Laura Sparks Councilmember Present
John Savage Councilmember Present
Staff Present: City Manager Damien O’Bid, City Attorney John Bakker, City Clerk Kevin Patterson, Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter, Director of Community Development Noah Housh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott, Police Chief Chris Simmons, Engineering Technician Henry Babits

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 26, 2025 No public comment.

RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sylvia Lemus, Vice Mayor
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None

3. PROCLAMATIONS
A. LATINO HERITAGE MONTH
6 of 238
Cotati City Council Minutes September 09, 2025
Vice Mayor Sylvia Lemus read the proclamation. Proclamation was accepted by members of the MEChA Club at Rancho Cotate High School.

B. CREEK WEEK
Mayor Ben Ford read the proclamation. Proclamation was accepted by Jenny Blaker and Paul Burke of the Cotati Friends of the Laguna.

4. AGENDA REVIEW (ACTION)
No changes. No public comment.

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, timer indicator lights will turn yellow when there are thirty (30) seconds remaining, and red when time has expired.

Public Comment:

Laurie Alderman of Cotati
Neil Hancock of Cotati

6. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENTS FOR THE COTATI VILLAGE 1 AND COTATI VILLAGE 2

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
B. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ACTIVITY (AB1600)
C. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2025 STREET

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
D. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE CONSOLIDATING INFLATIONARY

INDICES FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIF), ADJUSTING TIMING OF DIF

PAYMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, AND MODIFYING PARK IN LIEU

LANGUAGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED DIF NEXUS STUDY RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Councilmember
AYES: Ford, Lemus, Harvey, Sparks, Savage
NAYS: None

7. DIRECTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
7 of 238
Cotati City Council Minutes September 09, 2025
Councilmember Sparks requested a future agenda item on sending a letter of support for the Make Polluters Pay super fund legislation.

8. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. FINALIZE DESIGN OPTION FOR THE LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA CLASS 1

PATHWAY MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Presentation by Engineering Technician Henry Babits and Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott.

Councilmembers comment.

Public Comment:

Jenny Blaker of Cotati
Neil Hancock of Cotati
Laurie Alderman of Cotati
After discussion, Council directed Staff to move forward with an aggregate surface for the Class I Pathway maintenance project, instead of repairing the existing asphalt surface.

10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT & COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Report by City Manager Damien O’Bid.

Councilmembers report out on local and regional events and meetings.

11. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ford adjourned the meeting at 7:14pm.
/s/ Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
8 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PRESENTATIONS
To: City Council
Subject: INTRODUCTION OF LIZ RUSSELL, DISTRICT

REPRESENTATIVE FOR SENATOR CHRISTOPHER

CABALDON
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council be introduced to and receive a brief presentation from Liz Russell, the district representative for State Senator Cabaldon. No action will be taken. 9 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2025

GIRASOL COLLECTIVE DAY OF THE DEAD EVENT IN LA
PLAZA PARK.

Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Ashley Wilson, Recreation Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Girasol Collective Day of the Dead event in La Plaza Park.

Background
Girasol Collective is a local business that desires to bring a new cultural event to Cotati. The event is proposed to be a Day of the Dead Celebration, honoring Latino traditions and promoting cultural appreciation. Girasol Collective’s owner, Rocio Alvarez, also owns a small business selling local goods at pop up shops and events. She currently has a presence at many Sonoma County cultural events, promoting small businesses.

Girasol Collective is a recipient of the 2025 Cotati Cultural Grant Program award and will use the $5,000 in grant funding to produce the proposed Day of the Dead event on November 2, 2025 in La Plaza Park.

Analysis/Discussion
The proposed event will feature Altars (Ofrendas) to honor loved ones with marigolds, photos, and offerings, live music from traditional mariachi and folkloric performances, children’s crafts and activities, and vendors with local goods, foods, and other items.

The event is proposed to be from 1:00pm-6:00pm with street closures on La Plaza Street behind the park between Old Redwood Highway and West Sierra Avenue. The street closure request would be from 11:00am to 8:00pm to allow for setup and cleanup before and after the event. No 10 of 238
park closures are requested. The event would be free to attend.

The applicant has requested the use of amplified music, and authorization for vendors to sell goods, food, and beverages (including the sales of alcohol).

Proceeds from the sale of alcohol will be donated to a local nonprofit organization.

The exhibits attached to the resolution describe the street closures necessary for the orderly movement of vehicle and pedestrian traffic during street closures. City staff will place no parking signs on La Plaza Street the morning of the event.

The street closure signs will also be placed by the City’s Public Works Department on the day of the event. The applicant has reviewed the insurance requirements and has indicated that they can provide adequate insurance. A Condition of Approval has been included which requires proof of insurance supplied to the City before the event.

A Condition of Approval has been included which requires a California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control approved temporary permit to allow for the sale of alcohol to be supplied to the City before the event.

Financial Considerations
Girasol Collective has requested fee waivers for their event. In accordance with the Park Use and Special Event Policy regarding fee waiver requests, staff recommends that these costs be fully waived as this event is a first year of an ongoing free community event, and has the potential to increase the number of visitors to the City. The event would provide increased opportunities to promote economic development and increase sales tax revenue.

Total costs and waivers would be as follows:

Large Event Non-Resident Park Permit Fee: $548
Small Street Closure Fee: $769
Special Event Application Fee: $54
Electricity Fee: $17
Restroom Cleaning Fee: $220
Refundable deposit of $500 prior to the event (not subsidized).

The total cost of the waivers is $1,608 and would be funded by the City‘s General Fund Account.

This subsidy would be in addition to the $5,000 grant award and will be used to offset the costs of producing the first-time event. Grant funding will be used to hire event entertainment, purchase altar supplies, children’s activity and craft supplies, and other event supplies, pay for event marketing, and staff costs.

Additionally, fee waivers and grant funding will be used to keep the vendor fees for small business owners affordable.
11 of 238
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,
12 of 238
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)
APPROVING 2025 GIRASOL COLLECTIVE DAY OF THE DEAD EVENT IN LA

PLAZA PARK
WHEREAS, Girasol Collective submitted an application to the City for the Day of the Dead event on December 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21101(e) authorizes temporary street closures where certain conditions exist; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to temporarily close certain streets, as described in the Exhibits attached, to facilitate this event and improve pedestrian safety; and WHEREAS, the closure is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion or portions of the street(s) during the temporary closing; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police of the City of Cotati will arrange for temporary street closure and traffic re-routing, which would minimize the traffic hazard conditions and allow for orderly movement of traffic; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police will contact the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, ambulance service providers, bus service providers, and others who may need ingress, egress, or the ability to traverse the affected area and will reasonably provide for their needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these events are part of a comprehensive economic development strategy in that they increase visitation to the City, promote the Cotati community and result in increased sales tax revenues; and WHEREAS, the City Council approves the waived permit fees and street closure fees of an amount not to exceed $1,608 as funded by the City General Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Cotati will not be jeopardized by the approval of these events; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to conform to certain conditions as described in “Exhibit A,” attached hereto, to facilitate this event; and WHEREAS, the action of approving a Downtown Shop and Stroll event does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

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

1. The above recitals are declared to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the City Council.
13 of 238

2. The City Council hereby approves of the special event permit and street closure fees and staff time associated with road closures to be funded by the City’s General Fund.

3. The temporary closure of portions of La Plaza Street from Old Redwood Highway to West Sierra Avenue on November 2, 2025, between 11:00am and 8:00pm, is hereby approved.

4. Amplified music, the sales of goods, food, and beverages, including alcohol sales and other Day of the Dead activities as described in the accompanying staff report, is hereby approved.

5. The Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, are hereby approved.

6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

7. Each portion of this resolution is severable. Should any portion of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Cotati hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on September 23, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
14 of 238

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. The applicant is granted exclusive use of La Plaza Park from Sunday, November 2nd, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. for the event scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This approval includes amplified live entertainment.

2. The applicant shall submit a deposit of $500 within 30 days of approval of this event.

3. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of insurance for all events and vendors, as required, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the event.

4. Applicant shall provide the City with a map of the event, no later than 7 days prior to the event.

5. Applicant shall obtain a Daily License from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The City authorizes the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; a copy of the license, as well as evidence of responsible beverage service training, shall be provided to the City prior to the event date.

6. Applicant shall notify all neighboring businesses and residents of the event and street closures, no later than 14 days prior to the event.

7. The applicant shall ensure that no open flames from candles are unattended, and that event staff will remain on site throughout the event to monitor candle use.

8. The applicant shall obtain the required permits and follow all regulations from the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department and shall ensure each food vendor complies with Health Department requirements.

9. The applicant shall ensure that all vendors follow Cotati Municipal Code 8.20.030 (Prohibited food service ware and products), which bans the selling or serving of food ware that contains polystyrene foam or PFAS.

10. The applicant shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws regarding trash, recycling, and composting collection and sorting.

11. The organizer shall prominently feature the City of Cotati as an event sponsor on all advertising and marketing materials.

12. The applicant shall ensure the public facilities (park, parking spaces, and streets) are cleaned completely and returned to pre-event conditions within 2 hours of event end time.

13. The event shall be carried out as described in the written descriptions submitted by the applicant and in compliance with these Conditions of Approval. 15 of 238

14. The applicant shall contact the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District and comply with any permit requirements of the District.
16 of 238
17 of 238
18 of 238
19 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION APPROVING A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF THE CITY'S SEWER LIFT

STATIONS AND WELL SITES
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf and Wheeler to prepare condition assessments of the City’s sewer lift stations and well sites and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement.

Background
The City owns and operates a public sewer system and a public water system, and these systems require ongoing maintenance and periodically condition assessments to determine any needed equipment replacement and/or site remediation. These efforts are to ensure the safe and reliable operation of these systems.

Analysis/Discussion
The City has four sewer lift stations and three drinking water wells. The intent of the proposed condition assessment of these facilities is to identify components that are reaching the end of their useful lives and subject to failure. These components can be proactively replaced or renewed before they fail to improve the reliability of these systems.

The lift stations receive sewage through gravity flow, and each has two submersible pumps which operate on a flow sensor. Each station is submersible which means the pumps, piping, and sensors are contained in a well filled with sewage and the equipment is subjected to a highly corrosive environment. The well containing the sewage, pipes entering and existing the wet well, equipment, sensors, and rest of the infrastructure is to have their condition assessed to determine 20 of 238
the need for renewal and/or replacement.

The drinking water system’s three wells each have infrastructure consisting of the well column, casing, submersible pump, electrical system, sensors, treatment system, and for two of the wells, granular activated carbon filtration systems. These sites are monitored continuously by instrumentation for proper operation and are automatically shut down if critical parameters are not met. Additionally, each site is inspected daily by Public Works Staff and water samples are collected and sent to a lab for analysis of water quality. A condition assessment would identify renewal and/or replacement needs of the components and factor in their visual condition, operating within design parameters, and expected life.

In June 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposals for engineering services including condition assessments and received 16 proposals. After evaluating the proposals, Staff determined Shaaf and Wheeler was the most qualified to provide condition assessment services.

In late 2024, Staff requested and Schaaf and Wheeler provided a proposal to perform condition assessments on the City’s sewer lift stations and its three drinking water wells. The City has negotiated the attached proposal and finds it fair and reasonable and recommends it for approval.

If approved, the services would be conducted through the end of this year with deliverables due in early 2026. Following completion of these services, the City would include identified renewal and replacement projects in its five-year Capital Improvement Program.

Financial Considerations
The City’s Fiscal Years 25/26 – 26/27 Adopted budget includes the following in the first year:
• Water Renewal and Replacement $150,000
• Sewer Renewal and Replacement $70,000
The Schaaf and Wheeler proposal is for $218,230 for Water and $78,749 for Sewer, which results in budget shortfalls of $68,230 and $8,749 for Water and Sewer, respectively. Staff propose using $68,230 from the unappropriated Water Fund balance and $8,749 of funds from the unappropriated Sewer Fund balance. Please see attached proposed budget amendment.

For the Water Fund, the impact to fund balance was previously reduced with the deferral of the Distribution Monitoring Project ($130,000) to fund the Emergency Water Repairs Project ($74,000). The difference of $58,000 was returned to the unappropriated fund balance and will be used to partially offset the proposed project.

Environmental Issues
This action is found to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 in that the project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use. 21 of 238
9/17/2025 6:31:33 PM Page 1 of 3
Budget Adjustment Register
Cotati, CA Adjustment Detail
Packet: GLPKT13062 - Enterprise Condition Assessments - 9/23/2025
Adjustment Number Budget Code Description Adjustment Date BA0000055 Adopted Budget for FY 2025… Conditions Assessment-Water Renewal & Replace 9/23/2025 Summary Description: Staff recommendation to Council for Approval of Schaaf and Wheeler proposal. Increased budget to $218,230 from $150,000.

Account Number Account Name Adjustment Description Before Adjustment After 402-00-92300-MSTPLN Water Renewal and Replacem… Conditions Assessment-Water Renewal & Repl… 150,000.00 68,230.00 218,230.00 September: 68,230.00
Adjustment Number Budget Code Description Adjustment Date BA0000056 Adopted Budget for FY 2025… Sewer 9/23/2025
Summary Description: Staff recommendation to Council for Approval of Schaaf and Wheeler proposal. Increased budget to $78,749 from $70,000.

Account Number Account Name Adjustment Description Before Adjustment After 405-00-92300-MSTPLN Sewer Renewal and Replaceme… Conditions Assessment-Sewer Renewal & Repl… 70,000.00 8,749.00 78,749.00 September: 8,749.00
22 of 238
Budget Adjustment Register Packet: GLPKT13062 - Enterprise Condition Assessments - 9/23/2025 9/17/2025 6:31:33 PM Page 2 of 3
Budget Budget Description Account Account Description After Budget Code Summary
Before Adjustment
2025-2026 Adopted Budget for FY 20… 402-00-92300-MSTPLN Water Renewal and Replacement… 150,000.00 68,230.00 218,230.00 405-00-92300-MSTPLN Sewer Renewal and Replacement… 70,000.00 8,749.00 78,749.00 2025-2026 Total: 220,000.00 76,979.00 296,979.00
Grand Total: 220,000.00 76,979.00 296,979.00
23 of 238
Budget Adjustment Register Packet: GLPKT13062 - Enterprise Condition Assessments - 9/23/2025 9/17/2025 6:31:33 PM Page 3 of 3
Fund After
Fund Summary
Before Adjustment
Budget Code:2025-2026 - Adopted Budget for FY 2025/26 Fiscal: 2025-2026 402 150,000.00 68,230.00 218,230.00
405 70,000.00 8,749.00 78,749.00
Budget Code 2025-2026 Total: 220,000.00 76,979.00 296,979.00 Grand Total: 220,000.00 76,979.00 296,979.00
24 of 238
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SCHAAF AND WHEELER TO PREPARE

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF THE CITY'S SEWER LIFT STATIONS AND

WELL SITES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a public sewer system and a public water system and these systems require ongoing maintenance and, periodically condition assessments to determine any needed equipment replacement and/or site remediation; these efforts are to ensure the safe and reliable operation of these systems; and WHEREAS, the City has four sewer lift stations and three drinking water wells and a condition assessment of these facilities identifies components that are reaching the end of their useful lives and subject to failure, and these components can be proactively replaced or renewed to improve the reliability of these systems by replacing their components before they fail; and WHEREAS, the lift stations receive sewage through gravity flow and each has two submersible pumps which operate on a flow sensor, and each station is submersible which means the pumps, piping, and sensors are contained in a well filled with sewage and the equipment is subjected to a highly corrosive environment; and
WHEREAS, the well containing the sewage, pipes entering and exiting the container, equipment, sensors, and rest of the infrastructure is to be assessed for their condition and need for renewal and/or replacement; and
WHEREAS, the drinking water system’s three wells each have infrastructure consisting of the well column, casing, submersible pump, electrical system, sensors, treatment system, and for two of the wells, granular activated carbon filtration systems; and WHEREAS, the well sites are monitored continuously by instrumentation for proper operation and are automatically shut down if critical parameters are not met, additionally, each site is inspected daily by Public Works Staff and manual water samples are taken and sent to the lab; and
WHEREAS, a condition assessment would identify renewal and/or replacement needs of the components and factor in their visual condition, operating within design parameters, and expected life; and
WHEREAS, in June 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposals for engineering services including condition assessments, and received 16 proposals, and, after evaluating the proposals, Staff determined Shaaf and Wheeler was the most qualified to provide condition assessment services; and
25 of 238
WHEREAS, in late 2024, Staff requested and Schaaf and Wheeler provided a proposal to perform condition assessments on the City’s sewer lift stations and its three drinking water wells (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the City has negotiated the attached proposal and finds it to be fair and reasonable and recommends it for approval; and
WHEREAS, appropriations from the unappropriated water and sewer fund balances are needed in the amounts of $68,230, and $8,749, respectively; and WHEREAS, this action is found to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15301 in that the project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use.

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct, and

2. The Schaaf and Wheeler Professional Services scope of work (Exhibit A) to provide condition assessment services for the sewer and water systems is approved, and

3. Appropriations are approved of $68,230 and $8,749, respectively from the unappropriated Water and Sewer Fund balances, and

4. The City Manager is authorized to execute the subject agreement.

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 September 23, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
26 of 238
2200 Range Avenue, Ste. 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 528-4848
[email protected]

PROPOSAL MEMO

VIA EMAIL
DATE: August 27, 2025
TO: Craig Scott, City of Cotati
FROM: Ben Shick, PE
SUBJECT: Sewer Pump Station and Well Assessment Proposal Schaaf & Wheeler will provide the following scope of work to complete condition assessments for the City of Cotati’s sewer pump stations (Quail Hollow, Eagle (New Century), Benson, and Redwood) and three potable water Wells (Wells No. 1A, 2, and 3). This scope also includes preliminary design for the addition of generators at Quail Hollow and Eagle pump stations and preliminary design for a treatment system at Well No. 2. The attached fee estimate for each task is for budgeting purposes; some individual tasks may require more effort than estimated, some less.

Task 1: Data Collection, Review, and Site Visits
Schaaf & Wheeler will collect existing available information from the City, including as-builts, reports, models, and any other pertinent data available from the City. The existing data will be reviewed and evaluated and City Public Works staff will be interviewed.

Schaaf & Wheeler and subconsultants (J. Calton Engineering and Todd Groundwater) will visit each pump station site to visually assess the age and condition of the pump station equipment.

Current pump station operation and known issues will be discussed with City staff.

Task 2: Pump Station Evaluation
Schaaf & Wheeler will perform the following evaluations and system analyses for each pump station:
• Evaluate pump station site for accessibility, safety, flooding, and code compliance. • Evaluate existing electrical, mechanical, and communication/alarm equipment based on visible condition, age, reports, and discussions with operations and maintenance staff. • Pump station level sensors and controls will be evaluated for reliability, ease of operation,
• Evaluate condition of existing structures based on visible condition. This scope does not include structural evaluation of the structures and buildings. • Evaluate the emergency/back up power generation and switching gear for each pump station. Evaluate options for adding generators and/or receptacles for portable generators at pump stations that do not have backup power. • Pump station capacities will be evaluated and compared to the peak inflow rates from the current hydraulic model that was developed for the storm drain master plan. Pump station capacities will be evaluated based on existing available information and by performing pump drawdown testing, if feasible during the pump station stie visits. It is assumed that the peak pump station inflow rates to each pump station will be determined by reviewing and evaluating existing available reports and data. 27 of 238
To: Craig Scott, City of Cotati
Schaaf & Wheeler 2
August 27, 2025
• Evaluate the size, age, and condition of the force mains, fittings, and valves. Force main evaluations will be based on age, visible condition, size, material, cathodic protection devices where applicable, and discussions with operations and maintenance staff.

Task 3: Well Evaluation
Schaaf & Wheeler and subconsultants, J Calton Engineering and Todd Groundwater, will perform the following evaluations for the City’s Wells No. 1A, 2, and 3. Water quality evaluation and preliminary design for Well No. 2 is provided under Task 7.

Review of Well Documents and Water Quality Data
Todd staff will review available information relating to the well construction, maintenance, and water quality. On receiving notice to proceed, Todd staff will request the City provide all relevant well documentation information, including construction, rehabilitation, operations, water level and quality records. A portion of this information has already been made available to Todd staff, though we anticipate there may be more relevant information not yet provided.

Provide Recommendations for Zonal Water Quality Sampling for Well No. 2 Following review of available information, Todd staff will provide recommendations regarding the potential for zonal water quality sampling of Well 2. This sampling plan recommendation would provide multiple options for zonal sampling, weighing the costs and benefits of each for the well in question. Following delivery of these recommendations, if desired, Todd staff will draft a scope of work to execute the appropriate sampling program.

Should zonal sampling be conducted, Todd staff can be available to oversee field operations.

Memorandum of Results, Findings, and Recommendations
Based on findings from the well documentation and potential zonal sampling, Todd will summarize findings and recommendations in a Technical Memorandum (TM). The TM will include documentation of the background information reviewed and any zonal sampling results obtained, as well as analysis of these results. The TM will also include detailed recommendations for additional evaluation, rehabilitation, maintenance actions, and/or appropriateness of treatment solutions to achieve and maintain acceptable function of the well.

Task 4: Establish Improvements & Estimates of Probable Construction Costs Schaaf & Wheeler will develop recommended short term and long-term improvements for each pump station and well. Short term improvements will be developed with the goal of utilizing existing available funds to improve the operation and safety of the pump stations. Long term improvements will be established for full pump station rehabilitations/replacements.

Estimates of probable construction costs will be developed for the proposed improvements. 28 of 238
To: Craig Scott, City of Cotati
Schaaf & Wheeler 3
August 27, 2025
Task 5: Technical Memorandum
Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing assessment, findings, recommendations, and estimates of probable construction costs. The technical memorandum will include a summary of the assessment detailed in Tasks 2 and 3 and will include recommendations for short-term and long-term improvements for each facility. The recommended improvements will be prioritized, and replacement schedules will be provided.

This scope includes submitting a draft memo for review and comment followed by a final memorandum. One meeting will be scheduled to review and discuss the draft memorandum.

Task 6: Generator Preliminary Design
Schaaf & Wheeler and electrical subconsultant, J. Calton Engineering will provide preliminary design documents for the installation of permanent backup generators at the Quail Hollow and Eagle Pump Stations. The design will include generator sizing, a basic site plan, wiring diagram, and material specifications with the intention that the preliminary design documents will be sent to a design-build generator company for final design and installation. Final design documents can be provided for an additional fee upon request. Construction support services is not included, but can be provided for an additional fee upon request.

Task 7: Well No. 2 Treatment Evaluation and Preliminary Design Schaaf & Wheeler and subconsultant, Trussell Technologies, Inc. will provide water quality evaluation, treatment alternatives analysis, and preliminary design documents for the preferred treatment alternative for Well No. 2 as detailed herein:

Coordination and Project Management
Trussell will provide project management activities throughout the project to facilitate adherence to the schedule and budget. Project management activities will include all necessary project coordination including meetings and monthly invoicing activities.

Water Quality Evaluation
This task includes review of relevant background materials to evaluate the current water quality of Well No. 2. Trussell will review relevant documents and data that will aid in the understanding of current operations, water quality targets, system constraints, and other information relevant to potential treatment design options.

Trussell will conduct one site visit to gain familiarity with the City’s wells and learn more from engineering and operations staff regarding well operation and well site constraints.

Analysis results will be compiled and presented at a virtual conference call.

Treatment Alternatives Analysis
Trussell will identify and compare two technically viable treatment alternatives that can be implemented at No. Well 2 to meet the water quality targets. The analysis will focus exclusively on source‑water constituents introduced through the well. Considerations for this evaluation will include, but not be limited to:
• Water quality goals and source water quality
• Site constraints (footprint, access, utilities, sewer discharge options) • Implementation feasibility (construction complexity, permitting, schedule) 29 of 238
To: Craig Scott, City of Cotati
Schaaf & Wheeler 4
August 27, 2025
• Operability (operator skill level, maintenance, chemical handling, residuals management)
• High-level, budgetary cost differences (capital and annual O&M) For both alternatives, Trussell will prepare high-level design information including basic design criteria, a process flow schematic, and approximate space requirements. An associated budgetary cost estimate will also be provided to facilitate comparison between alternatives.

The initial concepts for the two viable alternatives will be presented to the City during a virtual conference call. Based on the information provided, the City will select the preferred treatment alternative. This scope does not include an Alternatives Analysis report; however, the alternatives analysis will be summarized in the Preliminary Design Report.

Preliminary Design
Trussell will develop the preliminary design and construction cost estimate for the selected design alternative. The preliminary design will include key design criteria, document project constraints, and describe project elements. A process flow diagram and high-level site layout will also be developed.

Prior to completing the Preliminary Design Report, Trussell will lead a workshop to review design elements with the City. Feedback provided during the workshop will be incorporated into the Preliminary Design Report. A draft report will be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to finalizing.

Assumptions:

This scope of work was prepared under the following assumptions:

1. This scope excludes evaluation, review, and recommendations for the pump station communication system and data.

2. The City will have the capability of collecting additional water quality data for Well No. 2 (as needed) and will be able to operate the well at full-scale flows during sampling.

3. Water quality targets for treated well water will comply with the California drinking water requirements for maximum contaminant levels (MCL) or, if none, secondary maximum contaminant level (sMCL).
30 of 238
To: Craig Scott, City of Cotati
Schaaf & Wheeler 5
August 27, 2025
Schaaf & Wheeler proposes to complete this work on a time and materials basis for a fee not to exceed $296,979 as outlined on the attached fee estimate. If you have any questions regarding this scope and budget, do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 420-1123 or [email protected].

Best regards,

SCHAAF & WHEELER
Ben Shick, PE
Vice President
RCE 68813
31 of 238
Principal Project Manager
Senior Engineer
Assistant Engineer
Hourly Rate $305 $255 $205
Task 1 Data Collection, Review, and Site Visits 16 0 24 9,800 $ 7,625 $ - $ - $ - $ 381 $ 17,806 $ 7,657 $ 10,150 $ A Collect & Review Existing Data 4 12 3,680 $ 1,575 $ 79 $ 5,334 $ 2,294 $ 3,040 $ B Site Visits 12 12 6,120 $ 6,050 $ 303 $ 12,473 $ 5,363 $ 7,109 $ Task 2 Pump Station Evaluation 8 0 40 10,640 $ 7,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 350 $ 17,990 $ - $ 17,990 $ A Pump Station Evaluation 8 40 10,640 $ 7,000 $ 350 $ 17,990 $ 17,990 $ Task 3 Well Evaluation 6 0 10 3,880 $ 3,600 $ 19,359 $ - $ - $ 1,148 $ 27,987 $ 27,987 $ - $ A Review Documents and Data 4 8 2,860 $ 3,600 $ 7,080 $ 534 $ 14,074 $ 14,074 $ B Recommendations for Water Sampling (Well No. 2) 2 2 1,020 $ 12,279 $ 614 $ 13,913 $ 13,913 $ Task 4 Establish Improvements & Estimates 14 0 32 10,830 $ 7,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 350 $ 18,180 $ 7,817 $ 10,363 $ A Establish Improvements 12 16 6,940 $ 4,000 $ 200 $ 11,140 $ 4,790 $ 6,350 $ B Estimates of Probable Construction Cost 2 16 3,890 $ 3,000 $ 150 $ 7,040 $ 3,027 $ 4,013 $ Task 5 Technical Memorandum 18 0 44 14,510 $ 4,525 $ 16,680 $ - $ - $ 1,060 $ 36,775 $ 15,813 $ 20,962 $ A Draft Technical Memorandum 12 32 10,220 $ 3,525 $ 12,000 $ 776 $ 26,521 $ 11,404 $ 15,117 $ B Final Technical Memorandum 6 12 4,290 $ 1,000 $ 4,680 $ 284 $ 10,254 $ 4,409 $ 5,845 $ Task 6 Generator Preliminary Design 6 0 16 5,110 $ 13,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 675 $ 19,285 $ - $ 19,285 $ A Generator Preliminary Design 6 16 5,110 $ 13,500 $ 675 $ 19,285 $ 19,285 $ Task 7 Well 2 Treatment Eval and Prelim. Design 24 0 20 11,420 $ - $ - $ 140,510 $ - $ 7,026 $ 158,956 $ 158,956 $ - $ A Coordination and PM 12 3,660 $ 10,700 $ 535 $ 14,895 $ 14,895 $ B Water Quality Evaluation $ 23,810 - $ 1,191 $ 25,001 $ 25,001 $ C Treatment Alternatives Analysis 4 4 2,040 $ 42,620 $ 2,131 $ 46,791 $ 46,791 $ D Preliminary Design 8 16 5,720 $ 63,380 $ 3,169 $ 72,269 $ 72,269 $ TOTAL EXCLUDING OPTIONAL TASKS 92 0 186 66,190 $ 43,250 $ 36,039 $ 140,510 $ - $ 10,990 $ 296,979 $ 218,230 $ 78,749 $ Trussell Technologies, Inc.,
Treatment
Subconsultant
Markup (5%)
Total for Water Wells
Total for Sewer Pump Stations
Schaaf & Wheeler
City of Cotati
Schaaf & Wheeler
Fee Estimate - August 27, 2025
Schaaf & Wheeler Subtotal
J Calton Engineering, Electrical
Todd Groundwater,
Well Evaluation
Presidio Systems Inc.,
CCTV Inspection
Total
32 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: RESPONSE TO THE 2024-25 CIVIL GRAND JURY, ANIMAL

SERVICES
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to send the proposed response to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury regarding the 2024-25 report on animal services.

Background
Under State law the Civil Grand Jury is an independent institution that oversees the legislative and administrative departments that make up county, city, and special district governments. The Civil Grand Jury has the power to investigate them to ensure that they are efficient, honest, fair and dedicated to serving the public and individual citizens.

The Civil Grand Jury functions as an arm of the judicial branch of government and operates under the authority of the Sonoma County Superior Court. Jurors are selected to serve for a one year term (July 1 to June 30). At the beginning of the Civil Grand Jury term, the 19 members establish committees that focus on broad topic areas (e.g., health, law, education, finance, environment, etc.). Each Jury has the authority to select whatever topics it feels are important to investigate. Jury members are citizens that must meet certain eligibility criteria and if eligible are interviewed by the presiding Superior Court Judge and ultimately selected by drawing.

Analysis/Discussion
For FY 2024-25, the Civil Grand Jury selected the following topics:
• Sonoma County Airport
• Permit Sonoma 2025
33 of 238
• Local Fees, Local Subsidies
• Animal Services in Sonoma County
• Sonoma County Emergency Evacuation Plans
• Who can afford to live in Sonoma County?
• Sonoma County’s Surplus Property Disposal
The consolidated report can be found here: https://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/system/files/grandjury/sonoma-county-civil-grand-jury-consolidated-report-2024-2025.pdf Of the reports, only the Animal Services in Sonoma County requires a response from the City of Cotati. The proposed response is attached for consideration by the City Council.

Financial Considerations
There are no direct financial considerations with approving the response to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury. Note that if the County forms an animal services task force, it may require a commitment of staff resources. However, the scope of that, if any, is unknown at this time.

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.
34 of 238
September 15, 2025
Honorable Judge Christopher Honigsberg, Presiding Judge County of Sonoma
600 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Sent via email: [email protected]
Subject: Response to the 2024-2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Report, Animal Services in Sonoma County
Dear Judge Honigsberg,
Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, attached is the City of Cotati’s response to the Grand Jury Final Report on "Animal Services in Sonoma County, Separate and Not Equal The Costs and Consequences of Decentralization.” R1. By November 1,2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to establish an Animal Services Task Force comprising county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report and recommend a governance structure for animal services that will: 1) provide county-wide oversight to ensure compliance with State Law; 2) standardize fees and engage a common licensing vendor to enhance public health and safety, licensing rates and revenue, and; 3) achieve economic efficiencies through shared resources. (Fl, F3, F4-F6 and F9-Fl0) Response: The City shares animal shelter services with the City of Rohnert Park.

The City is also open to discussions with the County of Sonoma (County) regarding standardization and greater cooperation to improve the systems for animal services in Sonoma County.

R2. By January l, 2026, each of Sonoma County's 9 cities will delegate one or more representatives to participate in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force convened by DHS. (Fl)
Response: If the County convenes a county-wide Animal Services Task Force, the City will participate directly or through our shelter partners in Rohnert Park. 35 of 238
R4. By May 1,2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to launch a county-wide public information campaign in cooperation with the cities to explain the legal imperative and benefits of licensing pets. The campaign will commence no later than July 1,2026. (F7-F9)
Response: Noted. The City regularly uses public information to raise awareness regarding the need for animal licensing.

R5. By November l, 2025, each city contracting with North Bay Animal Services will inspect and evaluate the shelter condition, and evaluate the shelter operation and animal control services, to determine whether NBAS is complying with legal mandates and other terms of its contract. (F2, Fl l-Fl2)
Response: Noted. The City does not contract with North Bay Animal Services.

F1. Failure by the county and its nine cities to adopt recommendations in the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report has left Sonoma County animal service agencies operating without shared standards, communication channels, data sharing or oversight.

Response: The City is open to discussions with the County regarding standardization and greater cooperation to improve the systems for animal services in Sonoma County.

F3. A lack of coordination between SCAS and NBAS is an obstacle to a fully coordinated implementation of the county-wide disaster response plan for animal evacuations.

Response: The City, through DocuPet, shares licensing information with SCAS to facilitate county-wide disaster response preparedness.

F4. Insufficient funding and staffing make it difficult for some agencies to provide effective training for staff and volunteers.

Response: The City shares animal services with the City of Rohnert Park, which is augmented with City General Fund contributions to maintain effective shelter operations.

F5. Insufficient funding and staffing make it difficult for agencies to maintain websites and social media content required for effective public relations.

Response: Animal licensing is done through DocuPet, which directly performs public engagement, supplemented by direct public engagement by the City on the need to license animals.

F6. Having multiple different fee structures for animal licenses and services is confusing to the public and complicates billing and collection of license fees and fines. 36 of 238
Response: Noted. The fee schedules between the City and the City of Rohnert Park were largely aligned upon the implementation of DocuPet.

F7. Failure to achieve high levels of licensing in all government jurisdictions and provide access to shared information undermines mandated rabies control, makes it more difficult to return lost pets, and results in a loss of revenue.

Response: The City encourages all owners to license their dogs, with voluntary licensing of cats. Licensing data is shared with the County through DocuPet.

F8. Based on SCAS data, uniform adoption of online licensing management through DocuPet (or a comparable vendor) would increase county-wide licensing rates and enhance compliance with state law.

Response: Noted. The City uses DocuPet in a joint agreement with the City of Rohnert Park.

F9. Failure to promote the benefits and legal requirement to license dogs, and failing consistently to send license renewal reminders, contribute to low license compliance and loss of revenue.

Response: The City moved to DocuPet, in part, to ensure more consistent messaging to owners and greater overall compliance.

Fl0. Making centralized training resources available could enhance performance of animal services employees and volunteers.

Response: The City uses a shared services model with the City of Rohnert Park to promote consistency between our abutting jurisdictions. The City also supplements shelter operations with General Fund contributions to ensure a high level of operations.
37 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE

COMPLETED PARK AND RIDE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Park and Ride Project as being complete and directing the City Clerk to file a notice of completion then, after 35 days with no protests, release the project construction retention.

Background
In 2014, the City of Cotati and Caltrans executed a Functional Replacement and Exchange Agreement (FREA) for the St. Joseph Park and Ride property. The City would construct an equivalent number of replacement park and ride parking spaces and in exchange, Caltrans would transfer the St Josephs Park and Ride Lot to the City. The FREA identified two replacement park and ride locations adjacent to Highway 101: Airport Boulevard and Petaluma Boulevard South.

These replacement Park and Ride lots have been constructed.

Analysis/Discussion
On August 8, 2023, City Council awarded the Petaluma Boulevard South and Airport Boulevard Park and Ride Project to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. and, the Notice to Proceed was issued in September.

Work began at the Airport Boulevard site in Mid-September 2023 and at the Petaluma site in early October 2023. Work was substantially completed at the Airport site in early February 2024, and in June 2025 for the Petaluma site. Work at the Petaluma site was substantially delayed by PG&E relocating a power pole guidewire, discovery of contaminated soil, and work extending into the winter of 2024/25.

On August 6, 2025, Caltrans accepted the project at both locations and assumes ownership of the sites which includes all future maintenance, upgrade, and liability responsibilities. The work has 38 of 238
been inspected thoroughly throughout the project timeline by the Construction Management (CM) consulting firm, Green Valley Consulting Engineers and work has been determined to be complete by the CM and by the City Public Works Director/City Engineer and recommends it for acceptance by the City. Following City acceptance, the City Clerk is to file a Notice of Acceptance with the County Recorder’s Office then, after 35 days with no protest, release construction retention to the contractor.

Financial Considerations
On August 8, 2023, City Council approved a total Project budget of $3,358,100. Revenue of $2.375M from the sale of 147 St. Joseph Way to the hotel development group was used to partially offset the cost of the replacement parking spaces. Actual project final expenses are as follows:

Phase Expenditure
Construction $2,950,310
Construction Management $268,917
Construction Engineering $101,254
Other Costs $28,082
Total $3,348,563
The unspent funds of $9,537, will be returned to the unappropriated General Fund balance.

Environmental Issues
The City completed the environmental review during the design process and the Project was determined, under CEQA, to be Categorically Exempt, Class 11 (PRC 21084; 14 CCR 15300 et seq). Additionally, Caltrans determined that the Project has no significant impacts on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117 (b).
39 of 238
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COTATI ACCEPTING THE PARK AND RIDE

PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF

COMPLETION
WHEREAS, In 2014, the City of Cotati and Caltrans executed a Functional Replacement and Exchange Agreement (FREA) for the St. Joseph Park and Ride property, and the agreement stipulates the City would construct an equivalent number of replacement park and ride parking spaces and in exchange, Caltrans would transfer the St Josephs Park and Ride Lot to the City; and
WHEREAS, the FREA identified two replacement park and ride locations adjacent to Highway 101: Airport Boulevard and Petaluma Boulevard South; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, City Council awarded the Petaluma Boulevard South and Airport Boulevard Park and Ride Project to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. and, the Notice to Proceed was issued in September, and work began at the Airport Boulevard site in Mid-September 2023 and at the Petaluma site in early October 2023; and
WHEREAS, work was substantially completed at the Airport site in early February 2024, and in June 2025 for the Petaluma site, and work at the Petaluma site was substantially delayed by PG&E relocating a power pole guidewire, discovery of contaminated soil, and work extending into the winter of 2024/25; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2025, Caltrans accepted the project at both locations and assumes ownership of the sites which includes all future maintenance, upgrade, and liability responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the work has been inspected thoroughly throughout the project timeline by the Construction Management (CM) consulting firm, Green Valley Consulting Engineers and work has been determined to be complete by the CM and by the City Public Works Director/City Engineer and recommends it for acceptance by the City; and WHEREAS, following City acceptance, the City Clerk is to file a Notice of Acceptance with the County Recorder’s Office then, after 35 days with no protest, release construction retention to the contractor; and
WHEREAS, final actual project expenditures totalled $3,348,563, and are below the authorized Project budget of $3,358,100, and the unspent funds will be returned to the unappropriated General Fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the City completed the environmental review during the design process and the Project was determined, under CEQA, to be Categorically Exempt, Class 11 (PRC 21084; 14 CCR 15300 et seq). Additionally, Caltrans determined that the Project has no significant impacts 40 of 238
on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117 (b).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cotati City Council determines the following:

1. All the above recitals are true and correct, and

2. The completed Park and Ride Project improvements are accepted by the City, and

3. The City Clerk is directed to file the Notice of Acceptance with the County Recorder’s Office and, after 35 days with no protests, the release the construction retention.

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 September 23, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
41 of 238
After recording, return to:

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

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

1. The City Council of the City of Cotati has accepted the improvements at the City Council meeting of September 23, 2025 for the Petaluma Boulevard and Airport Boulevard Park and Ride Project. The nature of the City of Cotati’s interest is as the Local Public Agency under a Local Public Agency Agreement with Caltrans.

Caltrans is the owner of the properties under improvement.

2. The improvements were completed and deemed complete by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on June 9, 2025. Caltrans Contract Acceptance was completed on August 6, 2025, by the Construction Engineer (Syd Valeh), Construction Manager (Jose David), and Construction Principal (Johnathan Ng).

3. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement was Ghilotti Bros, Inc. for a total constructed amount of $2,950,310.

4. The Contractor has provided the City with a maintenance bond and guaranty in the amount of 10 percent of the construction contract amount ($295,031) for a period of one (1) year from the date of City Council acceptance of the improvements.

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

I am the City Engineer/Public Works Director for the City of Cotati, a Municipal 42 of 238
Corporation. I am making this verification on behalf of the City of Cotati. I have read the Notice and know its contents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: _________________ ___________________________
Craig A Scott
City Engineer/Public Works Director

43 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT TO UPDATE THE NEXUS

STUDY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Willdan to update the Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Development Impact Fees and appropriate funds as outlined.

Background
The City Council recently adopted a Nexus Study Update for various development impact fees, which are scheduled to take effect on October 13, 2025. Separately, the City Council took action to eliminate development impact fees for high-quality lodging, deed-restricted affordable housing in inclusionary multi-family housing projects. The City Council also clarified the threshold for the imposition of development impact fees when remodeling or expanding existing residential and commercial properties.

As stated during the adoption of these updated fees, the next step is to review the nexus study for the affordable housing fees – both the Affordable Housing Fee for residential developments and the Linkage Fee for non-residential developments.

Analysis/Discussion
Development impact fees ensure that new development pays for their fair share of infrastructure improvements required to accommodate the growth rather than putting the burden on existing residents. To encourage entitled multi-family housing projects to move into construction, the City Council adopted a policy eliminating development impact fees on the deed restricted affordable units and then backfilling the lost impact fee revenue with funds from the affordable 44 of 238
housing fund.

With the new demands placed on the affordable housing funds, as well as it being timely to review the cost of these fees, the City solicited the attached proposal from Willdan, the same consultant who updated the other City development impact fees.

As stated during the adoption of the other development impact fees, in addition to updating the Nexus Study, if the attached fee study is approved by the City Council, staff also intend to explore options to supplement affordable housing funding. It is anticipated that staff will return with options for City Council consideration concurrently with an updated Nexus Study.

Financial Considerations
The Nexus Study Update proposal is for a not to exceed total of $35,500. Funding will come equally from the Affordable Housing and Linkage Fee Funds ($17,750 each) from the unappropriated fund balances as provided in the attached budget adjustment form.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH

WILLDAN TO UPDATE THE NEXUS STUDY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS AS OUTLINED WHEREAS, development impact fees ensure that new development contributes its fair share of infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate growth, rather than placing the burden on existing residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted policies to encourage entitled inclusionary multi-family housing projects to proceed by eliminating development impact fees on deed-restricted affordable units and backfilling the lost impact fee revenue from the Affordable Housing Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recently adopted updates to the Nexus Study for other development impact fees, and it is now timely to review and update the Nexus Study for the Affordable Housing Fee (for residential development) and the Linkage Fee (for non-residential development); and
WHEREAS, the City solicited a proposal from Willdan, the consultant who recently updated the City’s other development impact fees, to prepare the Nexus Study Update for Affordable Housing Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the proposal from Willdan provides for a not-to-exceed amount of $35,500, with funding to be provided equally by the Affordable Housing and Linkage Fee Funds ($17,750 each) from unappropriated fund balances; and
WHEREAS, staff will return to the City Council with options to supplement affordable housing funding concurrently with the updated Nexus Study.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Willdan with a not-to-exceed amount of $35,500 to update the Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Development Impact Fees; and

2. Approves the appropriation of $35,500, with $17,750 from the Affordable Housing Fund and $17,750 from the Linkage Fee Fund, as outlined in the attached budget adjustment form.

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 September 23, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
46 of 238
Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
47 of 238
T 800.755.6864 | 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 | www.willdan.com 1 August 5, 2025
Mr. Damien O’Bid
City Manager
City of Cotati
201 W. Sierra Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
Re: Letter Proposal to Conduct an Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study for the City of Cotati
Dear Mr. O’Bid:

Per our discussion, Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Cotati (“City”) to conduct an Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Study.

Work Plan
Our proposed work plan, described in detail by task, is provided below. We want to ensure our scope provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust the scope as needed during the course of the study.

Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues
Objective: Define project goals and objectives; outline project and management approach; identify roles and responsibilities; and confirm scope and schedule.

Description: Review agency documents related to affordable housing, housing supply, and commercial development. Bring policy issues to City staff’s attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include.

Meeting: One meeting to initiate the project, discuss data needs, and begin discussion of applicable policy issues.

Deliverables: Information requests, revised project scope and schedule (if needed), and brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).

Task 2: Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis
Objective: Prepare recommended amounts and classifications specific to a housing linkage fee, a fee charged to non-residential development to offset impacts to affordable housing in the City.

Description: Using data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and US Census LEHD data, identify employment levels and types by major sector within Cotati. Prepare wage estimates on a sector-by-sector basis using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Sectors will be summarized by occupational classifications using Standard Occupation Codes (SOC).

Using employment densities for each job type, estimate the number of workers that would be accommodated on a per square foot basis, the percentage of those workers who would form households, and the number of new households that would be formed by income category.

Based on the housing market data in collected as a part of the affordable housing impact fee analyses (Task 3), and the labor market analysis prepared in this task, develop pro forma and determine affordability gap per unit for each income level by industry and occupation. This will be used to determine the per-unit affordability gap by number of households in each job type, by income level to determine linkage fee on a per square foot basis by category of nonresidential development.

Deliverables: Recommended linkage fee schedule. 48 of 238 Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study 2
City of Cotati, CA
Task 3 Affordable Housing Fee Analysis
Objective: Conduct an analysis related to the affordable housing in-lieu fee, charged to residential development.

Description: The goal for the affordable housing in-lieu fees collected from market rate development is to help offset the cost of affordable housing needed as a result of new residential development in the City.

Willdan will prepare a calculation of the maximum justifiable affordable housing fee for residential development in the City. The calculation will be based on the estimated income of new households and the employment generated by expenditures by new residents in the City. Combined with labor market and wage data Willdan will estimate the number of new employees in the City generated by new housing and the degree to which they will require a subsidy to afford housing in the City. Willdan will also evaluate the current City incentives or structures for affordable housing provision, which will include the consideration of incentives or a fee structure that incentivizes the inclusion of affordable housing in a residential or mixed-use development.

The final report (Task 4) will contain an analysis specific to affordable housing fees, current income and housing pricing, and the cost of ownership to establish the effect of the proposed fees on housing affordability.

Deliverables: Analysis will be documented in the Final Report.

Task 4 Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions, methodologies, and results.

Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects.

Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category.

Following one round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. Following one round of comments on the administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials.

Prepare final report, if necessary, based on one round of comments received on the public draft report.

Deliverables: Draft report tables, administrative draft report, public draft report, final report (if needed), and slide presentation (if needed).

Task 5: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A project team will attend up to three (3) meetings: one meeting to review the initial project results; one City Council meeting to present the public draft report for review and comment; and one public hearing to present the report for adoption.

Optional: Optional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City.

Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City of Cotati staff. We suggest that the City assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will:
▪ Coordinate responses to requests for information;
▪ Coordinate review of work products; and
▪ Help resolve policy issues.

Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party. 49 of 238 Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study 3
City of Cotati, CA
Project Disclaimer
Willdan is a registered municipal advisory firm with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as such the City of Cotati represents, acknowledges, and agrees that Willdan is not acting as a “municipal advisor” (as defined by the SEC), to the City, in any capacity as it relates to the project proposed in this Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study proposal.
(i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the SEC to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities; (ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and the City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing, in connection with any revenue projections, cashflow analyses, feasibility studies and/or other analyses Willdan may provide the City with respect to financial, economic or other matters relating to a prospective, new or existing issuance of municipal securities of the City , (A) any such projections, studies and analyses shall be based upon assumptions, opinions or views (including, without limitation, any assumptions related to revenue growth) established by the City, in conjunction with such of its municipal, financial, legal and other advisers as it deems appropriate; and (B) under no circumstances shall Willdan be asked to provide, nor shall it provide, any advice or recommendations or subjective assumptions, opinions or views with respect to the actual or proposed structure, terms, timing, pricing or other similar matters with respect to any municipal financial products or municipal securities issuances, including any revisions or amendments thereto; and
(v) Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the City recognizes that interpretive guidance regarding municipal advisory activities is currently quite limited and is likely to evolve and develop during the term of the potential engagement and, to that end, the City will work with Willdan throughout the term of the potential Agreement to ensure that the Agreement and the services to be provided by Willdan hereunder, is interpreted by the parties, and if necessary amended, in a manner intended to ensure that the City is not asking Willdan to provide, and Willdan is not in fact providing or required to provide, any municipal advisory services. 50 of 238
Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study 4
City of Cotati, CA
Project Budget
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $35,500 for the City’s Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee Study.

Notes
Please note the following:
▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at three in-person meetings. Attendance at more than three in-person meetings and/or presentations will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses. ▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report will be classified as Additional Services and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed work plan may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.

Hourly Rates
Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President / Director $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst David Diiorio $135
Analyst II $120
Analyst I $110
We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to serve the City of Cotati. To discuss any aspect of this submittal, please contact Carlos Villarreal directly at (415) 786-0295 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Willdan Financial Services
Chris Fisher
Vice President/Director
51 of 238
9/18/2025 10:51:00 AM Page 1 of 3
Budget Adjustment Register
Cotati, CA Adjustment Detail
Packet: GLPKT13065 - Nexus Study $35,500 - 9/23/2025
Adjustment Number Budget Code Description Adjustment Date BA0000057 Adopted Budget for FY 2025… Willdan Nexus Study - Affordable Housing - $17,750 9/23/2025 Staff proposal to Council for approval of agreement with Willdan to perform Nexus Study Update on impact fees. Total contract is not to exceed $35,500, split equally between In-Lieu Inclusionary Housing/Affordable Housing Fund (216) and theLinkage Affordable Housing Fund (223).

Summary Description:

Account Number Account Name Adjustment Description Before Adjustment After 216-00-80185-000000 CNTRCT SVCS-PROFESSIONAL S… Willdan Nexus Study - Affordable Housing - $17… 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00 September: 17,750.00
Adjustment Number Budget Code Description Adjustment Date BA0000058 Adopted Budget for FY 2025… Willdan - Nexus Study 9/23/2025 Staff proposal to Council for approval of agreement with Willdan to perform Nexus Study Update on impact fees. Total contract is not to exceed $35,500, split equally between In-Lieu Inclusionary Housing/Affordable Housing Fund (216) and theLinkage Affordable Housing Fund (223).

Summary Description:

Account Number Account Name Adjustment Description Before Adjustment After 223-00-80185-000000 CNTRCT SVCS-PROFESSIONAL S… Willdan Nexus Study - Linkage Housing - $17,7… 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00 September: 17,750.00
52 of 238
Budget Adjustment Register Packet: GLPKT13065 - Nexus Study $35,500 - 9/23/2025 9/18/2025 10:51:00 AM Page 2 of 3
Budget Budget Description Account Account Description After Budget Code Summary
Before Adjustment
2025-2026 Adopted Budget for FY 20… 216-00-80185-000000 CNTRCT SVCS-PROFESSIONAL SVCS 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00 223-00-80185-000000 CNTRCT SVCS-PROFESSIONAL SVCS 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00 2025-2026 Total: 0.00 35,500.00 35,500.00
Grand Total: 0.00 35,500.00 35,500.00
53 of 238
Budget Adjustment Register Packet: GLPKT13065 - Nexus Study $35,500 - 9/23/2025 9/18/2025 10:51:00 AM Page 3 of 3
Fund After
Fund Summary
Before Adjustment
Budget Code:2025-2026 - Adopted Budget for FY 2025/26 Fiscal: 2025-2026 216 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00
223 0.00 17,750.00 17,750.00
Budget Code 2025-2026 Total: 0.00 35,500.00 35,500.00
Grand Total: 0.00 35,500.00 35,500.00
54 of 238
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL TO CANCEL THE NOVEMBER 11, 2025 CITY

COUNCIL MEETING AND SETTING A SPECIAL MEETING
ON NOVEMBER 18, 2025
Date: September 23, 2025
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion canceling the November 11, 2025 City Council meeting and scheduling a special meeting on November 18, 2025.

Background
In reviewing the advanced agenda, it was noted that the November 11, 2025 meeting is on Veterans Day, which is a national holiday and day that City Hall is closed. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss an alternative date for this City Council meeting.

Analysis/Discussion
In order to cancel a regular City Council meeting, it must be canceled by a majority vote of the City Council (City Council Rules, 1.A.3).

It is proposed that this meeting be rescheduled 1 week later as a special meeting of the City Council on November 18, 2025. This meeting would be considered a special meeting because it is not on the regularly scheduled City Council meeting date, as set by the City Council Rules (1.A.1).

Financial Considerations
There are no financial impacts associated with canceling a regular meeting and setting a special meeting 1 week later. If the regular November 11, 2025 meeting is not canceled, it would require overtime for non-exempt employees to attend the meeting. 55 of 238
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.

Background
.In August 2001, the Santero Way Specific Plan (SWSP) was adopted, and originally envisioned a mixed-use office neighborhood adjacent to the SMART rail station. The primary objective of the original SWSP was to increase the number of residents and employees within walking distance (1/2 mile) of the SMART station. Specifically, the original Plan envisioned the development of 198 new dwelling units, 339,200 square-feet of office and institutional uses, 68,000 square-feet of retail uses, and 57,000 square feet of supporting parkland/open space.

On August 8, 2023, in response to stalled development within the Plan area, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with 4LEAF Inc. and several subconsultants to provide planning consulting services to complete the Santero Way Specific Plan Update.

In September 2023, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) published draft administrative guidance on their TransitOriented Communities (TOC) policies. These policies are intended to intensify land uses within ½ mile of transit hubs with the primary goal of increasing the overall supply of housing while also supporting the creation of jobs and increasing transit ridership, in keeping with the Plan Bay Area 2050. For Cotati, this area primarily covers properties along East Cotati Avenue. These 57 of 238
criteria essentially serve to increase residential and commercial densities, support alternative transportation, and reduce the perceived impediments to development. While adoption of the TOC policies is voluntary for Bay Area jurisdictions, TOC compliance will be required to retain eligibility for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funds by 2026, which have amounted to approximately $1,000,000 in annual funding for the City of Cotati in recent years.

In April 2024, staff identified a potential opportunity for the environmental analysis being prepared for the SWSP Update to be expanded to additionally analyze the potential impacts of implementing ABAG/MTC TOC policies on the other eligible parcels within the ½ mile radius surrounding the Cotati SMART station (graphic attached). Including this analysis in the environmental impact report (EIR) already underway was approved in order to provide significant cost savings, expedite the analysis, and prepare the City for future adoption of the TOC policies.

In February of 2025 the Santero Way Specific Plan (SWSP) was adopted after 18 months of public engagement, environmental analysis and policy development. One of the core themes of the SWSP is the focus on the neighborhood’s proximity to the SMART station and the benefits of intensified land uses around the train station. These themes are captured through a range of policy ideas often labeled Transit Oriented Development. As was discussed during the review of the Santero Way Specific Plan (SWSP), some of the policies adopted with the SWSP were influenced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) policy, which comes from their regional planning tool to manage growth in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2050+.

Plan Bay Area 2050+ is similar to a General Plan for a city or county but considers and plans for growth on a regional scale. ABAG/MTC identify goals and priorities to guide and manage Bay Area growth and use various methods to achieve compliance with the policies and programs, including allocation of grant funding such as the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). In Cotati, OBAG provided significant funding for road infrastructure projects in recent years. For local jurisdictions seeking to comply with the Plan Bay Area, TOC has become one of the most impactful planning policies to come out of the 2050+ update process. This policy seeks to intensify land use in close proximity to transit stations and also standardize TOD development criteria throughout the Bay Area.

Because of the unique variety of jurisdictions and transit throughout the region, creation of the TOC policy implementation metrics has been an ongoing and iterative process spanning several years. Since the SWSP project was approved, implementation focus has moved from land use requirements within a ½ mile radius of the SMART station, to more broad policy requirements such as “The Three P’s of Housing”: Production, Preservation, and Protection; automotive and bicycle parking management; and efforts to facilitate circulation and station access. Required implementation of TOC policy is generally limited to the ½ mile radius around the transit stop (see pg. 27 MTC TOC Policy Version 1.1 May 2025), however the nature of some of the policy requirements make limiting enforcement to this geographic area of the City challenging.

In May 2025 the ABAG/MTC TOC policy guidance document was finalized allowing Community Development department staff to pivot their TOC policy efforts to the remaining 58 of 238
properties within the broader half-mile radius from the SMART station not within the SWSP boundary. Due to the unique geography of the City, this primarily encompassed properties on E.

Cotati Avenue, from La Salle Avenue east to the SWSP. While demonstrating compliance with TOC policy direction is important to grant infrastructure funding, taking a thoughtful and community-informed approach to the land use changes in this established area is also critical to the successful implementation of these policies.

On June 25, 2025, staff built upon the outreach and engagement efforts of the SWSP, inviting all residents and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the remaining TOC parcels to a neighborhood meeting at Cotati City Hall. Four people attended the meeting and several others called in to ask questions and voice their perspectives. Generally, interested individuals were supportive of the policy efforts to get more homes constructed and to generate more business activity, but were concerned about parking impacts that could result from these intensified business activities (given the inability of the City to require any parking minimums under the proposed policies).

OBAG Funding and Eligibility
Future OBAG funding cycles will consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy. To ensure eligibility for OBAG 4 funding and any other discretionary funding that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, jurisdictions are being directed to demonstrate compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4 (expected in 2026). Compliance with TOC policies is anticipated to be measured on a 100-point framework equally measured across four categories: Density, Housing, Parking, and Station Access. These categories are further divided into specific standards, each of which is assigned a numeric point value. As proposed, staff anticipates the proposed changes will result in the City being near full compliance with TOC policies.

59 of 238
Analysis/Discussion
Land Use and Planning Considerations
TOC Policy Summary
TOC policy implementation recommendations across the four categories include minimum residential and commercial density; affordable housing production, preservation, protection, and business stabilization; parking management; and transit access and circulation. To be deemed compliant jurisdictions must implement policy options across these categories, based on available transit “tiers.” These tiers are defined by the scale, frequency and intensity of the transit availability in each jurisdiction, with Cotati (and all north bay jurisdictions) being categorized as “Tier 4’. Certain standards are specifically required (residential and commercial density) while others may be selected from a menu of policy options. For the latter, ABAG/MTC allows jurisdictions to choose from a provided list for compliance with several of the TOC policy categories.

Staff is proposing to implement the policy direction through the creation of two new zoning districts (Santero Way (SW) and Transit Oriented Community (TOC)); modifications to existing chapters of the Cotati Municipal Code (CMC); and the implementation of new programs, information about which will be included on the City website. Below, staff have provided a summary of the TOC compliance requirements, identifying which policy areas allow jurisdictions choices, and highlighting the policy compliance path recommended by staff. More detailed information about compliance implementation with each policy choice is included in the MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy (Version 1.1. May 2025), attached.

1. Zoning and Land Use
-Minimum density zoning near transit: Tier 4 jurisdictions must allow 25-35 units per acre of residential and mixed-use development and a commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0-3.0. -Reduced parking requirements: Tier 4 jurisdictions must eliminate minimum parking requirements and implement a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit and 1 space per 250 square feet of commercial square footage.
-Require one secured bicycle parking space per residential unit and one secured space per 5,000 square feet of commercial office land uses.

2. Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization
The TOC Policy requires jurisdictions to adopt at least six housing policies, selected from a menu of 26 strategies identified in the TOC policy. Jurisdictions should select at least two policies for each of the “3Ps” of Housing: affordable housing production, preservation, and protection. Additionally, jurisdictions must select at least one commercial stabilization policy from a menu of four options. Staff has provided a summary of the policies below, including a statement of clarifying information and highlighting the recommended policies from each category.
60 of 238
Production (at least 2 required)
-Inclusionary zoning-15% inclusionary; affordability across all units=80% AMI avg. -Affordable housing funding-Funding commitment
-Overlay zones-80% AMI avg.-Cotati Density Bonus meets many qualifications. -Public land for affordable housing- 120 E. Cotati Ave
-Ministerial approval-Broadens SB 35 applicability; less local control. -Public/Community Land Trusts-Funding commitment
-Streamlined entitlement processes-Matches SB 330 vesting rights.

Preservation (at least 2 required)
-Funding for unsubsidized housing-Funding commitment.
-Funding to support preservation capacity-Funding commitment for CLTs and CBOs -Tenant/community purchase rights-Funding commitment required. -SRO preservation-Cotati has no SROs
-Condo conversion restrictions- Implements HE Program 4-1 -Public/Community Land Trusts-Funding commitment
-Mobile home preservation-Existing MHP regulations adequate. Implements HE Program 1-6 -Code enforcement to prevent displacement-Limit enforcement activities and/or require alternative housing for displaced residents
Protection (at least 2 required)
-Just cause eviction-Expand definitions for circumstances justifying eviction and enforce. -Right to return-Potential to combine with streamlined entitlement. Consider. -Legal assistance-Funding commitment required.
-Foreclosure and rental assistance-Funding commitment required. -Rent stabilization (Mobile Home Park)-Existing code adequate to comply -Anti-harassment protections
-Code enforcement to prevent displacement- (Implements HE Program 4-5) Commercial Stabilization (at least 1 required)
-Small business/non-profit overlay-Zoning overlay to protect small businesses from development -Preference policies-Small business and non-profit preference policy for new commercial spaces -Financial assistance programs-Dedicated funded to stabilize small businesses -Small business advocate offices-Dedicated “ombudsman” for businesses. (Consistent with FY 2025-26 CD Work Plan)

3. Parking Management (all policies must be implemented in the TOC areas) In addition to the parking and bicycle parking standards identified above, the TOC Policy requires eight parking management policies within the ½ mile TOC area. Current city of Cotati parking policies are not fully aligned with the TOC Policy and therefore staff have drafted municipal code updates to bring the City’s established parking policies into TOC conformance (see attached draft redline code amendments). Specifically, it is recommended that the reduced parking ratios be adopted for the TOC policy area (1/2 mile surrounding the SMART station) but some of the more general parking standards and policies be adopted citywide to both support 61 of 238
compliance with the TOC Policy and to facilitate parking management in the current era of statemandated reduced parking requirements.

Requirement Response
Residential Parking Minimums Proposed in TOC: 0 spaces per unit Residential Parking Maximums Proposed in TOC: 1.5 spaces per unit Commercial Parking Minimums Proposed in TOC: 0 spaces per sq ft Commercial Parking Maximums Proposed in TOC: 4 spaces/1000 sq ft Allow Shared Parking Between Different Land Uses Current Codes Consistent Allow Unbundled Parking (Separate the Cost of a
Parking Space from Rent/Sales Price)
Proposed City-wide
Residential Bicycle Parking: 1 Secure Space per
Unit
Proposed in TOC
Office Bicycle Parking: 1 secure Space per 5,000
Occupied sq. ft.

Proposed in TOC
Similar to the housing policy options discussed, the TOC Policy requires adoption of one complementary parking management strategy for the TOC area, selected from a menu of options listed below. The staff recommendation to meet the TOC compliance requirements is highlighted.

Alternative Parking Policy Options available in TOC
-Curb Strategy/Management (Intended to help address reduced parking and alternative transportation modes, city-wide)
-Parking Benefit District (PBD)
-Demand-Responsive Pricing
-Priced Parking

4. Station Access and Circulation
The TOC Policy includes four strategies related to station access and circulation. Generally, it is staffs’ perspective that Cotati is partially compliant with the TOC access and circulation requirements with existing policies such as the City’s past commitments to complete streets and the SMART station gap analysis completed with the SWSP Update. Staff recommended zoning changes to implement mobility hub elements into multi-family and mixed-use developments (see redline code changes) should complete the City’s needed station access and circulation policies for TOC implementation. These policy changes are intended to increase access to transit while supporting sustainable transportation options.
62 of 238
Requirement Response
Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy Compliant since OBAG 2 Prioritize implementation of active transportation projects in TOC area(s)
See future CIP Project
List and Project COAs
Complete an access gap analysis and capital improvement program for station access
Included in SWSP Update
and ATP
Identify Mobility Hub planning and implementation opportunities in TOC area(s)
Zoning Changes proposed
City-wide

5. Recommended Compliance Pathways
ABAG/MTC have identified multiple pathways for jurisdictions to demonstrate TOC policy compliance including adoption of a TOC overlay zone; certification of a TOC-compliant Specific Plan or General Plan update; and/or project-by-project review and approval under TOC criteria. For the City of Cotati, compliance is proposed to be achieved through a combination of funding expenditures, adopted revisions to the CMC, and administrative programs intended to implement the policy direction. Primarily, compliance will be achieved through code changes proposed to the TOC 1/2-mile radius and more broadly the entire city (where appropriate and potentially beneficial). The City purchase and development of 120 E. Cotati Avenue is proposed to meet the production requirement given that the funding amount is adequate and identified plans meet the TOC policy requirements. Lastly, administrative commitments to department programs and policy implementation are proposed to meet the requirements regarding commercial stabilization and tenant protections.

To formulate the highlighted recommendations above, staff evaluated the criteria and choices, comparing the TOC policy direction with the adopted Council goals, community concerns, budget availably, in-progress/pending City commitments, and state law mandates. This analysis resulted in a recommended compliance approach that is expected to achieve substantial compliance with the TOC policy direction while also meeting the adopted budget and policy goals identified by the City Council and established state legislation. In some instances where benefits from the updated policies are anticipated to address challenges beyond the TOC boundary, or can be implemented with existing policy, staff has recommended these be adopted city-wide to facilitate implementation.

Additional Code Clean Up
Occasionally staff identify challenges with code implementation based on missing, unclear, or inconsistent language within the Cotati Municipal Code (CMC). Staff seeks to address these issues as opportunities arise (including when seemingly unrelated ordinances are prepared). For the TOC ordinance changes, staff is also proposing to recategorize “Tattoo and body piercing services” from the ‘personal services-restricted’ land use category, to the ‘personal services’ land use and to add Retail Tobacco Store into the land use tables and definitions. Below staff has provided additional details on this proposal.

Tattoo and Body Piercing-If supported, this change would greatly expand the allowable locations tattoo artists may operate from within the City. Currently personal services-restricted categorizes 63 of 238
tattoo businesses similarly to palm readers and pawn shops, limiting these uses to the CE zoning district and only in second floor and secondary (non-visible) locations. This classification effectively prohibits tattoo businesses from operating in other commercial areas of the city such as downtown and along the Gravenstein Hwy corridor. If changed to personal services, tattoo studios would be viewed more like a salon or esthetician and would be allowed as a permitted land use more broadly throughout Cotati. The current classification has limited several new businesses from opening in Cotati, and the tattoo studio use is much more mainstream than it has historically been viewed as leading staff to propose the change for consideration.

Retail Tobacco Store- Retail tobacco stores (aka “smoke shops”) are not permitted at any locations within the City of Cotati. The two in operation were previously authorized and are “non-conforming” because the use is no longer permitted. The Chapter 17 (Land Use) of the CMC utilizes “permissive” zoning, meaning if a use is not listed, it is deemed to be not permitted. Additionally, the regulations governing tobacco retailers are included in Chapter 9 Public Peace, Safety and Morals of the CMC. This combination often creates confusion with project applicants and other parties interested in tobacco related land uses. To address this and clarify that retail tobacco stores are prohibited in Cotati, staff is proposing updating the code to list this land use, include its definition and clearly identify it is not permitted.

Planning Commission Review
During their September 15, 2025, review of the proposed TOC implementation options, the Planning Commission indicated general support for the staff recommendations, both regarding TOC policy implementation and the proposed “clean up” changes. After receiving the presentation on the proposal and asking questions to ensure complete understanding, the commission did not identify any significant concerns. Additional code clean up changes to incorporate a micro-distillery land use into the CMC and to ensure vintage clothing stores are permissible were recommended to the City Council.

IV. General Plan Consistency
If supported, these changes will be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the Cotati General Plan. Initial analysis has identified the following General Plan policies and actions as supporting the proposed changes to the municipal code:

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

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

Policy LU 2.7: Encourage social interaction between neighbors in new residential developments by providing opportunities for community gathering in common areas, parks, and neighborhood commercial centers.

Action LU 4a: Review and update the City’s development permitting process to provide a streamlined and straightforward process. At a minimum, the review may consider:
64 of 238

1. Methods to streamline and simplify the process, including the process for review by City staff as well as the various committees and commissions.

2. Opportunities to reduce redundancies and delays.

3. Methods to prioritize and fast-track in-fill development projects and re-use projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Code.

4. Updating the City’s website to provide additional information to the public regarding development application requirements, and the building permit and land use approval process.

Policy H-3-2: Provide incentives for affordable housing development, including density bonus, expedited processing, relaxation of development standards, and either reduction, delay, or waiver of fees when financially feasible.

Financial Considerations
Other than the staff time required to conduct the analysis and present the information, no direct financial impacts to the general fund were identified resulting from the analysis of TOC policy compliance. However, as has been identified, OBAG funding eligibility is being updated to include TOC compliance as a critical factor in funds allocation and grant approval. Given that a significant portion of the City’s capital improvement plan (CIP) budget has historically been funded by OBAG funds, a lack of compliance with TOC policy could significantly impact the City’s ability to fund future CIP projects. Additionally, a strong TOC compliance score could allow the City to increase its competitiveness for these funds and receive additional funding.

Because ABAG/MTC is still finalizing the TOC compliance criteria, the scope and benefit of this additional competitiveness is undetermined.

Environmental Issues
In keeping with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a), a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared to analyze and evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the Santero Way Specific Plan Update and implementation of the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) zoning updates. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15094(d), after the City Council approved adoption of the Specific Plan Update, the city filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Following adoption of the updated SWSP, proposed development projects that are consistent with the Specific Plan would undergo a streamlined CEQA review process. The proposal to adopt an ordinance implementing the TOC policies is seen as consistent with the EIR analysis and determination, as well as the environmental impact analysis of the Cotati General Plan EIR.

Both of these complete EIR (draft and Final) documents and all appendices are available for public review on the City website. These documents include impact analysis across all categories analyzed under CEQA; all comments received throughout the process and responses to each; summary of impacts all mitigation measures identified to mitigate to less than significant impacts.
65 of 238
66 of 238
67 of 238
City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
________________________________________________________________ 201 W. Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 | (707) 792-4600 | www.cotaticity.gov | @cityofcotati Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) and Santero Way Rezoning Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the TOC Rezoning project?
The TOC Rezoning Project is a proposal to change the zoning rules on certain properties within a ½ mile of the SMART train station with the goal to intensify land uses on these properties. This “intensification” is required to implement the following development standards:

Residential Density of 25-35 units per acre
Commercial Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 1.0-3.0
Parking maximum 1.5 spaces per residential unit and 4 spaces per 1000 commercial square feet Implementation of a number of policies regarding housing Protection, Production and Preservation (The Three P’s of Housing)

2. Why is the City doing this project?
The project is being initiated due to changes in the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) requirements, which is one of the primary funding sources for City infrastructure improvements. Future OBAG funding cycles will prioritize investments in transit station areas and jurisdictions which are compliant with the TOC Policy. To ensure eligibility for OBAG funding and any other funding that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, jurisdictions are being directed to demonstrate compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4 (expected in 2026). The TOC land use policies are based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050, the region’s long-range plan for transportation, housing, the economy and the environment. More information on the MTC Plan Bay Area 2050 and the Transit Oriented (TOC) Policy can be found on the MTC website https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/transitoriented-communities-toc-policy.

3. Will the project impact my home or residential property? Not directly. Properties currently developed with a residential unit (or units) may be exempted from the TOC policy changes, and the City intends to exempt all properties currently developed with homes, unless a property is specifically requested to be added.

4. Will the project impact my commercial property?
Yes, all properties currently zoned for commercial uses are proposed to be included in the TOC Rezoning. This would allow residential uses to be built along the existing commercial uses, and/or more commercial square footage to be constructed.
68 of 238
City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
________________________________________________________________ 201 W. Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 | (707) 792-4600 | www.cotaticity.gov | @cityofcotati

5. What Properties are being included in the Rezoning?
Only properties within the half-mile radius of the SMART station are being considered for re-zoning to incorporate the TOC density and parking allowances. Of these properties, nearly all of them which are currently developed with residential units are being exempted from the proposed changes. This exemption will maintain the current zoning regulations and land use allowances on these properties currently developed with existing homes. Some of the parking and other housing supportive policies are proposed for implementation city-wide, primarily to ensure clear administrative guidance and application of these updated policies. In some instances, implementation of these changes are also seen as implementing prior commitments made by the City, including in the adopted Housing Element and fiscal year workplan for the Community Development Department.

6. What does all this really mean?
These proposed changes will not affect the current use of the properties proposed to be included but they will affect any future redevelopment by allowing more homes and/or commercial buildings to be constructed and more types of commercial activities to occur on these sites.

Cotati Projects in Progress Page
https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/228/Projects-in-Progress Project Summary
https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/2742/TOC-Rezoning-Project-Summary?bidId= TOC Parcel Map
https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/2743/TOC-Parcels-Map?bidId= MTC TOC Policy Summary
https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/2744/MTC-TOC-Policy-Analysis?bidId= MTC TOC Policy Overview
https://ca-cotati.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/2745/MTC-TOC-Policy-Overview_October2024?bidId= Additional Questions or Concerns?
Contact:

Noah Housh
Community Development Director
City of Cotati
707-665-3635
[email protected]
69 of 238
Table 2-1
Zoning Districts
Zoning
Map
Symbol
Name of Zoning District
General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning
District
Location
within
Transect
Low Density and Neighborhood Zones
OSC Open Space,
Conservation
Open Space MORE
RURAL
OSR Open Space, Recreation Parks –
RR Rural Residential Rural –
RVL Residential Very Low
Density
Low Density Residential –
NL Neighborhood, Low
Density
Low-Medium Density Residential –
NM Neighborhood, Medium
Density
Medium Density Residential TO
NU Neighborhood, Urban High Density Residential –
Mixed Use Corridor and Downtown Zones
CE Commercial, East Cotati
Ave. Corridor
Office, General Commercial –
CG Commercial, Gravenstein
Corridor
Highway Commercial, General Commercial –
CA Commerce Avenue Downtown Specific Plan –
NG Northern Gateway Downtown Specific Plan –
CD Downtown Commercial General Commercial, La Plaza Specific Plan – HC Historic Core Downtown Specific Plan –
LP La Plaza Downtown Specific Plan --
TOC Transit Oriented
Community
General Commercial, High Density Residential;
Santero Way Specific Plan; Open Space/Parks
--
SWSP Santero Way Specific Plan Santero Way Specific Plan MORE URBAN
Districts
CI Commercial/ Industrial
District
Commercial/ Industrial Industrial
Special Purpose and Overlay Zones
CP Coordinated Planning
Overlay
All
70 of 238
Table 2-1
Zoning Districts
Zoning
Map
Symbol
Name of Zoning
District
General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning District Location within
Transect
MHP Mobilehome Park
Overlay
All Residential
MHP-S Senior Mobilehome
Park Overlay
All Residential Citywide
PF Public Facility Public Facilities
TOC Transit Oriented
Community Overlay
Specific Plan; Open Space/Parks; Low-Medium Density
Residential Medium Densit Residential; High Density
Residential; General Commercial;
SPSW Specific Plan,
Santero Way
General Commercial, High Density Residential; Open
Space/Parks; Santero Way Specific Plan All
SPD Specific Plan,
Downtown
General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open
Space/Parks
(Ord. 923 § 5, 2023; Ord. 895 § 2(A) Exh. 2 (part), 2020: Ord. 823 § 2(C) Exh. C (part), 2009; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.20.030 Purposes of the zoning districts
B. Mixed Use Corridor and Downtown Zones.

1. CE (Commercial, East Cotati Avenue Corridor) Zoning District. The CE zoning district is a mixed use classification that is applied to specific parcels on both sides of East Cotati Avenue, from Arthur Street east to the city limits. The corridor is appropriate for a wide range of retail and service land uses that primarily serve local residents and businesses, including offices, shops, personal and business services, and small-scale restaurants, where structures fronting East Cotati Avenue are generally two stories. Residential uses may also be accommodated as part of mixed use projects, at a maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per acre. The allowable intensity of nonresidential development is determined by Section 17.24.030 (Zoning district site planning and building standards) of this title. The CE zoning district is consistent with and implements the office, and general commercial land use designations of the general plan.

2. CG (Commercial, Gravenstein Corridor) Zoning District. The CG zoning district is a mixed use classification that is applied to both sides of the Gravenstein Highway from Highway 101, west to the city limits. The corridor is appropriate for a wide range of retail and service land uses that serve both the local population and regional markets, including retail uses and restaurants, with additional uses such as personal and business services, and offices limited to the second floor along the Gravenstein frontage, where structures fronting Gravenstein are generally two stories. Residential uses may also be accommodated as part of mixed use projects, at a maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per acre. The allowable intensity of nonresidential development is determined by Section 17.24.030 (Zoning district site planning and building standards) of this title. The CG zoning district is consistent with and implements the general commercial land use designations of the general plan.
71 of 238

3. CD (Downtown Commercial) Zoning District. The CD zoning district is applied to the downtown area of Cotati, encompassing the historic plaza area, and extending south along Old Redwood Highway to Page Street, and north to Highway 101, including properties along Commerce Avenue.

The CD zoning district is appropriate for a wide variety of land uses, with retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floors of street fronting structures, and residential units or offices allowed on second or third floors, at a maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per acre.

Street fronting structures are generally two stories. The allowable intensity of non-residential development is determined by Section 17.24.030 (Zoning district site planning and building standards) of this title. The CD zoning district is consistent with and implements the general commercial land use designation of the general plan, and the La Plaza specific plan.

4. TOC (Transit Oriented Community) Zoning District. The TOC District is applied to all areas appropriate for a variety of higher-density mixed use development types, neighborhood-serving commercial, and light-manufacturing/maker type uses on parcels with frontage on East Cotati Avenue and the northern portion of Santero Way, closest to the train station. The allowable base density range is 25-35 units per acre (25 u/a minimum, 35 u/a maximum) and the allowable Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for commercial development is a minimum of 1.0 and maximum of 3.0.

5. SW (Santero Way Specific Way) Zoning District. The SW District is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of higher-density residential and mixed-use development types, including multi-family housing, condominiums, and townhomes. The allowable residential density range is 25-35 units per acre (25 u/a minimum, 35 u/a maximum) and the allowable Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for commercial development is a minimum of 1.0 and maximum of 3.0. Commercial uses are limited to neighborhood serving retail and live-work applications associated with a residential development project. Unlike the TOC District, 100% commercial development is not allowed in the SW District.

Additionally, select allowances for low-intensity industrial land uses are applied to parcels with existing buildings to facilitate maximum functionality prior to anticipated redevelopment.

Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Industry, Manufacturing and Processing, Wholesaling
Agricultural product processing – – – – -- –
Artisan/craft product
manufacturing
MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP* See Note 5 Below
72 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Brewery – Brew pub MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP --
Brewery – Production – – – -- -- –
Construction contractor – – – – -- UP*
Food and beverage product
manufacturing
– – – – -- MUP*
Furniture and fixtures
manufacturing, cabinet shop
– – – -- MUP MUP*
Industrial research and
development
– -- – MUP MUP MUP*
Laboratory – Medical,
analytical, research and
development
-- -- – MUP MUP MUP*
Laundry, dry cleaning plant – – – – -- –
Manufacturing/processing –
Light
– – – -- MUP MUP*
Manufacturing/processing –
Medium intensity
– – – -- -- –
Manufacturing/processing –
Heavy
– – – – -- –
Media production -- -- – P P MUP*
Printing and publishing -- -- – MUP MUP MUP*
Recycling – Reverse vending
machine
-- -- – – – –
Recycling – Small collection
facility
-- -- – -- -- – 17.42.150
Recycling – Medium collection
facility
– – – -- -- – 17.42.150
Storage – Outdoor – – -- -- UP UP* 17.42.140
Storage – Personal storage
facility (mini-storage)
– – – – – –
73 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Storage – Warehouse, indoor
storage
– – – -- – –
Wholesaling and distribution – – – UP UP –
Winery – Boutique – -- UP UP UP –
Winery – Production – – – -- -- –
Recreation, Education and Public Assembly Uses
Adult-oriented business – – – – -- – 17.40
Commercial recreation facility
– Indoor
UP UP UP UP UP UP*
Commercial recreation facility
– Outdoor
– – – -- – –
Conference/convention facility -- -- UP) UP UP --
Health/fitness facility UP P P) P P MUP
Library, museum P -- P P P --
Meeting facility, public or
private
-- UP UP) UP UP --
Park, Playground P P P P P P
School – Specialized
education/training

UP ) UP) UP UP UP
Sports and entertainment
assembly
– – UP UP – --
Studio – Art, dance, martial
arts, music, etc.

P P P) P P P
Theater UP -- MUP MUP MUP UP*
Residential Uses
Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P P 17.42.170
Emergency/transitional shelter S S S S S -- 17.42.072
Home occupation P P P P P P 17.42.080
Live/work unit UP UP P UP UP UP 17.42.090
74 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Low barrier navigation center P P P P P –
Residential care facility for the
elderly (RCFE)
-- UP UP UP UP UP
Residential care facility, 7 or
more clients
-- UP – – UP UP
Residential component of a
mixed use project
P P P P P P 17.39.030, 17.39.040, 17.42.100
Supportive housing P P P P P P
Retail Trade(3)
Accessory retail or services P P P P P P
Alcoholic beverage sales –
Associated with a restaurant(4)
P P P P P P 17.42.030
Alcoholic beverage sales-off
sale
UP UP UP UP UP – 17.42.030
Antique or collectible store P P P P P –
Artisan/craft project
manufacturing

MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP
Artisan shop P P P P P MUP
Auto and vehicle sales and
rental
– UP – MUP UP –
Auto parts sales with no
installation services
– -- P P P –
Bar, tavern UP UP UP UP UP –
Brewery-Brew pub MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP
Building and landscape
materials sales
– -- – MUP P –
Construction and heavy
equipment sales and rental
– – – -- -- – 17.42.130
Convenience store -- -- UP UP UP –
Drive-through retail – -- – -- – – 17.42.070
75 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Extended hour retail UP MUP P P MUP –
Farm supply and feed store – -- – -- MUP –
Farmers market(8) MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP --
Formula-based fast food
restaurant
-- -- S S S – 17.42.071
Furniture, furnishings and
appliance store
UP MUP MUP MUP MUP –
General retail – Less than
5,000 sq. ft.

P P P P P P
General retail – 5,000 sq. ft. to
20,000 sq. ft.

P MUP P P P MUP
General retail – More than
20,000 sq. ft.
-- -- MUP MUP MUP –
Groceries, specialty foods –
10,000 sq. ft. or less
P P P P P –
Groceries, specialty foods –
More than 10,000 sq. ft.
-- -- P UP P –
Mobilehome, boat, or RV
sales
– – MUP MUP MUP –
Night club UP UP UP – UP –
Outdoor display and sales MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP – 17.42.130 Plant nursery – MUP – MUP MUP –
Restaurant – Outdoor dining
on private property(6)
P/
MUP
P/
MUP
P/
MUP
P/
MUP
P/MUP P 17.42.130(E)
Restaurant – Outdoor dining in
public right-of-way
P P P P P P 17.42.130
Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop P P P P P P
Retail complex -- -- UP UP UP –
Retail display gallery P P P P P P 17.90.020
Retail Tobacco Store -- -- -- -- -- --
76 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Second hand store UP UP UP UP MUP –
Service station (nonfossil fuels
sales)
-- -- -- UP UP – 17.42.180
Tasting room P P P P P P
Warehouse retail – UP UP UP UP –
Services – Business, Financial, Professional

ATM P P P P P P
Bank, financial services P P P P P –
Business support service P P P P P –
Medical services – Doctor
office
UP P P P P –
Medical services – Clinic,
urgent care
UP – P P P –
Office – Accessory P P P P P P
Office – Business/service MUP P P P P –
Office – Government UP MUP MUP MUP MUP --
Office – Processing UP(2) MUP MUP MUP MUP –
Office –
Professional/administrative
P P P(2) P P –
Veterinary clinic, animal
hospital

P P P P P MUP
Services – General
Accessory retail or services P P P P P P 17.42.015
Adult day care UP UP UP UP UP --
Catering service – – – MUP MUP –
Child day care center P P P P P UP
Drive-through service – -- – – – – 17.42.070
Equipment rental – – – UP UP – 17.42.140
77 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)

HC LP NG CA TOC SW
Specific Use
Regulations
Kennel, animal boarding – -- – -- -- –
Lodging – Bed and breakfast inn (B&B) P P P UP P UP
Lodging – Boutique hotel or motel UP UP P P P –
Lodging – Hotel UP UP P P UP –
Maintenance service – Client site
services
– – – MUP MUP –
Mortuary, funeral home -- – – UP UP –
Personal services P P P P P MUP
Personal services – Restricted -- – – – – –
Public safety facility -- UP UP UP UP --
Repair service – Equipment, large
appliances, etc.
– – – P P –
Social service organization -- UP(2) UP(2 UP UP --
Vehicle services – Major repair/body
work
– – – -- -- –
Vehicle services – Minor
maintenance/repair
– – – UP UP –
Transportation, Communications and Infrastructure
Ambulance, taxi, or limousine storage – – – – -- –
Broadcasting studio UP(2) UP(2) UP(2) UP MUP –
Electric vehicle charging station(7) P P P P P P 14.38
Mobility Hub P P P P P --
Parking facility, public or commercial UP UP UP UP UP -- Telecommunications facility S S S S S S 17.44
Transit station or terminal -- UP UP UP UP --
78 of 238
Table 2-4
Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Transit Corridors and Specific Plan Districts P Permitted use, zoning clearance required
MUP Minor use permit
UP Use permit required
S Permit requirement set by specific use regulations
– Use not allowed
Permit Required by District Land Use(1)
HC LP NG CA TOC SW Specific Use Regulations
Utility facility UP UP UP UP UP UP
Key to Zoning District Symbols
CE East Cotati Avenue Corridor CI Commercial/Industrial District CG Gravenstein Highway Corridor IG General Industrial District CD Downtown Commercial PF Public Facility District
Notes:
(1) See Article 9 for land use definitions.
(2) Use allowed only on second or upper floors, in compliance with Section 17.24.050(C), Limitation on the Location of Allowable Land Uses, or behind an allowed ground floor street frontage use. (3) See Section 17.42.165, Retail use maximum floor area. (4) When the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control allows customers under twenty-one years of age on the premises.
(5) Artisan/craft product manufacturing uses proposed in the CE, TOC, CG, CD, HC, LP, NG, and CA districts must be located within buildings and suites designed and oriented to engage and encourage pedestrian activity and interaction with the surrounding uses. Uses in these districts must also include retail storefront presence and design characteristics, with production and manufacturing design elements (such as loading doors, material storage, etc.) oriented away from the primary entrances and street frontages of developments where they are located.
(6) MUP required for outdoor dining on private property in the CD district when the dining use abuts a residential land use.
(7) Permitted as an accessory use.
(8) Fees for farmers market planning permit applications shall be calculated at fifty percent of the fees set forth in the fee schedule as described in Section 17.60.060, Application fees. Use permit approval shall require that the review authority first find that the proposed use will be compatible with any nearby residential uses. Notices of public hearings shall be mailed to property owners within a radius from the subject site of six hundred feet, or greater at the director’s discretion. *Use Allowed only in existing (as of 2025) structures as an interim occupancy until property is redeveloped.
79 of 238

17.36.040 General parking regulations.

A. Location of Parking on a Site. Parking and loading spaces shall be located as required in Section 17.36.090(A).

B. Timing of Installation. A new or altered structure shall not be occupied, and a new land use not requiring a structure shall not be established, until all off-street parking and loading facilities required by this chapter are in place and approved by the city.

C. Parking and Loading Spaces to Be Permanent. Each parking and loading space shall be permanently available, marked, and maintained for parking or loading purposes for the use it is intended to serve, notwithstanding replacement of religious-use parking as provided for in Government Code Section 65913.6. The approval of a limited term permit (Section 17.62.030), may allow the temporary use of a parking or loading space for other purposes.

D. Parking and Loading to Be Unrestricted. An owner, lessee, tenant, or other person, having control of the operation of a premises for which parking or loading spaces are required by this chapter, shall not prevent, prohibit, or restrict authorized persons from using the spaces without the prior approval of the director.

E. Off-street residential parking spaces shall be unbundled. Parking spaces assigned to a residential development shall be available to be rented or sold separately from the rental or purchase of dwelling units for the life of the dwelling units. Potential renters or buyers shall have the option of renting or buying a dwelling unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the dwelling unit and the parking space(s).
80 of 238

1. Off-street parking spaces shall only be offered to residents of the dwelling units served by the off-street parking except that in developments in the NM, NU and/or any Mixed Use or Commercial zoning district, any spaces (required or not required) not purchased or rented by residents may be rented to nonresidents to be used for automobile parking. Such spaces must be vacated upon thirty (30) days' notice if requested by residents to be made available to them.

2. A notice describing the unbundling requirement shall be included in all purchase and/or rental agreements and permanently posted in a common area of the building or development (such as a parking lot, lobby or mailroom) that is clearly visible to residents.

3. A parking management plan is required to be submitted with each multi-family and/or mixed-use project.

4. Unbundled vehicular parking spaces shall not be used for long-term vehicle storage.

F. Vehicles for Sale. See Section 17.42.045 (Auto and vehicle sales). (Ord. 918 § 14, 2023; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

Table 3-7
Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Vehicle Spaces Required
Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Overlay
Mixed Use/Multifamily Residential 1.5 spaces per residential unit maximum All Commercial/Office 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of commercial use areas maximum Manufacturing Processing and Warehousing
All manufacturing, industrial, and
processing uses, except as
follows:
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of office area;
1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of ground and/or building area devoted to other than office;
1 space for each company vehicle.

Industrial research and
development, laboratories
1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 1 space for each company vehicle.

Recycling facilities
Medium collection facilities Determined by minor use permit.

Small collection facilities Determined by minor use permit.

Recreation, Education, Public Assembly
Bar/tavern, night club (not within a
retail complex)
1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of seating area and waiting/lounge area exclusive of dance floor, and 1 space for each 30 sq. ft. of dance floor.

Commercial recreation facilities –
Indoor
Arcade 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area.

Bowling alley 5 spaces for each lane.

Pool and billiard room 2 spaces for each table.
81 of 238
Table 3-7
Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Vehicle Spaces Required
Skating rink 1 space for each 100 sq. ft. of rink area.

Commercial recreation facilities
– Outdoor
Determined by use permit.

Equestrian facilities – Commercial
stables
1 space for each 5 horses boarded.

Golf
Golf courses and country clubs 4 spaces for each hole, plus as required by this table for accessory uses (e.g., pro shop, bar, restaurant, etc.)
Golf driving ranges 1 space for each tee.

Miniature golf courses 3 spaces for each hole, plus as required by this table for accessory uses (e.g., game room, food service, etc.)
Health/fitness facilities 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area.

Library, museum 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area.

Meeting facility, public or private 1 space for each 4 seats, or 1 space for each 40 sq. ft. of floor area if no seats are provided, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for each classroom or office.

Schools (public and private)
Kindergarten and nursery
schools
1 space for each 3 employees (including administrators and teachers) and 1 space for each 10 children.

Elementary/middle schools 1 space for each employee plus 1 space for each 8 students.

Secondary (high) schools 1 space for each employee plus 1 space for each 4 students.

Colleges and universities
(including trade and business
schools)
1 space for each 1.5 students.

Studios (art, dance, martial arts,
music, etc.)
1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area.

Swimming pools (public, private
and commercial)
1 space for each 100 sq. ft. of pool deck area.

Tennis/racquet/handball or other
courts
2 spaces for each court, plus 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area for accessory uses.

Theaters, auditoriums 1 space for each 3 seats.

Residential
Accessory dwelling unit or junior
accessory dwelling unit
See Section 17.42.170 (Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units).

Live/work units 1 space for each unit.

Multifamily housing
82 of 238
Table 3-7
Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Vehicle Spaces Required
Studio units and one-bedroom
units
1 space for each unit.

Two- and three-bedroom units 1.5 spaces for each unit.

Four-bedroom units and above 2 spaces for each unit, or less as required by the review authority.

Guest parking 1 space for each 4 units.

Organizational house 1 space for each bedroom.

Residential care homes
Six or fewer clients 2 spaces.

Seven or more clients 1 space for each 2 beds, plus 1 space for each 4 beds for guests and employees.

Rooming or boarding houses 1 space for each bedroom.

Senior housing projects 1 space for each two units, plus 1 guest parking space for each 10 units. Reduced parking may be provided in compliance with Section 17.36.080(C) (Reduced Parking for Restricted Senior Housing Projects).

Single-family dwellings including
mobilehome units and
manufactured housing
2 spaces.

Retail Trade
All “Retail Trade” uses listed
under “Retail Trade” in Tables 2-2
or 2-3, except the following:
1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area, and 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of outdoor sales area.
1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of floor area for showroom and office, 1 space per 600 sq. ft. of area used for repairs and services, and 1 space for each 2,000 sq. ft. of outdoor display area.

Auto and vehicle sales and
rental
All customer parking shall be clearly marked and not to be used for parking of unregistered vehicles. No damaged, inoperative, wrecked, or abandoned vehicles shall be stored in any exterior area for more than five days.

Building and landscape
materials, and furniture,
furnishing, and appliance stores
1 space for each 500 sq. ft. of indoor display area for first 10,000 sq. ft., 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor display area over 10,000, and 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor display area.

Convenience stores 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Garden stand 2 spaces minimum, either on-street adjacent to the property or off street, out of the public right-of-way.

Grocery stores, delicatessens,
supermarkets (not within a
retail complex)
1 space for each 150 sq. ft. of floor area used for display and sales, and 1 space for each 800 sq. ft. of floor area used exclusively for warehousing.
83 of 238
Table 3-7
Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Vehicle Spaces Required
Plant nursery, garden supply
stores
1 space for each 2,000 sq. ft. of site area, and 1 loading space, 15 ft. x 30 ft., for each acre.

Produce stands or other
outdoor vendors
3 spaces minimum or 1 space for each 150 sq. ft., whichever results in a greater number of spaces. The spaces shall be located at least 20 feet off the public right-of-way or 20 feet from the front property line with no vehicle maneuvering allowed in the public right-of-way. The use permit may require additional parking, depending on the nature of the sales proposed.

Restaurants (not within a retail
complex)
1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of dining, indoor/outdoor seating, waiting, and lounge areas.

Retail complexes 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area for complexes of less than 30,000 sq. ft., and 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. for complexes of 30,000 sq. ft. or more.

Services
Banks, financial services (not
within a retail complex)
1 space for each 180 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 4 tandem stacking spaces for each outdoor teller or teller station.

Child day care See Section 17.42.060.

Equipment rental 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor storage and rental area.

Laundry – Dry cleaning pick-up
facilities and laundromats
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Laundry – Laundries and dry
cleaning plants
1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area.

Lodging
Bed and breakfast inns 1 space for each guest room, plus 2 covered spaces for the resident family.

Hotels or motels 1 space for each guest room or rental unit, or 1 space for each two beds, whichever is greater, plus required spaces for accessory uses.

Medical services
Clinics and laboratories 1 space for each 225 sq. ft. of floor area, or 4 spaces for each doctor, whichever is greater.

Doctor offices 1 space for each 225 sq. ft. of floor area, or 4 spaces for each doctor, whichever is greater.

Extended care, urgent care 1 space for each 3 patient beds the facility is licensed to accommodate.

Hospitals 1 space for each 2 patient beds the facility is licensed to accommodate.

Mortuaries, funeral homes 1 space for each 4 seats in main sanctuary.

Offices
84 of 238
Table 3-7
Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Vehicle Spaces Required
Business and service 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Processing 1 space for each 150 sq. ft. of floor area.

Professional 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Personal services – All except the
following:
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Pet grooming 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of floor area.

Public utility structure or
installation, bus depot, or transit
station
1 space for each 3 employees, plus additional spaces required by the commission.

Service (gas) stations 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 spaces for each service bay.

Storage (Personal storage/ministorage facilities)
Indoor storage units 1 space for each 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 2 spaces for manager’s office.

Separately accessible storage
units
4 spaces for manager’s office.

Vehicle services – All except the
following:
(All customer parking shall be clearly marked and not to be used for parking of unregistered vehicles. No damaged, inoperative, wrecked, or abandoned vehicles shall be stored in any exterior area for more than five days.)
4 spaces for each service bay, plus spaces for any office as required by this section for offices.

Car wash – Self service 1 drying space for each stall.

Car wash – Full service 10 spaces, plus 6 spaces for each wash lane for queuing and drying area.

Veterinary clinics, animal
hospitals, kennels
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area.

Kennels separate from other
facilities
1 space for each employee, plus 2 spaces.

See subsection G of this section for all projects located more than one-half mile of public transit, or projects subject to specific thirty-day findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65853.2. (Ord. 927 § 10, 2024; Ord. 918 §§ 15, 16, 2023; Ord. 915 § 6, 2022; Ord. 893 § 8, 2020; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.36.070 Bicycle and motorcycle parking.
85 of 238
A. Bicycle Parking. Each multifamily residential development, mixed use and nonresidential land use shall provide bicycle parking in compliance with this section.

1. Number of Bicycle Spaces Required.
a. Multifamily residential uses shall provide bicycle parking spaces equal to a minimum of one bicycle space for every four dwelling units or fraction thereof, with a minimum of two bicycle spaces. For multifamily developments of fourteen or more dwelling units, a minimum of seventy-five percent of bicycle parking spaces or fraction thereof shall be long-term parking and the remaining spaces may be short-term parking. The number of long-term bicycle parking spaces may be reduced by the review authority if dwelling units are provided with a private garage or private, ground-floor, enclosed storage space that will accommodate a bicycle.
b. Multifamily and mixed-use projects within the TOC and SWSP Zoning Districts/overlay area shall provide bicycle parking spaces equal to a minimum of one secured bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and one secured bicycle parking space per 5000 square feet of office space.
c. Nonresidential uses shall provide bicycle parking spaces equal to a minimum of one bicycle space for every ten automobile spaces or fraction thereof, with a minimum of two bicycle spaces. A minimum of twenty-five percent of bicycle parking spaces or fraction thereof shall be long-term parking and the remaining spaces may be short-term parking.

17.36.080 Reduction of parking requirements.

A. Shared Parking. Where two or more adjacent uses have distinct and differing peak parking usage periods (e.g., a theater and a bank), a reduction in the required number of parking spaces shall may be allowed by the review authority. Approval shall also require a parking management plan and recorded covenant running with the land, recorded by the owner of the parking facility, guaranteeing that the required parking will be maintained exclusively for the use or activity served for the duration of the use or activity, in compliance with Section 17.36.120 (Designation of off-site parking and loading spaces).

B. Reduction of Parking. The review authority may reduce the number of parking spaces required by Section 17.36.050 (Number of parking spaces required), based on quantitative information provided by the applicant that documents the need for fewer spaces (e.g., sales receipts, documentation of customer frequency, information on parking standards required for the proposed land use by other cities, etc.).

C. Reduced Parking for Restricted Senior Housing Projects. The review authority may reduce the number of parking spaces required by Section 17.36.050 (Number of parking spaces required) for senior housing projects, for persons aged fifty-five and over, based on quantitative information provided by the applicant that documents the need for fewer spaces for these types of residential development projects.

D. Shared On-Site Parking for Mixed Use Projects. The use of shared parking provisions shall be incorporated into mixed use projects in compliance with Section 17.42.100 (Mixed use projects).

E. Street or Public Parking Lot Parking for Residential Uses. A portion of the required parking for a residential use may be located on a public street or in a public parking lot with use permit approval.

F. Alternative Parking Arrangements for the DSP, TOC and CD Zoning District(s). Alternative parking may be approved by the review authority for projects located in the DSP, TOC and CD zoning district(s) where the applicant executes an agreement with the city to:
86 of 238

1. Pay a parking in-lieu fee, based on an in-lieu fee program is established or approved by the council;

2. Waive the right to protest the formation of a parking assessment district, if a parking district is formed by the council; or

3. Provide some other fair share contribution acceptable to the review authority, where authorized by the council.

The agreement shall be recorded before the issuance of a building permit for the project.

17.39.030 Multifamily objective residential design standards.

G. Accessory Elements. The intent of accessory elements standards is to ensure that certain accessory uses are provided and appropriately incorporated into the project design screened.

1. Perimeter fencing utilized along public streets shall be constructed of decorative iron, pre-painted welded steel, stone, or wood pickets or a combination of such materials. Chain-link fencing is prohibited.

2. The height of solid fencing between private yards and common open spaces shall be limited to forty-two inches in height.

3. Screen rooftop equipment (solar panels are exempt) from visibility. The point of view for determining visibility shall be five feet above grade at a distance of two hundred feet.

4. Screen all exterior trash, recycling, storage utility boxes, wood service poles, electric and gas meters, fire sprinkler valves and backflow preventers and transformers, or other ground-mounted infrastructure.

5. Refuse Containers.
a. Provide dumpsters for refuse collection within a roofed enclosure with walls a minimum of six feet tall. Allow adequate size to accommodate the needed landfill, compost, and recycling containers. All enclosures and gates should be designed to withstand heavy use. Provide wheel stops or curbs to prevent dumpsters from banging into walls of enclosure. b. Coordinate with the refuse pickup provider to determine the size and number of dumpsters required, and ensure that dumpsters shall accommodate all waste streams (landfill, recycling and compost, etc.).
c. Provide an opening so that pedestrians can access the dumpsters without opening the large gates.
d. Provide lighting at refuse enclosures for nighttime security and use. e. Locate dumpster enclosures so that no dwelling is closer than twenty feet (including those on abutting properties), or more than one hundred feet from a residential unit. No minimum distance from dwellings is required if dumpsters are located within a fully enclosed room. 87 of 238

6. Storage. A minimum of one hundred cubic feet of lockable storage area shall be provided for each dwelling outside of the unit, with no dimension less than thirty inches. This section does not apply to vertical mixed use.

7. Laundry Facilities. Each unit shall be provided a plumbed individual laundry area within the unit or its garage, of a size large enough to accommodate a clothes washer and dryer. If located in the garage for an individual unit, the laundry area shall not encroach into the required parking area.

Alternatively, project applicant may provide common laundry facilities.

8. Curb Demand Management. The public street frontage of all new multifamily and mixed-use development projects shall incorporate curb management design characteristics to facilitate rideshare pick-ups, delivery vehicles parking, micromobility access and parking for all vehicle types.

9. Mobility Hub Features. Mobility hubs are centralized locations where people can easily access and transfer between multiple modes of transportation. Each multi-family development shall incorporate a minimum of four mobility hub features from the menu below. a) Micromobility stations and drop zones
b) Dedicated Car Share Service and Parking
c) Loading Zones for ride-hail, shuttles, micro/on-demand transit and urban freight d) Common carrier package pickup and/or similar efficient delivery services e) Wayfinding Signage to off-site transit and mobility opportunities f) Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
g) Long- and Short-Term Bicycle Parking
H. Mixed Use Developments. In addition to the objective standards identified above, projects consisting of both commercial and residential uses shall also be consistent with each of the following standards below:

1. Site planning and building design shall provide for pedestrian access from the public street into the nonresidential and residential portions of the project, through courtyards, plazas, and walkways.

2. Horizontal mixed use projects shall include a pedestrian network connecting the residential components of the project with the nonresidential components through the provision of courtyards, plazas, and walkways.

3. All building design and site design requirements and criteria identified herein shall be incorporated into mixed use projects.

I. Solar on Site. Projects shall include on-site solar photovoltaic panels/equipment to help achieve energy efficiency standards contained within California Code of Regulations Title 24.

J. Additional Objective Standards Within Land Use Code and Specific Plans. Projects subject to this chapter must comply with all other applicable objective standards within this land use code and adopted policies of specific plans. (Ord. 927 § 16, 2024).

17.74.030 Condominiums and condominium conversion.
88 of 238
Condominiums and condominium conversions shall comply with the following requirements, and the limitations and standards in Section 17.42.065 (Condominium, stock cooperative, and other common interest projects) and the applicable sections of the Subdivision Map Act.

A. Condominiums. When a residential structure is proposed at the time of construction as a condominium, community apartment project, or stock cooperative, a tentative map for the project shall be filed in the same form, have the same contents and accompanying data and reports and shall be processed, approved or denied in the same manner in compliance with Chapter 17.71 (Tentative Map Filing and Processing). Chapter 17.72 (Parcel Maps and Final Maps) of this title, determines whether a parcel or final map shall also be filed.

B. Condominium Conversions. A condominium conversion is the conversion of real property to a common interest development as defined by Section 1351 of the California Civil Code.

1. Approvals Required. A conversion shall require the approval of a tentative map, and parcel or final map, except where a parcel map, or tentative and final map are waived in compliance with Map Act Section 66428(b) or 66428.1, for the conversion of a mobilehome park. If a parcel map is waived, a tentative map shall still be required.

2. Approval of a tentative map allowing the conversion of rental units to ownership condominium units shall require the replacement of the rental units at a one-to-one ratio, where permitted by state law, as a condition of map approval. This one-to-one unit replacement ratio is not required for condominium conversions where:
a) A minimum of 90% of the condominium units are purchased by current tenants; or b) 100% of the converted housing units are proposed to be deed restricted as affordable housing to households earning 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less for a period of 55-years.

3. Application Filing and Processing. A tentative map for a condominium conversion shall be filed in the same form, have the same contents and accompanying data and reports and shall be processed, approved or disapproved in the same manner as set forth in Chapter 17.71 (Tentative Map Filing and Processing) of this title, except as otherwise provided by the following provisions of this section.

4. Application Contents. Condominium conversion applications shall include the same information and materials as tentative map applications, except for conversions of residential projects, which shall also include the following information and materials:
a. Tentative Map. The tentative map for a condominium, community apartment project, or the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative need not show the buildings or the manner in which the airspace above the property shown on the map are to be divided. However, the applicant shall provide an illustration of how subdivision will occur to enable verification of the accuracy of the legal descriptions on deeds for the transfer of ownership of the units and shall include a narrative description of the size and bedroom counts of the units proposed to be converted;
b. Verification of Stock Cooperative Vote. If the development being converted to a condominium is a stock cooperative, the application shall also include verification of the vote required by Map Act Section 66452.10;
c. Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan. A detailed plan that provides a first right of refusal to current tenants to purchase a unit at the same price offered to the general public; describes 89 of 238
the tenant protections, benefits, and required relocation payments and moving assistance information to be given to each tenant; and includes the steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each temporarily and/or permanently displaced tenant. The plan shall include additional measures, including assistance in locating comparable housing, assistance in locating a moving company, and payment to cover estimated moving costs, to assist special needs tenants, including senior citizens over the age of sixty-two, households with a handicapped person, and lower income households living with one or more minor children. Limited equity residential cooperatives which provide long-term affordability for the units proposed for conversion are exempt from this requirement. d. Housing Stock Assessment. An analysis of the potential impact on the city’s housing supply and costs. The analysis shall provide adequate information for the city to determine whether the proposed condominium conversion would have a negative effect on the city’s multifamily rental housing supply and rental rates and shall identify, at a minimum:
i. Vacancy rates for multifamily housing by unit size,
ii. Vacancy rates for existing condominiums and townhomes in the city by unit size, iii. Rental rates of multifamily units, by unit size, and the rental rates of the project proposed for conversion,
iv. Length of time existing for-sale condominiums in the city have been on the market, and
v. The number of multifamily apartment units, by unit size, that are in the city’s housing stock and the percentage of the city’s apartment stock, by unit size, that would be reduced by the proposed condominium conversion.

4. Staff Report. The staff report on the tentative map for the condominium conversion (Section 17.74.020) shall be provided to the subdivider and each tenant of the subject property at least three days before any hearing or action on the tentative map by the commission or council.

5. Public Notice. The following notice shall be provided in addition to that required by Chapter 17.88 (Public Hearings) of this title:
a. Tenant Notice. The subdivider shall give notice to all existing or prospective tenants as set forth in Map Act Sections 66452.8 and 66452.9, and shall provide the department satisfactory proof that the notice was given; and
b. Public Hearing Notice. Notice of the public hearing(s) on the tentative map shall be provided to all tenants of the subject property, as required by Map Act Section 66451.3.

6. Approval of Conversion, Required Findings.
a. Time limit, Stock Cooperatives. The approval or disapproval of the conversion of an existing building to a stock cooperative shall occur within one hundred twenty days of the application being found complete in compliance with Section 17.71.030 (Tentative map filing, initial processing) of this title. The one hundred twenty day time limit may be extended by mutual consent of the subdivider and the city, and/or as allowed under state law. 90 of 238
b. Conversion Findings, Residential Projects. Approval of a tentative or final map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of residential real property into a condominium project, community apartment project or stock cooperative shall not be granted unless the findings set forth in Map Act Section 66427.1 are first made.

7. Completion of Conversion. The filing, approval and recordation of a parcel map or final map in compliance with Chapter 17.72 (Parcel Maps and Final Maps) shall be required to complete the subdivision process, except where a parcel map, or tentative and final map are waived for the conversion of a mobilehome park in compliance with Map Act Section 66428(b). (Ord. 854 § 2 (part), 2015; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

Definitions
Curb Demand Management: The practice of actively monitoring and regulating the various uses of curb space in a city, aiming to optimize its allocation and prioritize different demands like parking, loading zones, bike sharing, ride-hailing pick-ups, electric vehicle charging and deliveries, to ensure efficient mobility and access for all users while considering factors like traffic flow and safety.

Curb Extension: A widening of the sidewalk into the parking and/or travel lane to visually and/or physically narrow the roadway. Curb extensions may be utilized to provide numerous street enhancements including safer, shorter and more visible pedestrian crossings; increased space for street furniture, plantings, and other amenities; narrowing the road width and/or tightening the intersection curb raii (slowing automotive turning movements). Curb extensions have multiple applications and may be segmented into various sub-categories, ranging from traffic calming to bus bulbs and midblock crossings.

Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): A roadway or other surface that provides access for emergency vehicles to reach a building, facility, or other area. This includes fire lanes, parking lot lanes, and public or private streets.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The relationship between the total amount of usable floor area of a building and the total area of the lot/parcel. The Plan uses FAR for commercial development, with a range from 1.0-3.0 FAR allowed.

Micromobility: Refers to a range of small, lightweight vehicles operating at speeds typically, below 25 km/h and driven by users personally. Micromobility devices include bicycles, e-bikes, electric scooters, electric skateboards, shared bicycles, and similar modes of transportation.

Microtransit: IT-enabled private multi-passenger transportation services that serve passengers often using dynamically generated routes, and may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points. Vehicles can range from large SUVs to vans to shuttle buses, providing transit-like service but on a smaller, more flexible scale.

Mobility Hub: Serving as a community anchor, a mobility hub is a welcoming environment that enables travelers of all backgrounds to access multiple transportation options and supportive amenities. Built on the backbone of frequent and high-capacity transit, mobility hubs offer a safe, comfortable, convenient, and accessible space to seamlessly transfer across different travel modes micromobility, ride share, personal automobiles and transit, which include supportive amenities designed and incorporated into a cohesive space. 91 of 238
Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS): Standards that apply to the design and build out of parcels including multifamily and mixed-use development.

Parking Management Plan: A set of strategies, policies and regulations to manage parking demand and supply in a specific area. The goal of the plan shall be to maximize the efficiency of parking resources and minimize impacts on surrounding properties and uses. Parking management plans focus on a variety of needs, including space usage, access control, occupancy, layout, circulation, allocation, and violation management. Key elements include analysis of current and future needs, traffic flow strategies (like signage and designated zones), technology and physical design solutions such as speed humps and line markings.
“Personal services” mean establishments providing nonmedical services to individuals as a primary use.

Examples of these uses include:

1. Barber and beauty shops;

2. Clothing rental;

3. Dry cleaning pick-up stores with limited equipment;

4. Home electronics and small appliance repair;

5. Laundromats (self-service laundries);

6. Locksmiths;

7. Massage (licensed, therapeutic, nonsexual);

8. Pet grooming with no boarding;

9. Shoe repair shops;

10. Tailors;

11. Tanning salons;

12. Tattoo and body piercing services.
“Personal services – Restricted” means personal services that may tend to have a blighting and/or deteriorating effect upon surrounding areas and which may need to be dispersed to minimize their adverse impacts. Examples of these uses include:

1. Check cashing stores;

2. Fortune tellers;

3. Palm and card readers;

4. Pawnshops;
92 of 238

5. Psychics;

6. Spas and hot tubs for hourly rental;

7. Tattoo and body piercing services.

Retail tobacco store means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and tobacco accessories and for which the sale of other products is merely incidental.

Tobacco product means any substance containing tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed or ingested by any other means, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff and chewing tobacco. “Tobacco product” also means any electronic device that delivers nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an electronic cigarette, cigar, pipe, or hookah. Tobacco product does not include any cessation product specifically approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in treating nicotine or tobacco dependence.

Transit-Oriented Communities: Standards that apply to the design and build out of parcels including multifamily and mixed-use development located within one half-mile of the SMART Train station.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM): A set of transportation strategies aimed at providing travelers with travel choices, such as route, time of travel and mode. In the broadest sense, demand management is defined as providing travelers with effective choices to improve travel reliability and policy measures to reflect the true cost of driving, such as congestion pricing, VMT charging and parking management/pricing.

Zoning Code: A set of specific local rules for what can and cannot be developed on a property.
93 of 238
March 2025
Summary of Submission Requirements for MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
March 2025
Review the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance for more details about specific requirements.

Data and documents for confirming compliance must be submitted using the online TOC Policy Submission Portal. Contact [email protected] with questions.

Step 1: Identify TOC Locations & Transit Tiers
• View the TOC Policy Map OR
• Download the list of TOCs by jurisdiction OR
• Visit the online TOC Policy Submission Portal
Step 2: Document Average Residential Densities
TOC Policy Zoning Density Requirements for Residential Development Transit Tier Average Minimum Density Average Maximum Density Threshold Tier 1 100 units per net acre or higher 150 units per net acre or higher Tier 2 75 units per net acre or higher 100 units per net acre or higher Tier 3 50 units per net acre or higher 75 units per net acre or higher Tier 4 25 units per net acre or higher 35 units per net acre or higher Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions with 30,000 residents or fewer may use Tier 4 standards.

Step 3: Document Average Commercial Office Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) TOC Policy Zoning Intensity Requirements for Commercial Office Development Transit Tier Average Minimum Intensity Average Maximum Intensity Threshold Tier 1 4 FAR or higher 8 FAR or higher
Tier 2 3 FAR or higher 6 FAR or higher
Tier 3 2 FAR or higher 4 FAR or higher
Tier 4 1 FAR or higher 3 FAR or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard. \ Document Average Residential Densities
Document Average Commercial Office Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) 1 Identify TOC Locations & Transit Tiers
2 3
94 of 238
March 2025
Step 4: Document Affordable Housing & Commercial Stabilization Policies

1. Adopt at least two (2) affordable housing production policies.

2. Adopt at least two (2) affordable housing preservation policies.

3. Adopt at least two (2) affordable housing protection policies.

4. Adopt at least one (1) commercial stabilization policy.

Jurisdictions can choose policies from a menu of options. Details about the requirements for each policy are in the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Step 5: Document Vehicle Parking Standards
TOC Policy Required Vehicle Parking Standards for New Residential Development Transit Tier Parking Minimum Requirement Parking Maximum Requirement Tier 1 Not allowed 0.375 spaces per unit or lower
Tier 2 Not allowed 0.5 spaces per unit or lower
Tier 3 Not allowed 1.0 spaces per unit or lower
Tier 4 — 1.5 spaces per unit or lower
TOC Policy Required Vehicle Parking Standards for New Commercial Development Transit Tier Parking Minimum Requirement Parking Maximum Requirement Tier 1 Not allowed 0.25 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower
Tier 2 Not allowed 1.6 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower
Tier 3 Not allowed 2.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower
Tier 4 — 4.0 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower
Notes:

1. There is no requirement related to minimum parking for Tier 4 TOCs. However, jurisdictions must comply with applicable state law prohibiting parking minimums, such as AB 2097.

2. For parcels on which both residential and commercial development are allowed: the sum of the applicable maximum automobile parking per dwelling unit and the applicable maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square feet.

3. There are two approaches for meeting the TOC Policy’s maximum parking standards, described in more detail in the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance:
a. Adopt an overlay zone or updates to a parking use table or chapter b. Adopt a parking district, station area cap or other methods that limit parking so the amount of new off-street parking is equivalent to or less than the TOC Policy requirements.

Document Affordable Housing & Commercial Stabilization Policies Document Vehicle Parking Standards
4 5
95 of 238
March 2025
Step 6: Document Bicycle Parking Standards
TOC Policy Required Bicycle Parking Standards for New Development Transit Tier Residential Commercial Office
All Tiers Minimum 1 secure space per unit Minimum 1 secure space per 5,000 occupied square feet
Notes:

1. For parcels on which both residential and commercial development are allowed: At least the sum of one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit plus one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for commercial office.

2. Secure bicycle parking should follow the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ Essentials of Bike Parking Guidelines as well as HCD’s forthcoming update to the California Green Building Standards Code, per AB 2863 (2022).

3. For a single building with more than 100 units, the jurisdiction can apply a ratio of one secure bicycle parking space for every four units to the number of units above 100. For example, a 140- unit building would need 110 bicycle parking spaces (100 + 0.25*40).

Step 7: Document Parking Management Policies

1. Allow unbundled parking.

2. Allow shared parking between different land uses.

3. Adopt a complementary parking management policy from a menu of options:
a. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Policy for New Development b. Curb Strategy/Management
c. Parking Benefit District
d. Demand-Responsive Pricing
e. Priced Parking
Step 8: Document Complete Streets Policy & Active Transportation Projects

1. Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy.

2. Prioritize implementation of “All Ages and Abilities” active transportation projects on the regional Active Transportation Network (as stated in the MTC Complete Streets Policy) and/or active transportation projects from any relevant Community Based Transportation Plans within the TOC area in its capital improvement program (CIP) or other adopted plan or program that lists the jurisdiction’s funding and implementation priorities.

Document Complete Streets Policy & Active Transportation Projects Document Bicycle Parking Standards
7 Document Parking Management Policies
8 6
96 of 238
March 2025
Step 9: Document Access Gap Analysis

1. Complete an access gap analysis and accompanying capital and/or service improvement program for station access consistent with the requirements in the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Jurisdictions may submit a variety of local plans/documents to demonstrate compliance, as described in the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Step 9: Document Mobility Hub Planning & Implementation

1. Submit any current plans or projects that enhance the TOC area as a community anchor enabling travelers of all backgrounds and abilities to access transit and other forms of shared transportation. If the documents submitted contain plans for or implement these enhancements, they must be specifically noted OR list any current or prior funding application for MTC’s Mobility Hub Program for the TOC area.

Enhancements may include (but are not limited to) safety improvements, bike parking, electric charging infrastructure (bikes, scooters, carshare), public realm improvements (e.g., lighting, green infrastructure), information improvements (e.g., wayfinding, real-time information) or any other active transportation access improvements within the TOC area.

For transit lines where stops or stations are more closely spaced (e.g., less than ½-mile apart) such as light rail or bus rapid transit facilities, planning and implementation for Mobility Hubs may be done on a corridor-wide basis rather than for each individual stop or station. MTC staff will work with local jurisdictions to streamline the process for verifying compliance in locations with overlapping TOC areas.

Step 10: Submit Materials and Adopted Resolution
MTC will accept submissions from jurisdictions for each TOC area subject to the policy.

Jurisdictions must use MTC’s online TOC Policy Submission Portal. Jurisdictions may submit documentation on a rolling basis until the submission deadline. Questions about documentation submittal should be directed to [email protected].

The jurisdiction’s final submission must be accompanied by a resolution adopted by the city council or board of supervisors confirming compliance with the TOC Policy. For jurisdictions with multiple TOC areas, the jurisdiction may submit a single resolution that includes reference to all TOC areas for which the jurisdiction is confirming compliance.

Document Mobility Hub Planning & Implementation
11 Submit Materials and Adopted Resolution
9 Document Access Gap Analysis
10 97 of 238
DRAFT Evaluation Criteria Framework - MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy April 2025
This is a proposed framework for evaluating local jurisdiction compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. Proposed weights, scores, and thresholds for substantial or partial compliance are conceptual at this stage and are subject to change. This does not represent a final score and is not a determination of whether a jurisdiction complies with the TOC Policy. An asterisk (*) indicates draft numbers subject to change.

Density (25 points total)
Minimum Density – Residential (DU/A) Weight: 8 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 100 75 50 25 8* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 85* 64* 43* 21* 6* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 75* 56* 38* 19* 4* Minimum Density – Commercial Office (FAR) Weight: 4 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 3.40* 2.55* 1.70* 0.85* 3* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 3.00* 2.25* 1.50* 0.75* 2* Maximum Density – Residential (DU/A) Weight: 8 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 150 100 75 35 8* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 128* 85* 64* 30* 6* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 113* 75* 56* 26* 4* Maximum Density – Commercial Office (FAR) Weight: 5 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 8.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 5* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 6.80* 5.10* 3.40* 2.55* 4* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 6.00* 4.50* 3.00* 2.25* 3* Affordable Housing / Commercial Stabilization (25 points total) Production Policies (2) Weight: 8 points*
DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Preservation Policies (2) Weight: 8 points*
DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Protection Policies (2) Weight: 8 points*
DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Commercial Stabilization Policy (1) Weight: 1 point*
DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 1 or 0*
98 of 238
Parking (25 points total)
Minimum Auto – Residential Weight: 2 points*
DRAFT*
Score
2 points if jurisdiction demonstrates that it prohibits minimums via attestation/resolution of AB 2097 compliance or code snippet 2 or 0*
Minimum Auto – Commercial Weight: 2 points*
DRAFT*
Score
2 points if jurisdiction demonstrates that it prohibits minimums via attestation/resolution of AB 2097 compliance or code snippet 2 or 0*
Maximum Auto – Residential (spaces/unit) Weight: 6 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant 0.375 0.5 1.0 1.5 6*
Substantial compliance 0.4* 0.6* 1.2* 1.8* 4*
Partial compliance 0.5* 0.7* 1.3* 2.0* 2*
Maximum Auto – Commercial (spaces/5,000 sq. ft)
Weight: 6 points*
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant 0.25 1.6 2.5 4.0 6*
Substantial compliance 0.29* 1.9* 2.9* 4.7* 4*
Partial compliance 0.33* 2.1* 3.3* 5.3* 2*
Minimum Bicycle – Residential (spaces/ unit) Weight: 3 points* DRAFT*
Score
Meets required minimum of 1 bike space per dwelling unit 3*

0.85 to 0.99 bike space per dwelling unit 2*
Minimum Bicycle – Commercial Office (spaces/5,000 sq. ft) Weight: 3 points*
DRAFT*
Score
Meets required minimum of 1 bike space per 5000 square feet 3*

0.85 to 0.99 bike space per 5000 square feet 2*
Allow Unbundled Parking Weight: 1 point*
DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted the policy 1 or 0*
Allow Shared Parking Weight: 1 point*
DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted the policy 1 or 0*
Parking Management Policy Weight: 1 point*
DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted an applicable policy 1 or 0* Station Access & Circulation (25 points total)
Compliant Complete Streets Policy Weight: 3 points*
DRAFT*
Score
3 points if jurisdiction has adopted an applicable policy 3 or 0* Prioritize or Implement Active Transportation Projects Weight: 7 points* DRAFT*
Score
7 points if jurisdiction has prioritized or implemented active transportation projects 7 or 0* Compliant Access Gap Analysis Weight: 8 points*
DRAFT*
Score
8 points if jurisdiction has adopted a compliant access gap analysis 8 or 0* Compliant Mobility Hub Plan/ Project/ Application Weight: 7 points* DRAFT*
Score
7 points if jurisdiction has adopted a compliant mobility hub plan/ project/ application 7 or 0* 99 of 238

Page 1 of 42 ends

MTC Administrative Guidance:

Transit-Oriented Communities Policy
Guidance for Public Agency Staff Implementing Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 4530
Revised May 2025 (Version 1.1)
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose............................................................................................. 4 II. TOC Policy Requirements........................................................................................... 5 III. Policy Applicability...................................................................................................... 5 Types of Transit ......................................................................................................... 5 Existing Transit..................................................................................................... 6 Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy.................... 6 Transit Extensions................................................................................................ 7 Interregional Projects............................................................................................ 8 Transit Tiers............................................................................................................... 8 Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service............................... 8 Exemption for Fixed-Guideway Stations Scheduled for Closure................................ 9 Exemption for Stations with Service Two Days or Fewer per Week .......................... 9 Partial Exemption for Tier 4 TOC Areas Outside Urban Service Areas ..................... 9 TOC Area Geography................................................................................................ 9 Overlapping TOC Areas........................................................................................... 10 Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas ................................................................................... 10 IV. Documentation Submittal and Review ..................................................................... 10 Submission Deadline ............................................................................................... 10 Documentation Submittal......................................................................................... 11 Local Jurisdiction Resolution ................................................................................... 11 MTC Review Process .............................................................................................. 11 V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission....................................................................... 11 Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development......... 11 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 11 100 of 238

Page 2 of 42 ends

Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 13 Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies ..................................................................... 25 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 25 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 34 Section 3: Parking Management.............................................................................. 34 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 34 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 37 Section 4: Station Access and Circulation ............................................................... 40 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 40 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 41 Appendix A: TOC Policy Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Requirements I. Affordable Housing Production Policy Options............................................................. 1 Production Policy 1: Inclusionary Zoning ................................................................... 2 Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding...................................................... 4 Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones............................................ 7 Production Policy 4: Public Land for Affordable Housing........................................... 9 Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval................................................................. 12 Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts................................................ 14 Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process 17 II. Affordable Housing Preservation Policy Options....................................................... 18 Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing ....... 19 Preservation Policy 2: Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase........................ 22 Preservation Policy 3: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation...................... 23 Preservation Policy 4: Condominium Conversion Restrictions ................................ 24 Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts............................................. 26 Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity........................... 29 Preservation Policy 7: Mobile Home Preservation ................................................... 31 Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities .......................................................... 33 III. Affordable Housing Protection Policy Options.......................................................... 35 Protection Policy 1: “Just Cause” Eviction ............................................................... 36 Protection Policy 2: No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes ......... 37 Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants ................................................... 39 Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance............................................................ 41 Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program...................................................... 43 101 of 238

Page 3 of 42 ends

Protection Policy 6: Rent Stabilization ..................................................................... 46 Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities ................................................................. 48 Protection Policy 8: Tenant Relocation Assistance.................................................. 50 Protection Policy 9: Mobile Home Rent Stabilization ............................................... 51 Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement...................................................... 53 Protection Policy 11: Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections...................................... 56 IV. Commercial Stabilization Policy Options.................................................................. 57 Commercial Stabilization Policy 1: Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay ............ 58 Commercial Stabilization Policy 2: Small Business and Non-Profit Preference Policy ....................................................................................................................... 59 Commercial Stabilization Policy 3: Small Business and Non-Profit Financial Assistance Program................................................................................................. 59 Commercial Stabilization Policy 4: Small Business Advocate Office ....................... 60 Appendix B: Jurisdictions by Funding Tier
Appendix C: Log of Revisions in Version 1.1 Administrative Guidance (April 2025) 102 of 238

Page 4 of 42 ends

I. Background and Purpose
This document provides guidance to local jurisdictions on how to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy (MTC Resolution 4530), adopted in September 2022 and revised in October 2023. Version 1.0 of the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance was published in fall 2024. Version 1.1 of this guidance integrates insights gleaned from further engagement with local partners over the past six months. MTC staff have made minor revisions to the Administrative Guidance to clarify the criteria for stations subject to the TOC Policy and provide greater specificity regarding the compliance requirements across the four policy components:
land use density, affordable housing, parking management, and station access. See Appendix C for additional details about these revisions.

The TOC Policy seeks to support the region’s transit investments by ensuring communities around transit stations are places that not only support transit ridership, but are also places where all Bay Area residents can live, work, and access services.

The TOC Policy is rooted in Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and addresses all four elements of the Plan—transportation, housing, the economy, and the environment.

Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary for jurisdictions that want to advance the goals of PBA 2050 or to be eligible and/or competitive for some MTC discretionary funding.

Four goals guide the TOC Policy and advance PBA 2050 implementation:
• Increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing the density for new residential projects. Prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas. • In areas near regional transit hubs, increase density for new commercial office development.
• Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than ½ mile from transit stops or stations.
• Support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) will consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy. With MTC Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications for additional discretionary funding sources. 103 of 238

Page 5 of 42 ends

II. TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC policy requirements consist of the following four elements:

1. Minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and stabilizing businesses to prevent displacement.

3. Parking management.

4. Transit station access and circulation.

The specific requirements for each topic area are described in more detail below.

Jurisdictions will be evaluated for compliance with all requirements in each of the four topic areas for each TOC area1 within the jurisdiction that is subject to the TOC Policy.

For all topic areas, a jurisdiction may use an existing adopted policy or plan to meet the requirements or, as needed, may adopt new policies/standards by the deadline for compliance with the TOC Policy (see section V. Documentation Submittal and Review, below, for more details). Where applicable, a jurisdiction may rely on jurisdiction-wide policies to demonstrate compliance for a TOC area.

III. Policy Applicability
Types of Transit
The TOC Policy applies to areas within ½ mile of the following types of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit2 stops and stations:
• Regional rail (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain) • Commuter rail (e.g., Capitol Corridor, Altamont Corridor Express, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Valley Link)
• Light-rail transit (LRT)
• Bus rapid transit (BRT)3
• Ferries
The ½-mile radius around a transit station/stop applies even if the jurisdiction has adopted a Priority Development Area (PDA) whose boundaries are different. 1 A TOC area is the geography surrounding a fixed-guideway transit stop or station that is subject to the TOC Policy requirements. See “TOC Area Geography” in Section III. Policy Applicability for more information on how this specific geography is determined. 2 “Fixed guideway means a public transportation facility that uses and occupies a separate right-of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of public transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary system and a right of way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, ferry boat service, and fixed-guideway facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles.” (49 CFR § 611.105)
3 The TOC Policy uses the definition of “bus rapid transit” (BRT) from California Public Resources Code section 21060.2.
104 of 238

Page 6 of 42 ends

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website.

Existing Transit
The TOC Policy applies to jurisdictions with existing fixed-guideway transit service stops and stations, as defined above. For jurisdictions with an existing stop/station, OBAG (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) is currently the only funding source for which MTC will consider TOC compliance in its investment decisions. With Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications for additional discretionary funding sources for enhancements or improvements to existing stops/stations.

Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy Fixed-guideway stations that are planned but not currently in service may need to demonstrate compliance with TOC Policy requirements by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle. This applies to planned stations meeting any of the following criteria:
• Project begins construction by January 1, 2025.

AND/OR
• Project allocated regional discretionary funding that requires committing to compliance by the OBAG 4 cycle, as per the requirements of MTC Resolution 4530.

AND/OR
• Project has a Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) Level of 1 or 2.

Additionally, planned stations meeting both of the following criteria are subject to achieving TOC Policy compliance by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle:
• Project has finished the environmental review phase, or completed equivalent planning analyses, with analysis based on defined station location(s). At their discretion, MTC staff may determine a station location is sufficiently defined to be subject to the OBAG 4 TOC Policy compliance deadline even if environmental review is not yet complete.

AND
• Project is in “Bin 1” of the Plan Bay Area 2050+ Transportation Project List in either the Final Blueprint (as advanced into environmental phase) or the adopted Final Plan. However, achieving TOC Policy compliance by 2026 is optional for projects that are in Bin 1 in the Final Blueprint but ultimately are not in Bin 1 as part of the adopted Final Plan. Bin 1 encompasses projects expected to be operational by 2035.
105 of 238

Page 7 of 42 ends

Opt-In for Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Not Subject to the TOC Policy A planned station that does not meet the criteria above can choose to opt in to achieving compliance for the planned TOC area for the OBAG 4 cycle. To do so, the planned station must have a sufficiently defined station location as determined by MTC staff (e.g., the project has completed environmental review). Density and parking standards for planned TOC areas that opt in would be based on the anticipated level of transit service.

Transit Extensions
“Transit extensions” refer to the creation of a new fixed-guideway transit system (rail, ferry, or bus rapid transit), or extension of an existing fixed-guideway transit system to a new station, stations, or terminals. Transit extensions include new infill stations on a fixed-guideway transit system, and major expansions of existing stations to accommodate a new fixed-guideway transit system or route.

The TOC Policy establishes different compliance expectations for transit extension projects seeking awards or allocations of regional discretionary capital funding4 based on the project’s delivery stage, as follows:

1. Project Development/Environmental Review: Project sponsors, and local jurisdictions as applicable, must provide a letter or resolution acknowledging that future allocation requests to MTC will be subject to the TOC Policy pursuant to later phases.

2. Project Design and Early Right-of-Way Acquisition: Jurisdictions must commit in writing to take steps toward achieving compliance by 2026 for the station area(s) seeking funding.

3. Project Construction: Jurisdictions do not need to submit a letter of commitment, but they should work with MTC staff to achieve compliance by 2026.

The transit extension project sponsor/implementing agency must include an acknowledgement or commitment letter or resolution, as applicable, in its request to MTC for regional discretionary funding. Templates for the jurisdiction letters and resolutions are available on the MTC TOC Policy website. See Appendix 1 of MTC Resolution 4530 for more details about the requirements for transit extensions.

Beginning in 2026, these requirements will also apply to transit extension projects seeking MTC endorsement for federal or state discretionary capital funding. 5 4 For the purposes of the TOC Policy, “regional discretionary funding” for transit projects includes the following fund sources: regional bridge tolls and associated programs (e.g., RM2 & RM3), Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and Regional Exchange Program (MTC Exchange). This list is non-exhaustive and could be amended in the future if MTC exercises discretionary control over additional funding sources.
5 In the context of TOC Policy implementation, "endorsement” refers to when the MTC Commission acts to endorse projects seeking funding from other sources or when a project is added to the list of projects 106 of 238

Page 8 of 42 ends

Interregional Projects
Interregional projects that trigger MTC's Interregional Project Funding and Coordination Policy (Resolution No. 4399) shall be subject to the TOC Policy as set forth in this paragraph. For any portion of the project within MTC’s jurisdiction, the project sponsor must satisfy the requirements as noted above for Existing Transit and Transit Extensions, as applicable. For portions of the project within the jurisdiction of another Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPO)/Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), the Interagency Agreement referenced in Resolution 4399 must include a provision acknowledging the applicability of the TOC Policy, confirming compliance with the TOC Policy for the Bay Area portion of the project, and a commitment from the other MPO/RTPA to strive towards achievement of TOC Policy requirements for the portions of the project outside of the Bay Area. The other MPO/RTPA’s commitment for non-Bay Area portions of the project should include, as practicable, an agreement to regularly report on the status of progress to meeting TOC Policy requirements, to explain any challenges with achieving TOC Policy requirements, and any steps that will be taken to overcome those challenges.

Transit Tiers
Geographic areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tier according to the level of transit service at fixed-guideway station(s) within ½ mile:
• Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San José)
• Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain • Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
• Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
Density and parking management requirements are defined by transit tier, while other requirements are consistent across all tiers.

Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service Jurisdictions with transit stops and stations that are not served by fixed-guideway service (e.g., areas that are only served by regular fixed-route bus transit) may choose to “opt in” and voluntarily meet TOC Policy requirements for these areas. 6 Station
areas/stops where a jurisdiction has voluntarily complied with the TOC Policy may be eligible for any future funding sources where the MTC Commission chooses to adopt TOC Policy compliance as a prerequisite for funding or a factor in prioritizing funding. and programs included in MTC’s Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) or a change is made to a project’s MAP Level.
6 For locations with no fixed-guideway transit service, the Tier 4 density and parking management requirements will apply in addition to all other TOC Policy requirements. 107 of 238

Page 9 of 42 ends

Exemption for Fixed-Guideway Stations Scheduled for Closure Jurisdictions are exempt from complying with the TOC Policy for existing fixed-guideway transit stations that are scheduled to close. For the purposes of TOC Policy compliance, a station is “scheduled to close” if the station closure is a component of a transportation project included within, or otherwise specified by, the Regional Transportation Plan that was most recently adopted prior to the beginning of the relevant OBAG cycle (e.g., Plan Bay Area 2050+ for OBAG 4). A primary goal of the policy changes needed to achieve TOC Policy compliance is supporting transit ridership, and these policies have limited impact if a station is scheduled to close.

Exemption for Stations with Service Two Days or Fewer per Week Jurisdictions are exempt from complying with the TOC Policy for existing fixed-guideway transit stations that have service two days or fewer per week if service is not proposed to be expanded to a greater number of days per week in the Regional Transportation Plan that was most recently adopted prior to the beginning of the relevant OBAG cycle (e.g., Plan Bay Area 2050+ for OBAG 4). Stations with very limited service are less likely to be able to support the development and circulation patterns envisioned in the TOC Policy.

Partial Exemption for Tier 4 TOC Areas Outside Urban Service Areas County governments are exempt from complying with the residential and commercial office density requirements for any portion of existing or planned Tier 4 TOC areas within the unincorporated county that are outside of the Urban Service Area. However, these jurisdictions are still subject to comply with all other TOC Policy requirements for these areas (housing policies, parking management, and station access). These areas are not yet envisioned to support dense development in local and regional plans, but other aspects of the TOC Policy remain important and impactful in these communities.

Access planning enables those who live or work nearby to more easily use these stations, while parking management policies ensure that development that does occur is transit supportive. Additionally, affordable housing policies safeguard against displacement of existing lower-income residents and support people from all backgrounds being able to live in neighborhoods served by transit.

TOC Area Geography
The ½-mile area is measured from a single point at the center of the stop or station.

Where a station/stop includes infrastructure such as platforms, bus transfer facilities, and parking areas, a single centroid is identified rather than computing distance from multiple station entrances or property boundaries. Open water, rivers, canals, and other water bodies are excluded, which may result in the TOC area being an irregular shape rather than a perfect circle.
108 of 238

Page 10 of 42 ends

For more information on how the density and parking requirements apply to TOC areas, see “Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development” and “Section 3: Parking Management” below.

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website.

Overlapping TOC Areas
In some cases, the ½-mile area around one stop/station may intersect with the ½-mile area around another stop/station, resulting in overlapping TOC areas. As a jurisdiction must demonstrate compliance for each TOC area separately, a parcel within an overlapping area will be considered in calculating the average zoning density as well as evaluating the parking standards for each of the overlapping TOC areas. If the overlapping TOC areas represent different transit tiers, parcels in the overlapping areas must meet the standards for the higher transit tier (i.e., Tier 1 is higher than Tier 2).

For jurisdictions with overlapping TOC areas, MTC will work with local staff to identify situations where TOC areas can be consolidated (e.g., along BRT or LRT corridors or in downtown areas) for aggregate analysis of TOC compliance.

Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas
A TOC area may encompass multiple jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is exempt from complying with any TOC Policy requirements if it contains 20 percent or less of the TOC area, as determined by MTC staff. A jurisdiction that comprises more than 20 percent of a TOC area must comply with all TOC Policy requirements for its portion of the TOC area.

For the TOC Policy density standards, a jurisdiction is not responsible for zoning densities/intensities outside its boundaries, but it must meet the TOC Policy standards for the portion of the TOC area within its jurisdiction.7 IV. Documentation Submittal and Review
Submission Deadline
To ensure eligibility for OBAG 4 funding and any other discretionary funding that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, jurisdictions should anticipate demonstrating compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4, expected in early 2026. MTC will provide more information about submission deadlines as part of developing the OBAG 4 program. 7 Average zoning density calculation requirements are covered in Section V of this Guidance document. 109 of 238

Page 11 of 42 ends

Documentation Submittal
MTC will accept submissions from jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance with the TOC Policy for each TOC area subject to the policy within the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions must use the TOC Policy Submission Portal developed by MTC. Jurisdictions may submit documentation on a rolling basis until the submission deadline. Questions about documentation submittal should be directed to [email protected].

Local Jurisdiction Resolution
The jurisdiction’s final submission must be accompanied by a resolution adopted by the city council or board of supervisors confirming compliance with the TOC Policy. For jurisdictions with multiple TOC areas, the jurisdiction may submit a single resolution that includes reference to all TOC areas for which the jurisdiction is confirming compliance.

MTC Review Process
To complete its review of a jurisdiction’s submission, MTC may request additional clarifying documentation and information from the jurisdiction. Additionally, to assist with its review of the submission, MTC may consult with and gather relevant information from any individual, entity, or public agency. Jurisdictions will receive confirmation of its compliance status after MTC has completed its review of submitted documentation.

V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission
This section provides the guidance necessary to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s TOC Policy requirements. It is divided into four sections:

1. Zoning density and intensity requirements for residential and commercial office development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation, and protection policies and commercial stabilization policies

3. Parking management policies

4. Station access and circulation requirements
Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development
Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local planning policies and zoning regulations enable new development within TOC areas to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. The mechanism for furthering this goal is the requirement that jurisdictions adopt minimum density and intensity requirements in TOC areas. Additionally, if a jurisdiction chooses 110 of 238

Page 12 of 42 ends

to adopt maximum density and intensity requirements, these must be high enough to support robust transit-oriented development.
8 The Policy does not require a jurisdiction to plan or zone specific parcels for a particular land use or density. Rather, a jurisdiction is required to meet zoning density and intensity standards where zoning allows new residential, office, or mixed-use development. The density requirements represent an average taken across the TOC area, and the required average densities are based on the area’s Transit Tier (see Tables 1 and 5).

The minimum density/intensity in a given zoning district where housing and/or commercial office uses are permitted may be below the TOC Policy thresholds (Tables 1 and 5), provided the average across the TOC area meets the requirement.9 Cities that have adopted Form Based Codes without density standards are required to adopt minimum densities, minimum Floor Area Ratios (FARs), or minimum heights for future residential, commercial office, and mixed-use projects.

A jurisdiction without minimum residential or commercial office zoning standards may use the minimums identified in an adopted General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan to the extent the Plan requires that new development must occur at or above a minimum threshold. In the absence of such a requirement or zoning standard, a zone without a minimum density will be assigned a “zero” for the purposes of calculating the average for the TOC area. A minimum density value of zero for any zone in a TOC area will make it more difficult to achieve the required areawide averages. This is further explained in the methodology below.

A jurisdiction is not required to adopt maximum allowable density/intensity standards.

However, if a jurisdiction has adopted these standards, then the average of the maximum density/intensity allowed for residential or commercial office uses must meet or exceed the TOC Policy’s thresholds (Tables 3 and 7).

Areas Subject to Density/Intensity Requirements
For the residential density calculations, only zoning districts that allow residential development as a permitted use (i.e., with no use permit requirement) are included. For the purposes of TOC Policy compliance, only residential uses that represent the most common forms of residential dwellings (i.e., single-family residences, duplexes, multifamily housing, and mixed-use development) are considered “residential development.” 8 While the TOC Policy does not specify requirements for building heights, local jurisdictions should not limit building heights such that new residential development at the densities specified by the TOC Policy becomes infeasible.
9 “Permitted” means the use is listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations, with no use permit requirement.
111 of 238

Page 13 of 42 ends

For the commercial office intensity calculations, only commercial, residential, and mixed-use zoning districts that allow office as a permitted use are included. For the purposes of TOC Policy compliance, uses that are considered office include (but are not limited to) professional office, business office, government office, medical office, administrative office, commercial office, general office, etc.

Areas Eligible for Exclusion from Density/Intensity Requirements If a zoning district only permits less typical residential uses (e.g., ADUs, live/work spaces, transitional housing, etc.), this district will not be included in the average residential density calculations. Zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture may be excluded from residential density calculations even if these zones list residential development as a permitted use.

Industrial zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses may be excluded from commercial office intensity calculations at a jurisdiction’s discretion.

The Policy allows parcels with existing dwelling units to be excluded from the residential density and commercial office intensity calculations to minimize the risk of displacement. However, a parcel may not be excluded if it was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing.

For the TOC Policy, “existing dwelling units” are residential units that received a building permit prior to January 1, 2024. However, if a project has not received a certificate of occupancy by the beginning of the OBAG 5 cycle (anticipated in 2030), the parcel cannot be excluded from future TOC Policy compliance cycles.

Note: Calculation of the average density includes parcels zoned to allow residential and/or commercial office development where it may not be physically possible to construct new residential, commercial office, or mixed-use buildings within the specified density ranges due to small parcel sizes, environmental factors, conflicts with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, etc.

Submitting Required Documentation
Demonstrating conformance to the TOC Policy includes four calculations of average density/intensity within the TOC area:
• Minimum zoning density required for zones allowing residential uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum residential density standards, the maximum zoning density for zones allowing residential uses.
• Minimum commercial office intensity (FAR) required for zones allowing office uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum commercial intensity standards, the maximum commercial office intensity (FAR) for zones allowing office uses. 112 of 238

Page 14 of 42 ends

MTC’s TOC Policy Submission Portal is programmed to complete these calculations based on a jurisdiction’s zoning data. A five-step process is outlined below for how the calculations are completed and how to determine density and FAR equivalencies if a zoning district does not use these metrics. Local jurisdictions may use this process to complete calculations outside the TOC Policy Submission Portal, but ultimately all zoning information and parcel exclusions must be submitted in the portal to ensure consistency across jurisdictions.

The calculations do not require determination of “buildout” in the TOC area. Rather, they only require calculation of the average minimum and maximum density/intensity allowed by zoning on eligible parcels. Moreover, determination of the average zoning density and intensity is intended only as a theoretical calculation to evaluate compliance with the TOC Policy. The average density/intensity calculations do not in any way preclude or discourage mixed-use development or non-office commercial uses, nor do they disallow or discourage the addition of residential or office uses to projects of other uses.

Step 1 is identifying the baseline set of zones or parcels to be used in the average density/intensity calculations for a TOC area. Steps 2 to 5 correspond to the calculations of minimum residential density, maximum allowable residential density, minimum commercial office intensity, and maximum allowable commercial office intensity for those zones or parcels.

Step 1: Determine the Baseline Areas to be Included in the Calculations i. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where residential uses are a permitted use (i.e., no use permit is required). This includes single-family residential zones, multi-family residential zones, mixed-use zones where residential development is a permitted use, and non-residential districts that specifically identify residential development as a permitted use. Zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture may be excluded from the average residential density calculation, even where residential development is listed as a permitted use. If a zoning district only permits less typical residential uses (e.g., ADUs, live/work spaces, transitional housing, etc.), this district will not be included in residential density calculations.
ii. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where commercial offices are a permitted use. This includes commercial and mixed-use zones where office is a permitted use, and any residential zones that allow 100 percent office uses (zones that only allow office as an ancillary use are excluded). Industrial zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses may be excluded from commercial office intensity calculations at a jurisdiction’s discretion. iii. Calculate the net acreage in each zoning district in the TOC area. “Net” acreage means streets or un-zoned features within the zoning boundary are not counted.

Net acreage is automatically calculated in the TOC Policy Submission Portal. 113 of 238

Page 15 of 42 ends

iv. If a jurisdiction chooses to exclude parcels with existing residential dwelling units, prepare a list of parcels to be excluded (subtracted) from the eligible acreage.

However, if the parcel was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing, it may not be excluded. For any excluded parcel, the jurisdiction must document the assessor parcel number, address, acreage, existing zoning, and existing land use. Additionally, the jurisdiction must use the map feature in the TOC Policy Submission Portal to exclude these parcels from density calculations. v. Report the remaining net acreage in each eligible residential zone and each eligible commercial office zone, the sums of these acreages, and the percentage of the total eligible zones that each individual zone represents. This information will be automatically calculated in the TOC Policy Submission Portal. vi. Zoning districts included in the residential calculation may also be included in the office calculation, where applicable.

Step 2: Calculate the Average Minimum Residential Density Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum zoning density in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 1. A jurisdiction without minimum density standards may refer to the ranges in its General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum density standards (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan as described above) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 1: Average Minimum Zoning Densities Required for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum
Zoning Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
75 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
50 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 25 units/net acre or
higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions with 30,000 residents or fewer may use Tier 4 standards. For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance. 114 of 238

Page 16 of 42 ends

Table 2 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but minimum density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 2 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within their TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdictiondeveloped equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in a certified Housing Element from the 6th Cycle or later. However, the equivalency table may only be used if the FAR or height standards are legally required minimums, as described above for zoning districts that use a dwelling units per acre standard.

Table 2: Equivalency Table for Minimum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no
minimum density, but
the minimum FAR
required is…
…then use this
equivalent for
minimum density
If there is no
minimum density or
FAR, but the
minimum height is…
…then use this for
equivalent minimum
density
None Zero None Zero
Less than 0.5 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85’ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward
Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 1 illustrates the formula for this calculation. This calculation is performed within the TOC Policy Submission Portal. 115 of 238

Page 17 of 42 ends

Figure 1: Calculation of Average Required Minimum Residential Zoning Density As shown in Figure 1, to calculate the average minimum residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted.

The sums developed in Step 1 are used for the numerator and the denominator, with any parcels excluded by the jurisdiction subtracted from these figures.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does require a minimum FAR or minimum height, use Table 2 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average minimum residential density.

Step 3: Calculate the Average Maximum Residential Density Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum residential density standard, the average maximum allowable residential zoning density in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 3. 116 of 238

Page 18 of 42 ends

Table 3: Average Maximum Zoning Density Threshold for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning
Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
150 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
75 units/net acre or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 35 units/net acre or higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions 30,000 or fewer residents may use Tier 4 standards. For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to the Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 2050 modeling for Strategy H3 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 44-45).

Table 4 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but maximum allowable density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 4 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdiction-developed equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by HCD in a certified Housing Element from the 6th Cycle or later.

Table 4: Equivalency Table for Maximum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no maximum
density, but the
maximum FAR allowed
is...
…then use this
equivalent for
maximum
density
If there is no maximum
density or FAR, but the
maximum allowable
height is…
…then use this
for equivalent
maximum density
Less than 0.50 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85′ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward
117 of 238

Page 19 of 42 ends

Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 2 illustrates the formula for this calculation. This calculation is performed within the TOC Policy Submission Portal.

Figure 2: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Residential Zoning Density As shown in Figure 2, to calculate the average maximum allowable residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1 are used for the numerator and the denominator, with any parcels excluded by the jurisdiction subtracted from these figures.

This result is then multiplied by the allowable maximum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does include maximum FAR or maximum heights, use Table 4 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum residential density.

Step 4: Calculate the Average Minimum Commercial Office Space Intensity Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum required zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 5. Again, it is recognized that a jurisdiction may not have adopted minimum FAR standards (or minimum heights) for commercial office space in its TOC area. A jurisdiction without such standards may refer to the ranges in its 118 of 238

Page 20 of 42 ends

General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum standards for FAR (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 5: Average Minimum Zoning Intensities Required for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum Zoning
Intensity Required for
Commercial Office Space
(FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
4 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
3 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
2 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 1 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

Table 6 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where minimum required intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. Table 6 shows equivalent FARs for height limits ranging from zero to 75 feet. The equivalencies in Table 6 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.

Table 6: Equivalency Table for Minimum Zoning Intensity for Commercial Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard) If there is no FAR standard, but the minimum
height required is...
…then use this as the equivalent
FAR
None 0
Less than 25’ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9’ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward
119 of 238

Page 21 of 42 ends

Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are subject to higher minimum intensity standards than projects that are 100 percent office.

For example, a zone may require a minimum FAR of 0.5 for a 100 percent office project but require at least 1.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher minimum may be used in the calculations. This recognizes the intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 3 illustrates the formula used for this calculation. This calculation is performed within the TOC Policy Submission Portal.

Figure 3: Calculation of Average Minimum Required Commercial Office Zoning Intensity As shown in Figure 3, to calculate the average minimum commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1 are used for the numerator and the denominator, with any parcels excluded by the jurisdiction subtracted from these figures.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have minimum heights, use Table 6 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required minimum commercial office intensity. 120 of 238

Page 22 of 42 ends

Step 5: Calculate the Average Maximum Commercial Office Space Intensity Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum commercial office intensity standard, the average maximum allowable zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Average Maximum Zoning Intensity Threshold for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning Intensity
for Commercial Office
Space (FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose) 8 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
6 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
4 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
3 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 2050 modeling for Strategy EC4 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 57-58).

Table 8 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where maximum allowable intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. The equivalencies in Table 8 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.
121 of 238

Page 23 of 42 ends

Table 8: Equivalency Table for Maximum Zoning Intensity for Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard)
If there is no FAR standard, but the
maximum height allowed is...
…then use this as the equivalent FAR
Less than 25′ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9′ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward
Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are allowed a higher maximum intensity than projects that are 100 percent office. For example, a zone may allow a maximum FAR of 2.0 for a 100 percent office project but allow a 4.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher maximum may be used in the calculations. This recognizes the intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 4 illustrates the formula for this calculation. This calculation is performed within the TOC Policy Submission Portal.

Figure 4: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Commercial Office Zoning Intensity 122 of 238

Page 24 of 42 ends

As shown in Figure 4, to calculate the average maximum allowable commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1 are used for the numerator and the denominator, with any parcels excluded by the jurisdiction subtracted from these figures.

This result is then multiplied by the maximum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have maximum heights, use Table 8 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum commercial office intensity.10 General Guidance and Special Circumstances for Average Density and Intensity Calculations
Parcels Bisected by the ½-Mile TOC Area Boundary
If a parcel is bisected by the TOC area’s ½-mile boundary, only the portion of the parcel within the ½-mile TOC area buffer is counted toward the weighted average density. At MTC staff’s discretion, the entirety of a bisected parcel can contribute to the TOC area’s weighted average density if local jurisdiction staff demonstrate the importance of the parcel for achieving TOC Policy goals.

Mixed-Use Districts: Parcels to Include
Parcels in mixed-use zoning districts that allow both residential and commercial office as permitted uses should be counted in calculations of average residential density and then again in calculations of average commercial office intensity for each TOC area. No assumptions about the mix of uses are necessary on mixed-use parcels—simply report the minimum and maximum density or FAR permitted by zoning in each case. In cases where zoning establishes lower minimum and maximum FARs for projects that are entirely office than it does for mixed-use or residential projects, the higher minimum and allowable maximum FARs may be used in the calculation of the average commercial office intensity.

SB 6 (2022, Caballero)/AB 2011 (2022, Wicks)
SB 6 and AB 2011 allow residential uses by right in some commercial zoning districts.

For the purposes of the minimum and maximum average density calculations, residential uses should only be counted in a commercial zone if they are expressly listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations. Jurisdictions are encouraged to amend their zoning codes to list residential as permitted in those zones affected by SB 6 and AB 2011.
10 Maximum FAR (intensity) thresholds are based on the potential maximum for a given site; this may vary from site to site in areas where Precise Plans or Specific Plans are in effect. 123 of 238

Page 25 of 42 ends

Planned Unit Development or Planned Development (PD) Districts For parcels in zoning districts where densities are determined through a subsequent project-level planning process (e.g., Planned Unit Developments), or were previously determined through such a process, the jurisdiction may use the densities and intensities in its General Plan. The jurisdiction also has the option of using any minimum and maximum densities/intensities that were established when the PD was created. To use a minimum density, the relevant Plan must require that development occur at or above the minimum.

Developer Agreements
If a jurisdiction has a developer agreement in place in the TOC area prior to January 1, 2024, and local staff are concerned about the impact on TOC Policy compliance, the jurisdiction should contact MTC staff for assistance. However, jurisdictions will not be able to seek flexibility or exemptions for TOC compliance for developer agreements established after January 1, 2024.

Overlay Zones
For parcels to which a base zone and overlay zone apply, a jurisdiction may include any supplemental density and intensity permitted by the overlay zone when calculating the average maximum allowable density/intensity, provided the overlay permits the residential or office use as a permitted use in a non-discretionary way (comparable to the base zone). If an overlay establishes higher minimum densities than the base zone, the same allowance applies, and the overlay minimum may be used in calculating the average minimum density/intensity.

Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses
If the jurisdiction can demonstrate that HCD allowed it to rely on the density available through incentive zoning in its certified Housing Element, the jurisdiction may rely on incentive zoning in the density calculations for the TOC Policy. For parcels subject to state density bonus law, the TOC Policy density requirements apply to the base zoning (i.e., state density bonuses cannot be considered for meeting the TOC Policy’s thresholds for minimum density or allowable maximum density).

Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
A jurisdiction will fulfill the Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization requirements by selecting from the menu of options in Table 9 the policies that best meet local needs. To comply, a jurisdiction must adopt at least:
• Two policies for each of the “3Ps”—affordable housing production, preservation, and protection.
124 of 238

Page 26 of 42 ends

• One policy related to commercial stabilization, unless the jurisdiction can document there are no potential impacts to small businesses and/or community non-profits.

A jurisdiction may meet the requirements with existing adopted policies or as needed, adopt new policies by the TOC Policy compliance deadline. Appendix A describes each of the policy options in more detail and outlines the specific minimum standards a jurisdiction’s policy must meet to comply with TOC Policy requirements. Compliance with TOC housing policy requirements should be completed in conformance with relevant federal and state laws, including a jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

For each of the “3Ps” policies selected to comply with TOC Policy requirements, the jurisdiction must also include a brief explanation for how the policy addresses the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or other housing needs as identified in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element.

Table 9: Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Options Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and AntiDisplacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
1 policy

1. Inclusionary Zoning Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
“Just Cause” Eviction Small Business
and Non-Profit
Overlay Zone

2. Affordable Housing
Funding
Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase
No Net Loss and Right
to Return to Demolished
Homes
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Preference Policy

3. Affordable Housing
Overlay Zones
Single-Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
Legal Assistance for
Tenants
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Financial
Assistance
Program

4. Public Land for
Affordable Housing
Condominium
Conversion Restrictions
Foreclosure Assistance Small Business
Advocate Office

5. Ministerial Approval Public/Community Land
Trusts1
Rental Assistance
Program
Blank

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts1
Funding to Support
Preservation Capacity
Rent Stabilization Blank

7. Development
Certainty and
Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Mobile Home
Preservation
Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Blank
125 of 238

Page 27 of 42 ends

Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and AntiDisplacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy

8. Blank Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Tenant Relocation
Assistance
Blank

9. Blank Blank Mobile Home Rent
Stabilization
Blank

10. Blank Blank Fair Housing
Enforcement
Blank

11. Blank Blank Tenant Anti-Harassment
Protections
Blank
Notes:

1. This policy may fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

2. This policy may fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Geography for Policy Applicability
At minimum, policies must apply in all TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s), which could include the entirety of the jurisdiction (i.e., adopting a jurisdiction-wide policy). Some policies detailed in Appendix A have additional, policy-specific geographic applicability considerations.

Limits on Housing Policies Eligibility to Meet TOC Policy Requirements As noted in Table 9 and Appendix A, there are two cross-cutting policies that appear in multiple places in the menu of options:
• Public/Community Land Trusts can be used to meet the requirement for Production or Preservation policies, but not both.
• Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities can be used to meet the requirement for Preservation or Protection policies, but not both.

Additionally, three of the Production policy options have overlapping minimum requirements. For these policies, a jurisdiction will only receive credit toward the TOC Policy requirements for one of the overlapping policies and the jurisdiction may elect which policy. As noted in Appendix A, the policies for which this restriction applies are:
• Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones • Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
• Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process
126 of 238

Page 28 of 42 ends

References to State Laws
In some cases, the descriptions of housing policy options included in the TOC Policy refer to existing state laws. The laws listed may not represent all laws that are relevant to the policy topic. MTC may adjust the requirements for complying with the TOC Policy over time in response to any changes to state law.

Policy Options Requiring Funding Commitments
Several of the affordable housing policy options require a specified financial commitment from a local jurisdiction. The minimum financial commitments reflect the fact that an effective housing program will have minimum staffing and related costs, below which meaningful impact is unlikely. The policy options that require a funding commitment are:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
Guidelines for Demonstrating Projected Funding Meets Requirements For any of the policies listed above to comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must demonstrate it has a program with secured funding above a minimum threshold.11 The minimum funding thresholds represent a total amount for a four-year period aligning with the relevant four-year OBAG cycle. For jurisdictions seeking TOC Policy 11 Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 127 of 238

Page 29 of 42 ends

compliance for OBAG 4, the four-year funding period is anticipated to correspond to the years 2026 through 2030. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction.

MTC understands that projections of future funding may be imprecise, and the expectation is that a jurisdiction will provide a reasonable projection of future funding based on the best information available at the time of submitting compliance documentation to MTC.

Guidelines for Counting Existing Funds or Past Expenditures Toward Requirements Jurisdictions that have an existing funding balance for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle.

Jurisdictions that have expended funds for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
• The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an affordable housing project that will be constructed during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
• The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.

Jurisdiction Tiers for Funding Amounts
In recognition of the variation in Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing needs and funding capacity, there are seven different tiers to determine the minimum amount of funding a jurisdiction must provide over a four-year period for each policy option requiring a funding commitment (if that policy is selected by the jurisdiction to meet TOC Policy requirements). The tiers are based on the jurisdiction’s combined 2023-2031 RHNA for very low- and low-income units. The tiers, and the associated minimum funding commitment, are shown in Table 10 below. See Appendix B for a list of the jurisdictions in each Funding Tier.

For the policies in the Protection category, the required funding amount by tier can be split among any two of the four policies, but the jurisdiction will only receive credit for one policy. For example, a Tier A jurisdiction could choose to spend $30,000 on fair housing enforcement and $70,000 on a rental assistance program, for a total of $100,000. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could spend $100,000 on a single policy, such as rental assistance. In either scenario, the jurisdiction would receive credit toward one policy for meeting the $100,000 funding threshold for Protection policies. 128 of 238

Page 30 of 42 ends

Table 10: Minimum 4-Year Funding per Policy by Tier
Production Preservation Protection
Tier

2. Affordable
Housing Funding,

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts

1. Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing, 5. Public/Community
Land Trusts

3. Legal Assistance for
Tenants, 4. Foreclosure
Assistance, 5. Rental
Assistance Program, 10. Fair
Housing Enforcement
A $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000
B $1,400,000 $600,000 $200,000 C $2,000,000 $700,000
D $3,000,000 $900,000 $300,000 E $4,000,000 $1,200,000
F $8,000,000 $2,400,000 $400,000
G $40,000,000 $8,000,000 $1,000,000
Though Preservation Policy 6 (Funding to Support Preservation Capacity) requires a funding commitment, the minimum funding requirement is not a set dollar amount that varies across the tiers listed above. Instead, jurisdictions seeking credit for this policy need to demonstrate their funding programs have secured funding able to support project management staffing for a minimum of four years at approximately 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE).

Additionally, Preservation Policy 8/Protection Policy 7 (Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities) have multiple options to achieve compliance, one of which is a loan/grant program for home repairs and addressing habitability issues in rental housing. Though these policy options require the jurisdiction to fund these programs, a minimum funding amount is not specified.

However, the option for Preservation Policy 8 requires a minimum loan/grant of $10,000 per low-income homeowner assisted by the program.

Allowable Sources for Policies Requiring Funding
Funding for some of the policy options must be locally generated, while other policy options do not have restrictions on the sources used to fund a program. The following policies representing investments in the physical production and preservation of affordable housing require funding to be locally generated:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
129 of 238

Page 31 of 42 ends

The following restrictions and guidelines apply when considering whether a funding source counts as “locally generated”:
• Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations.
• Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on affordable housing projects within its boundaries. • Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
• In-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
• If a jurisdiction is using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums. If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted.
• Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding.

The following policy options representing programmatic investments do not have restrictions on how a program is funded:
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
130 of 238

Page 32 of 42 ends

Option for Local Jurisdiction Collaboratives to Meet TOC Policy Requirements MTC will allow implementation of affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies through collaboratives that involve more than one jurisdiction partnering to manage policy implementation. Implementation through a collaborative is intended to reduce administrative costs for local jurisdictions and increase efficiency of program delivery. This option may be particularly beneficial for smaller jurisdictions (those in Tiers A to D above) or medium-sized jurisdictions (those in Tiers E and F above).

Implementing a policy through a collaborative generally does not change the minimum requirements for each participating jurisdiction. However, a jurisdiction can receive a 10 percent reduction in the funding requirement for its individual financial contribution to collaborative implementation. For example, a city that transfers funds to its county to administer a tenant rental assistance program can contribute 10 percent less than the funding threshold in Table 10, as long as the county operates the program in accordance with the standards in Appendix A.

Target Policies for Collaboratives
MTC specifically anticipates that the policies below will benefit from collaborative implementation. However, jurisdictions may use a collaborative to implement any of the affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies, subject to MTC approval.

Production: 2. Affordable Housing Funding and 6. Public/Community Land Trusts.

Preservation: 1. Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing, 5.

Public/Community Land Trusts, 6. Funding to Support Preservation Capacity, and 8.

Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities
Protection: 3. Legal Assistance for Tenants, 4. Foreclosure Assistance, 5. Rental Assistance Program, 7. Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities, and 10. Fair Housing Enforcement Commercial Stabilization: 3. Small Business and Nonprofit Financial Assistance Program
Any jurisdiction intending to implement a TOC housing policy through a collaborative must provide MTC with documentation on the roles and responsibilities for the collaborative and jurisdiction, as well as a schedule of expected funding to the collaborative. MTC may request additional information on collaboratives. 131 of 238

Page 33 of 42 ends

Relationship to HCD’s Prohousing Program
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has a Prohousing Designation Program that provides incentives to jurisdictions that have policies to support increased housing production. While there are similarities between the requirements for a Prohousing Designation and the TOC Policy, there is not sufficient consistency between the policy options and other requirements for a jurisdiction that has received the Prohousing Designation from HCD to automatically meet TOC Policy requirements for affordable housing production policies.

Table 11 provides information on which Prohousing Designation policies correspond to the affordable housing production policy options for the TOC Policy. If jurisdictions are currently applying for or planning to apply for HCD’s Prohousing Designation, they should consider committing to policies in their Prohousing Designation application that would also achieve TOC Policy compliance. Importantly, policies adopted for the Prohousing Designation would also need to meet the minimum requirements detailed in Appendix A of the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Table 11: Overlap Between HCD Prohousing and TOC Policy Affordable Housing Production Policy Options
Affordable Housing
Production Policy Options for
TOC Policy Policy Options for HCD Prohousing Designation Production Policy 2: Affordable Category 4A: Establishment of local housing trust funds Housing Funding Category 4E: Directed residual redevelopment funds to affordable housing.

Blank Category 4F: Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source.

Blank Category 4G: Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing.

Production Policy 3: Affordable
Housing Overlay Zones
Category 1D: Density bonus programs which exceed
statutory requirements by 10 percent or more.

Production Policy 4: Public Land
for Affordable Housing
Category 4C: A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to lower income households.

A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or belowmarket land leases.

Production Policy 5: Ministerial
Approval
Category 2A: Establishment of ministerial approval
processes for a variety of housing types, including singlefamily and multifamily housing. 132 of 238

Page 34 of 42 ends

Affordable Housing
Production Policy Options for
TOC Policy Policy Options for HCD Prohousing Designation Production Policy 7:

Development Certainty and
Category 2D: Establishment of permit processes that take less than four months.

Streamlined Entitlement
Process
Category 2E: Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan.

Blank Category 2F: Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan.

Blank Category 2L: Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer.

Submitting Required Documentation
For each policy a jurisdiction selects to meet the minimum number required for TOC Policy compliance, the jurisdiction must provide a document or website link that provides the adopted policy or relevant municipal code section. The jurisdiction must also confirm that it meets the minimum requirements established for each policy, which are described in more detail in Appendix A. Local jurisdictions must submit all documents and other relevant information in the TOC Policy Submission Portal.

Section 3: Parking Management
Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
The purpose of the TOC Policy parking management requirements is to further support reducing automobile trips and prioritizing the limited land area near transit for other shared transportation modes and active transportation. Parking management is a key complement to residential and commercial density increases that support higher transit ridership on the region’s existing and planned fixed-guideway transit investments.

For compliance with the TOC Policy, MTC will focus on a jurisdiction’s compliance with the parking standards (Table 12). To support limits on off-street parking for new development, one or more additional policies or programs that address parking management must also be in place. These may be one of the policies or programs listed below under Complementary Policies for Parking Management, or another policy or program aligned with the intent of the parking management requirement. For policies or programs that are not one of those listed below, a jurisdiction must explain how the policy or program addresses parking demand management in the TOC area. 133 of 238

Page 35 of 42 ends

Parking Standards for New Residential or Commercial Development Off-street vehicle parking standards for new residential or general and neighborhoodserving commercial development (e.g., office, retail, and service businesses) must meet the applicable standards for its Transit Tier listed in Table 12, including:
• No minimum automobile parking requirement in most Transit Tiers for new residential or commercial development.12
• For parcels on which residential development13 is allowed:
o The applicable maximum automobile parking per dwelling unit ratio o At least one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. • For parcels on which commercial development is allowed:
o The applicable maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square foot ratio. o At least one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for commercial office.
• For parcels on which both residential and commercial development are allowed:
o The sum of the applicable maximum automobile parking per dwelling unit and the applicable maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square feet. o At least the sum of one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit plus one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for commercial office.
• Explicitly allow unbundled parking in adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance.
14,15
• Explicitly allow shared parking between different land uses in adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance.
16 12 The TOC Policy does not have a requirement related to minimum parking for Tier 4 TOC areas. However, jurisdictions must comply with applicable state law prohibiting parking minimums, such as AB 2097. 13 Residential developments permitted in commercial zones through AB 2011 should follow the applicable TOC standards for residential development, not commercial development. 14 Unbundling parking means separating the cost of leasing a parking space from the sale or rental price of residential and commercial uses.
15 For jurisdictions in Alameda County or Santa Clara County, AB 1317 (2023) requires unbundled parking in new residential developments with 16 or more units that are issued a certificated of occupancy after January 1, 2025. See California Civil Code Section 1947.1 for more information. 16 AB 894 (2023) requires jurisdictions to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement. See California Government Code Section 65863.1 for more information. 134 of 238

Page 36 of 42 ends

Table 12: TOC Policy Parking Management Requirements
Level of Transit Service
New Residential
Development
New Commercial
Development
Tier 1: Rail stations serving
regional centers (i.e.,
Downtown San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland, and
Downtown San José)
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.375
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.25
spaces per 1,000 square feet or
lower.

Tier 2: Stop/station served by
two or more BART lines or
BART and Caltrain
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.5
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.6 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

Tier 3: Stop/station served by
one BART line, Caltrain, light
rail transit, or bus rapid transit
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.0
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 2.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

Tier 4: Commuter rail
(SMART, ACE, Capitol
Corridor, Valley Link) stations,
Caltrain stations south of
Tamien, or ferry terminals
Parking maximum of 1.5
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking maximum of 4.0 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

All Tiers Minimum of 1 secure
bicycle parking17 space per
dwelling unit.
18 Minimum of 1 secure bicycle
parking space per 5,000 square
feet for commercial office.

The TOC Policy’s off-street parking standards do not supersede other applicable requirements for parking for people with disabilities that are required by the California Building Code, or other state or federal laws, or off-street parking for deliveries.

While not specified in the TOC Policy, in addition to accommodating conventional bicycles in the bicycle parking requirement, bicycle parking spaces should consider specifications that will also accommodate cargo and electric bicycles (e-bikes).

AB 2097 and TOC Policy Parking Management Requirements
The TOC Policy and AB 2097 have similar provisions with respect to parking minimums.

Broadly speaking, AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing parking minimums on any residential, commercial, or other development project located within a ½-mile of a major transit stop. For the purposes of TOC Policy compliance, 17 Secure bicycle parking should follow the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ Essentials of Bike Parking Guidelines as well as HCD’s forthcoming update to the California Green Building Standards Code, per AB 2863 (2022).
18 For a single building with more than 100 units, the jurisdiction can apply a ratio of one secure bicycle parking space for every four units to the number of units above 100. For example, a 140-unit building would need 110 bicycle parking spaces (100 + 0.25*40).
135 of 238

Page 37 of 42 ends

MTC staff will defer to local jurisdictions’ interpretation of applicable state law (i.e., Government Code Section 65863.2) to determine which parcels are subject to the TOC Policy’s parking management requirements. In other words, the parcels in a TOC area that a jurisdiction has determined are subject to Government Code Section 65863.2 must also meet all TOC Policy parking management requirements described above.

AB 2097 has an exemption process where a jurisdiction can impose minimum parking standards. For TOC Policy compliance, MTC encourages, but does not require, jurisdictions to forgo this exemption process.

Complementary Policies for Parking Management
In addition to complying with the off-street parking standards, a jurisdiction must adopt at least one of the five policies or programs from MTC/ABAG’s Parking Policy Playbook listed below to address transportation demand management (TDM) and curb management in TOC areas that complement the Policy’s required parking standards:

1. TDM Policy for New Development: require provision and enforcement of transportation demand management (TDM).

2. Curb Strategy/Management: Priority curb access based on variable need.

3. Parking Benefit District (PBD): Invest parking revenues into a PBD to fund streetscape, safety, and TDM programs.

4. Demand-Responsive Pricing: Price parking according to level of convenience and demand.

5. Priced Parking: Adding priced parking where it used to be free.

TDM and curb-management policies or programs may apply to either the TOC area or jurisdiction-wide.

Submitting Required Documentation
Parking Standards for New Residential or Commercial Development A jurisdiction must document its off-street parking requirements for new residential and commercial uses and its requirements for secure bicycle parking for new residential and office development in locations subject to the TOC Policy, including the citation for the municipal code or ordinance codifying such requirements.

Vehicle Minimum Parking Standards
A jurisdiction has three options for meeting the TOC Policy’s requirement related to minimum parking standards:

1. Confirmation of Compliance with AB 2097: Local jurisdiction staff can attest that their jurisdiction complies with AB 2097. A jurisdiction that complies with AB 2097 is deemed in compliance with the TOC Policy’s requirement related to minimum parking standards.
136 of 238

Page 38 of 42 ends

2. Resolution of Compliance with AB 2097: A jurisdiction is encouraged, but not required, to pass a resolution confirming compliance with AB 2097 and stating it will not seek exemptions from AB 2097 for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas.19

3. Ordinance to Remove Parking Minimums: A jurisdiction may adopt an ordinance that removes parking minimum requirements for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas. This prohibition could also be incorporated into an overlay zone or changes to the jurisdiction’s use table or chapter that is adopted to address the TOC Policy’s parking maximums (see below).

Vehicle Maximum Parking Standards
A jurisdiction must show that its adopted parking maximums cover at least the ½-mile TOC area (if the policy does not apply jurisdiction-wide) and meet the TOC Policy’s standards for the TOC area’s transit tier. If the jurisdiction’s parking maximums are not expressed as parking spaces per unit (e.g., instead there are parking maximums per bedroom), a jurisdiction may propose an alternative method of demonstrating compliance subject to MTC staff approval. This alternative method may include, but is not limited to, proposing an equivalency calculation that translates the local maximum into spaces per unit.

There are two approaches for meeting the TOC Policy’s maximum parking standards:

1. Adopt an overlay zone or updates to a parking use table or chapter: A jurisdiction must have an adopted policy that includes parking maximums for residential and commercial uses that meet TOC standards and that clearly defines the geography to which the standards apply. Defining the geography and maximum parking standards can be done by creating an overlay zone or by amending the jurisdiction’s parking use table or chapter for development within TOC areas. As the TOC Policy parking maximums vary based on a TOC area’s transit tier, a jurisdiction with multiple TOC areas may need to specify several combinations of geography/parking maximums. Optionally, a jurisdiction may choose to include language that removes parking minimum requirements for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas (as described in Option 3, above).

A local jurisdiction must provide municipal code citations for the adopted overlay zone or parking use table/chapter that clearly demonstrate that the vehicle parking maximums for residential and commercial uses meet TOC thresholds for the TOC area’s transit tier and that those standards apply to, at minimum, the entire ½-mile TOC area.

2. Adopt a parking district, station area cap or other methods that limit parking: Standards may apply to individual projects or may be met through the creation of a parking district that provides shared vehicle parking for multiple land 19 Per TOC policy, a jurisdiction may require parking minimums in Tier 4 TOC areas. 137 of 238

Page 39 of 42 ends

uses within an area. For example, a specific or area plan may determine an overall total amount of new, off-street parking that may be constructed in the area. Some development projects may provide more off-street parking, while others may provide less off-street parking, or parking may be shared between multiple new uses. In such cases, the total amount of new off-street parking to be built should be equivalent to or less than the TOC Policy’s parking standards.

For parking districts or other types of area-wide approaches to parking management, a jurisdiction must provide any relevant plans or policies as well as calculations showing the approach will result in creation of the same or less new off-street parking than the TOC Policy’s parking maximum requirements. The calculations could use assumptions about future buildout (e.g., from a recently completed plan and/or EIR) and the parking permitted in the district to allow for a comparison to the TOC Policy parking maximum requirements.

Minimum Bicycle Parking Standards
A local jurisdiction must provide municipal code citations for an adopted overlay zone or parking use table/chapter that clearly demonstrate that the minimum bicycle parking standards for residential and commercial office uses meet TOC thresholds for, at minimum, the entire ½-mile TOC area.

Unbundled and Shared Parking
For unbundled and shared parking, a local jurisdiction must document and provide citations for the adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance that explicitly allow unbundled and shared parking. Further detail on unbundled and shared parking is provided in the MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook.

Complementary Policies for Parking Management
A local jurisdiction must also document and provide citations for the adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance for one or more of the policies or programs from the MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook listed above that apply either to the geographic area where the TOC Policy applies or jurisdiction-wide.

Available Resources for Parking Management
The MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook provides detailed guidance and practical tools, such as sample policy language, about how to implement policy changes related to parking, transportation demand management (TDM), and curb management.
138 of 238

Page 40 of 42 ends

Section 4: Station Access and Circulation
Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
In coordination with transit agencies and other mobility service providers, community members, and other stakeholders, a jurisdiction must complete the following in all TOC areas:
• Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy, following the guidance provided in the OBAG 2 Complete Streets Policy Elements. • Prioritize implementation of “All Ages and Abilities” active transportation projects on the regional Active Transportation Network (as stated in the MTC Complete Streets Policy20) and/or active transportation projects from Community Based Transportation Plans (if applicable) within the TOC area.

Prioritization is demonstrated using a jurisdiction’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or other adopted plans/programs listing the jurisdiction’s implementation priorities.
• Complete an access gap analysis and accompanying capital and/or service improvement program for station access for destinations within a 10-minute walk (accounting for differences in travel speed and time for people who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids) and 15-minute trip via active transportation, shared mobility, and bus.
21 This requirement can be met through a separate
study/analysis or as part of an existing specific or area plan, active transportation plan, transit agency station access plan, or other transportation plan or study that, at a minimum, includes the following:
o The geographic area that can currently be accessed via a 10- or 15- minute trip by these modes, with particular focus on access to Equity Priority Communities and other significant origins/destinations. o Infrastructure and/or service improvements that would expand the geographic area that can be accessed via a 10- or 15-minute trip by these modes.
o Incorporation of recommended improvements into a capital improvement or service plan for the local jurisdiction and/or transit agency (if applicable). • As all TOC areas are also MTC Mobility Hub locations, identify opportunities for Mobility Hub planning and implementation as described in the Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook. For transit lines where stops or stations are more closely spaced (e.g., less than ½-mile apart) such as light rail or bus rapid transit facilities, planning and implementation for Mobility Hubs may be done on a corridor-wide basis rather than for each individual stop or station.

Additionally, recognizing that not all light rail or bus rapid transit stops/stations 20 See MTC Resolution No. 4493. 21 Generally speaking, this analysis should consider a three-mile radius around the station for access by all these modes. A 10-minute walk typically equates to a half-mile walk shed, while a 15-minute bike trip represents a one-and-a-half-mile bike shed.
139 of 238

Page 41 of 42 ends

will receive enhancement treatments, locations that are transfer points for at least two different transit systems or major activity centers should be the focus.

Submitting Required Documentation
Complete Streets:

A jurisdiction with an adopted Complete Streets (CS) Policy is considered compliant for the complete streets policy requirement. MTC has documented jurisdiction CS Policies through its One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) 2 Program, most recently compiled in 2015. If a jurisdiction has updated its CS Policy since 2015, it should submit or include a link to the updated CS Policy.

A jurisdiction submitting a transportation project for regional funding that is located in the public right of way must be compliant with MTC’s updated Complete Streets Policy, Resolution 4493. This requires the submission of a Complete Streets Checklist. This is project specific and CS Checklist submission is not needed for TOC Policy Compliance.

Project Prioritization/Implementation:

To demonstrate that it has prioritized implementation of active transportation projects within the TOC area, a jurisdiction must submit at least one of the following:
• Capital Improvement Program with relevant projects identified. • Projects funded or submitted for funding (e.g., OBAG, ATP, etc.) within the past five years.
• Other funding or implementation plans that include relevant projects.

Access Gap Analysis:

To demonstrate that it has completed analysis or planning with a focus on improving 10- to 15-minute access to/from the TOC area (and connecting to Equity Priority Communities, if applicable), emphasizing capital or service improvements, a jurisdiction must submit at least one of the following:
• Adopted PDA, Specific, Precise or Area plan(s) that include a station access or circulation element (submit access/circulation element only, or include link to adopted plan with specific page numbers that reference access/circulation element).
• Transit agency station access plans.

However, if these plans have not been completed for the TOC area, a jurisdiction may submit:
• Adopted active transportation, bicycle or pedestrian plan(s) that include recommended access improvements to/from the TOC area.
• Applicable sections of General Plan Circulation Element that highlight specific elements that guide or inform station access improvements. 140 of 238

Page 42 of 42 ends

Cotati City CouncilSeptember 23, 2025

Cotati City Council
September 23, 2025